Slashdot Mirror

The cop didn't speak to me until he told me, "You are free to go"... Gee! Thanks officer Obie! You're such a nobleman

What was his badge number, what city were you in and what was the date? Did you ask any questions of him while he was searching you and he refused to answer them? If the very first words he spoke were "you are free to go," how did he communicate to you that he was detaining you for search?

From the new 15 words of information you were so graciously willing to part with, you describe a single event, while earlier you said:

I was stopped more than once while walking down the street.

Or did both incidents played out exactly the same?

There are bad cops who overstep their authority and deserve to get called out for it, for example, read Carlos Miller's blog. I'm not convinced you were ever truly wronged by a cop though, your story is too light on details, too heavily peppered with unsubstantiated criticisms and insults, and even what little detail you're willing to part with is internally inconsistent.

By the time our porcine "protectors" figure out that smashing up the instrument rarely destroys the recording, we'll all have real-time internet-connected video cameras.

Some have, then they try and charge citizens who videotape them with violating state wire-tapping laws. One recent link, from Carlos Miller's Photography is not a Crime blog (he covers this type of thing extensively, and the Slashdot article links to one of his posts) as well as the Anthony Graber case from last year that got a lot of attention. After all, if you can't stop the recording, you can always punish the citizen who dared to record you doing your job out in public. Oh, and if you only read one of those links, read the one from last year. That case is a standout example of the new kind of police harassment over videotaping them in public.

There are a lot, an awful lot judging by the news if you follow it, of police who have a major, MAJOR issue with being recorded. And most of the time it's for good reason, they were doing something wrong and don't want any record of it. Other police support them, and often the district attorney's office will back them up (unless it gets enough public outrage to suddenly become politically untenable, then they'll change their minds). In Anthony Graber's case it took a judge to put a stop to the shenanigans, ruling that police have no expectation of privacy in a public setting and throwing out the charges. But that was in September, 6 months after the police charged the guy, seized all his computers, etc. And I can't find any information about anything happening to the cop who pulled his gun on Graber (without identifying himself as police officer first, or even being in uniform and all over minor traffic violations), so the police still won in that case.

Unless the victims sue and start winning big judgments, this behavior isn't going to change.

With the only way for that to happen being an informed, prepared population, perhaps it's time for the /. readership to arm themselves with technology. The camera is the new gun.

This is someone who was charged with multiple counts of reckless endangerment, failure to stop, speeding (and when we say speeding, we're referring to "approaching 130mph on a 60mph freeway"), and so on. Let's not go pretending he was some persecuted citizen busted by a cop trying to make quota.

And whilst I disagree with the "wiretapping" b.s., this guy is utterly disingenuous - his video shows the unmarked car clearly has lights flashing, there's audible siren... "I didn't know who it was!" my hairy ass.

Hell, even in this still image, you can see the lights on the cop car. "I wasn't sure if I was being robbed..." - yeah, by some ballsy carjacker who runs someone off the road whilst they're being pursued by multiple cops, okay, I buy that...

Yes, but how far did you push back when you were challenged?

It's really pretty clear that a photographer has certain rights to shoot photos anyplace in public in the U.S.A. Government has often tried to intimidate photographers, under the guise that "national security" demands they cease, or alternately, lower-level security protests under false claims that some "policy" was violated.

The Amtrak photography incident comes to mind: http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/

A good guide to your REAL photographer's rights can be found here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Having a gun pointed at you is a pretty strong intimidation tactic, yet if you're confident you're in the right, you can still stick up for your rights in that situation. Some soldier driving out to meet you in a Hummer is probably NOT prepared to fire a weapon at a civilian photographer. WAY too many consequences for an action that extreme. So you *could* have let them arrest you and take your camera, rather than complying ... and you'd have a really GOOD chance of coming out the victor.

But let's face it.... that skyline photo probably wasn't something you wanted badly enough to fight for it.

Photographer Carlos Miller has been tracking these types of cases across the country for a couple of years. Check out his website for more information:

Photography is not a crime

I've been thinking that the cop was stupid for even drawing the gun in the first place, but I think I may have figured that one out.

There's a pic of the helmet that Graber was wearing here (scroll down a bit). The camera is plainly visible, sticking out of the top of the helmet. It's possible that the cops didn't actually know what it was, just that there was this crazy guy flying down the highway at up to 127 mph with some bizarre device strapped to his helmet. Standard post-9/11 paranoia kicks in, and the "backup" jumps in the lead with sidearm drawn, only to realize fairly quickly that it's just a plain old camera.

In that case, there should be video of this from the forward camera in the marked car. Why hasn't it been released?

Because there's no reason to. No one, outside of Slashdot, is disputing the fact that Graber knew he was being pulled over by police.

That would also mean that the person wielding the gun knew he was being recorded.

He absolutely knew he was being recorded— by Graber. The guy was wearing a helmet with a camera mounted on top of it (see pic here). You'd have to be blind or stupid not to notice that.

