Slashdot Mirror
Photograph the Police, Get Arrested
Servo writes "Last month a man was arrested in New Hampshire after presenting evidence of a police officer being verbally abusive that he had captured on his home security camera system. Now just recently in Philadelphia a 21 year old student was arrested on his property after he took a photo of the police who were in the process of arresting a drug dealer down the street." From the article: "Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate."
He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.
You must be new here.
Welcome to America. Remember to leave your civil liberties at the door, thanks.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
The attitude should surely be, "if you ain't got nothing to hide..." ; it's what they are increasingly coming to expect from the rest of us.
While I can understand that police are probably lairy of being photographed, because it's probably so easy to make mistakes in police procedure that if you were to record their activities, a good lawyer could probably shoot down a large percentage of arrests and whatnot... it does not inspire confidence that a public organisation who allegedly operate inside the law, to uphold the law, should feel it necessary to use their power to conceal the detailed workings of their activities.
Anyone able to point a finger at the legislation that enables them to do this? Or is there none, and they are just overstepping the mark?
How can the police be sure that the photos aren't going to be used to identify police officers for later revenge attacks?
The attitude should surely be, "if you ain't got nothing to hide..." ; it's what they are increasingly coming to expect from the rest of us.
If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I'm not suprised at all. The USA has under the Bush Administration has become a police state. If the people get a back bone he waves the terrorist flag and everyone ducks for cover.
Its really sad all in all.
After reading the article, it has no mention of the officer reading Cruz his rights... is that not illegal in the States?
:-)
I am Canadian and Police Officers don't have to here... but are they not supposed to there? If he didn't, I heard that alone can cost you your job... but then again sometimes rumours migrate up here.
where I live you see the cops telling the criminals not to touch the cameras or cameraman because they are within their rights to film.
You are just 70 years behind Europe. What took you so long?
(Moderators: this is called black humor).
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...
Oh, you dumb, dumb cops. Of course Neftaly Cruz was "not on his property" during the arrest if you went onto his property and dragged him off! Why would you do that in front of witnesses?
-Tony
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
The 99% messes it up for the 1% that are good cops.
Police officers on duty in a public area have no more right to privacy than anyone else, i.e. none, and thank God for that. Power corrupts, and police have power. The only thing that reliably prevents police abuses is public accountability, which can only happen if the public is informed.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
In 1976 for the first time, Americans spent more on private security firms than on police forced.
I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care.
Need Mercedes parts ?
He's obviously one of the drug cartel's henchman with a name like Cruz. He was probably taking pictures to send to all the other drug dealers in the area. The police were being very prudent in this post 9-11 world. Since they were unable to determine his innocence on the scene, the best bet is to arrest him and figure it out latter.
. . .you could say that the police have a right to privacy . . .
No, I could not. The second a police officer puts on a uniform and a badge he is a public officer, ostensibly working in the public's interest and certainly paid from the public's coffers.
And as a branch of the government requiring oversight it is the public that provides it.
KFG
I am not a lawyer. If the facts of this incident are as described in the story this is an easy civil suit for wrongful arrest. A law that outlawed taking pictures of police activity in public would be unconstitutional (1st Amendment) in any case and doesn't exist. The right to observe police activity in public is well established. Another poster mentioned that the police might have a right to privacy in making an arrest in public. Wrong. One cannot have a right to privacy in public doing a public activity. There is no possible expectation of privacy there. This isn't to say that police all over the country don't pull this kind of shit all the time-arresting or attacking people for videotaping or taking pictures of public police activity. Usually it isn't quite this blatant though.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [Who will police the police?]
- Latin proverb
Theres good and bad in all, strip down the person and listen to just the words. After all the truth is the truth nude, in a bondage outfit or a nun's habbit and that's all that matters.
I like muppets.
If this was indeed a law, then incidents like the Rodney King incident would never be able to surface.
Police also denied that they told Cruze he was breaking the law with his cell phone.
