There are no facts or laws that allow any tennessee official to forbid recording of public meetings or that excuses them from committing criminal conversion by dispossessing a citizen of their property.
There are no facts or laws that allow any tennessee official to forbid recording of public meetings or that excuses them from committing criminal conversion by dispossessing a citizen of their property.
You seem to have answered your own question then. The person whose camera was taken is free to report it to the police. Was the camera ultimately returned to the owner?
Only after the county official was subjected to physical battery.
I don't believe I've fully answered my own question as one, if not two felony crimes seem very likely under the scenario unrelated to theft actions.
So the owner physically attacked the official? Something to consider when thinking about pressing charges.
The owner went for his property and when the official refused to let go, blows ensued.
TN is a stand your ground state and has defense of person and property codes.
Back to the act of forbidding a citizen from recording a public meeting.
Would that not be Official Misconduct, and depending on why, Official Oppression?
I doubt very seriously that there is a law called "Official Misconduct" and I'm virtually certain there isn't one called "Official Oppression" on the books in TN.
The all the government officials involved may well have violated a right protected under TN law or constitution. They may well be guilty of theft of property.
But if you think that TN's stand your ground law would be in effect in this case you are wrong.
You would be wrong on both of the Official Misconduct and Official Oppression charges.
Both charges exist and are indictable and causes for Ousting.
Title 39-2-102
Resistance sufficient to prevent the offense may be made by the party about to be injured to prevent an:
(1) Offense against the party's person; or
(2) Illegal attempt by force to take or injure property in the party's lawful possession.
stems from the True Man Doctrine so I may disagree with you on the SYG assertion although not the theft other than it would have been criminal conversion.