Still his badge should have been in his hand(the one without the gun, as he was out of uniform) and visible I had to have it pointed out to me that the guy in the car even had one(on his belt half under his shirt).

The helmet cam was clearly visible, and there wasn't an order in the provided footage of an order to turn it off or disable it. http://carlosmiller.com/2010/04/16/maryland-motorcyclist-spends-26-hours-in-jail-on-wiretapping-charge-for-filming-cop-with-gun/ has a picture of the guys setup, it looks like a point and shoot camera on top of a helmet. That was definitely public space, where anyone could be recorded. I'm sorry but until he says "state police" and shows a badge or is in uniform he's acting as citizen. If you can find the additional footage it shows a unformed officer showing up at the scene as well. All of the search and arrest for 26 hours, and now the trial are simply uncalled for. public space == public space.

" Unidentified man, in unidentified car leaps out pointing a gun at you? YES, you are within your rights to SHOOT HIM IN THE FACE."

At first I have to admit, I thought that sounded a bit nuts, but after watching the video where he jumps out of a old Malibu and gets out a gun yelling "GET OFF THE MOTORCYCLE!" I'd have to agree with you, I think if I was that motorcycle driver I would have got out of there quick.

Look at this photo and tell me you're not thinking "ROAD RAGE/CARJACK"

A good blog that covers this and similar issue is here: http://carlosmiller.com/

You may be surprised to see that this is not an isolated incident.

Photo bans can be even worse, see this one in which photos of the Miami metro were blocked by rent-a-cops:

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/01/we-were-permanantly-banned-from-the-miami-dade-metrorail-for-taking-photos/

Amtrak seems to do that a lot...

Amtrak police arrest... penn station

What a terrible argument. 'Well, it wouldn't be as bad as North Korea, therefore I would roll over and accept it if it came up, because relatively it's ok I guess.'

That's no even close to what I'm saying. I've been known to make an effort now and then to fight censorship and support free speech. But the struggle for freedom has many battles, and I prefer to fight the ones that really matter. If you think your right to say racist things is more important than real restrictions on our freedoms, well then, go do something about it. But be mature enough to understand that somebody who doesn't share your priorities isn't a stooge of fascism.

You're depressingly naive: http://carlosmiller.com/2010/05/06/another-american-born-citizen-jailed-in-arizona-because-her-skin-was-brown/

Add to that the lies that the Cambridge Cop included in his report - like that he talked to 911 caller at the scene - and it sure sounds like the cop acted stupidly, new he was in the wrong and tried to cover his ass by making up a false narrative.

Let's also look at how he saw the Arizona immigration law: "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed -- that's something that could potentially happen". Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color.

You're depressingly naive: http://carlosmiller.com/2010/05/06/another-american-born-citizen-jailed-in-arizona-because-her-skin-was-brown/

Or how bout this one? NYPD cops charged with rape after being caught on surveillance video.

They are police... so yes they should be charged... but I'm sure that "an internal review concluded that no police policies were violated".

This shit happens every day. NYPD stole hundreds of bicycles today, this innocent teenager was arrested for "resisting arrest" after being mistaken for a burglar, and of course this is what happens when you videotape the police. We live in a police state, plain and simple.

They are police... so yes they should be charged... but I'm sure that "an internal review concluded that no police policies were violated".

This shit happens every day. NYPD stole hundreds of bicycles today, this innocent teenager was arrested for "resisting arrest" after being mistaken for a burglar, and of course this is what happens when you videotape the police. We live in a police state, plain and simple.

Furthermore, if you are unsafe to drive, you can pull over. Yet if you are drunk, you still get charged. So if you are drunk, the law actually encourages you NOT to pull over and keep driving. And if you are diabetic, an attack can set upon you quite suddenly. But if you pull over, they'll treat you like a drunk. (example(s) below)

And it doesn't take much googling to find that having a clear breathalyzer doesn't automatically free you of harassment:

http://www.wlwt.com/news/20693221/detail.html ... http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/733637 ... Oh wait, this guy was pulled over! NOT driving. Still treated the same. ... and sometimes they lie .

But hey, if I can pull up those examples in 1 minute, you can bet there are 1000s more.

And really, are you incapable of googling "Without breathalyzer"? At least spend 10 seconds before you say "I think what you said sounds fishy". You waste both our time, and mislead the public. People are also charged when blowing below the limit. You might have to dig down in those results some, but what you are looking for is available without needing me around to show it to you.

Just Google It(tm)

Please. Understand that reality sucks more than you think it does :)

It has long been, and still remains, illegal to have a scanner capable of listening into police frequencies in a moving vehicle

All points agreed, except for this one. It is *not* illegal to own and monitor a scanner in a moving vehicle, except in a handful of states. In another handful, it's only illegal when used "in furtherance of a crime" (e.g. used to elude the police after your bank caper ends.)

I have no doubt that, upon being pulled over by a cop, a $500 car jammed wall-to-wall with comms gear *would* get cited and impounded. Some cops just like to harass and intimidate, whether they think you're a terrorist, or they just don't know the law.

The police will just seize all of the cameras.

Except of course that just about all disputes start with cops, not with lawmakers. Miranda, Terry Stops, FLIR cameras, take your pick.

So fucking what? What exactly does arguing with a cop accomplish? Does it change the law? Quite the opposite: people who pick unnecessary fights with cops is used to justify abridgment of our rights.

And not just by cops either. Try to remember that there are millions of Americans who think that abrogating the Bill of Rights is no big deal. As long as the bad guys get locked up, they don't care. And they define "bad guy" very broadly, which is why the U.S. has the largest percentage of its population behind bars of any country.

1. Abuse your authority and harass an individual until they become agitated
2. If they don't remain perfectly calm and "respectful"
3. Accuse them of "immaturity" and bringing it on themselves
4. Arrest them for disorderly conduct when you're the one who put them in a disorderly state
5. ???
6. Profit.

I don't get your point here. Are you saying that it isn't fair that you be busted for behavior that somebody provoked you into? That's childish. If you can't control your own behavior, then you're the slave of anybody who knows how to push your buttons — and pushy cops are the least of your problems.

Let me tell you the biggest reason your attitude is stupid. This episode with a cop trying to tell a photography what he can point his camera at is not an isolated incident. And I don't find that acceptable. That's why I contributed to the legal defense fund of this guy. And if you really give a shit, you will too. Or is your involvement in the defense of the first amendment limited to undermining that defense by handing propaganda to the world's Dick Cheneys?

On the contrary, this is an important civil rights issue. Arbitrary restriction on photographers have become rampant, and that's not very consistent with freedom of the press.

http://carlosmiller.com/

If you don't stand up for your rights when they are being threatened, you don't have them.

Agreed. But exactly how did our friend with the camera "stand up for his rights"? By trying to start a political argument with a cop who had neither time nor patience for extended discussion. Net result: a night in jail and giving the authorities a convenient way to deflect any criticism of their behavior.

He's wasn't standing up for his rights. He was exercising his ego. Standing up for your rights means refusing to back down. It does not mean getting all punk so you can feel righteous. That's just self gratification, and giving the person of authority ammunition against you. When you do that, you are helping them take your rights away.

I happen to think that the First Amendment is sacred. I'm as rabid about it as any NRA person is about the Second. That's why I've contributed to the legal defense of this guy. (And so will you if you really care about this shit and not just about showing The Man what big balls you have.) When the authorities try to shut me down, I stand up to them. But I do it politely and respectfully. Civility is not weakness.

Sorry, it's here

"It's only going to bite us once the police report what he may have been actually doing .. My guess is there's more than they reported or know"

"Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops .. Inept, Dishonest and Just Plain Wrong! Internal Corruption within the 4th Floor of the Phoenix Police Department, under Wanna-Be (Chief) Jack Harris"

The link at the top of Badphoenixcops points to a video of cops cutting the wires to video cameras before they help themselves to the owners goods and money

"once the cameras were not functioning, police proceeded to loot almost $10,000 in cash as well as several cartons of cigarettes .. The Daily News also reported that several other shop owners went through the same experience that year from the same group of cops, only to return from jail to find their store looted"

Phoenix? Minneapolis? It looks like its really all the same.

http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/

(... cue the hate mail...)

decrepit station. Raggedy-ass infrastructure, in the presence of billions of dollars, is just one of the reasons i could not bear to live on the east coast. As far back as 70's movies i've seen, they don't seem to care about improving much. Maybe i'm wrong, and maybe i OUGHT to have had familiarization/opinion-muting visits, but while there are some new and improved trains and stations on the east coast, i seriously doubt that they look 50% as "ok" as BART. I'm not including LA's latest system because it is fairly new, relatively speaking. But i just get NAUSEATED looking at those rat-trap-looking mazes of exits, worn or bunched-up rail ties, and raggedy tiled and drab-painted walls. It makes me think of pea-green/Exorcist-vomit feelings and cheap-sitcom set apartments depicting NYC.

I am sure there is way too much money around NYC has been spent on other things. Maybe the AMTRAK police LOVE their stations but feel too sensitive over that raggedy condition of their work environment. Are there any traveling slashdotters from Europe who can weigh in on this?

Now, i've seen some of the older lines in Tokyo, and some of they surprised me that they were old, like maybe pre-1960 construction, but most of the other lines i rode seemed to be far more modern, relatively speaking.

What kind of natural disaster (hopefully after hours so the least number would be actually drowned or buried...) would it take to flush out some of those old NYC stations so they can get rebuilt? Yeh, i realize that there would be hundreds of thousands of commuters inconvenienced, but the US is way too wealthy for this kind of ragged, nauseating, eyesore infrastructure to exist. Hell, renovating that crap could actually be a jobs-creation program to help pump up the US economy, or at least on the east coast. Well, assuming there is not Amtrak habitrail competing with the rats underground....

Really? Even in the UK?