So did I miss it or did the police never say 'why' Cruz was arrested?
HD Trailers
you could say that the police have a right to privacy
And you would be very, very wrong.
People who are police officers -- that is, the men and women who do that as their job -- have a right to privacy, when they're at home and off-duty, or doing personal business. As public officials, they have none as they are conducting their jobs. Some of what they do may be confidential, because there's a vested public interest in keeping it secret, but such areas should be clearly and narrowly defined by law. (And that's different from general 'privacy' anyway.)
Furthermore, when standing on a public street, nobody has a right to privacy sufficient to overwhelm my right to photograph them there. It's a public place, you chose to be there, if I choose to record an image of that public place with you in it, tough luck for you.
It's a very dangerous road we go down, when we say that any aspect of our Government -- from the local police on upwards to the highest echelons of the Executive Branch -- has an inherent "right" to be secretive. Nobody does. Where the government is secretive, it should be so only because there's an overwhelming public interest for it to be that way, or where doing so prevents citizens' rights from themselves being violated (e.g., personal records maintained by the government on Federal employees). But those should be the exceptions, and not the rule. Any time you have a situation where citizens have to justify the disclosure of information from the government on a regular basis, you have a problem.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If you look at the Constitution/Bill of Rights, right to privacy is never explicitly stated. (Though I wish it was; just saying). The Supreme Court has said priacy is included in "basic human rights", which is mentioned http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privac y - but again, I guess that could be easily reversed since privacy is not explicit.
I, for one, do NOT welcome Big Brother.
*needle rises above sixty*
I, for one, welcome Big Brother.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I understand the fear that the guy might be involved with the drug dealer, but just deleting the pictures (or confiscating the memory card so it can be securely erased down at the station) ought to have been sufficient. At my previous job I was a researcher working on wireless medical devices to assist in distaster management; my group was invited to participate in a major disaster drill in southern california (many emergency response organizations, from local police to the FBI). We were allowed cameras on the scene to document and evaluate our work, but we were explicitly forbidden from taking pictures of certain responders (eg. the SWAT team, people in HVAC suites, etc.). One of my coworkers got caught violating this (he was taking pictures of the victoms but guys in HVAC's could be seen in the background), and was cuffed and arrested; fortunately they ended up just erasing the pictures and he was never charged.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
...when I first came to the Land of the Free, I had a strong inclination to take a photograph of the light show that two police cars were flashing for my amusement just in front of my bedroom window at 2:30AM. Some poor bloke was being stopped for drunk driving. Anyhow, I refrained from snapping the picture even from within the safety of my darkened bedroom, feeling that I should wait a little until I get better acquainted with the customs of the country. Just for the reference: I hail from the "Land of the Slaughterers", i.e. Serbia, bombed by the U.S. and a few minions back in 1999. Good grief, I might have gotten myself into so much trouble for practicing our savage ways of taking photographs of public service officers on duty.
And just where are you reading this? In your local paper?
There is a great document put together by a lawyer called Photographers' Rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Basically, it is 100% legal to photograph any emergency personal in the line of duty as long as you are not interferring with their work. As well, no one can confiscate your film or digital media. However, both of that is null and void if you do get in the way of emergency personel. If you are on private property, such as a shopping mall, they can ask you not to take photos, but you can't be penalized for it unless you continue against their will.
I was lost while looking for where to pick up my nephew from his babysitter, so I pulled over and walked up to a house and asked for directions. My car was a pretty old car, in a reasonably nice neighborhood. When I came back to my car, a person was walking around it, looking in each of the windows. I asked him why, he said, "I'm a cop, I'm supposed to".
Around two in the morning, I had to go home from campus (Lan Party =)). A police officer pulled me over on the way out. Her stated reason, "It's suspicious for someone to be getting their car out of the parking lot this late at night." The traditional image of police is protectors, but to be honest, they are just paid to arrest people. There is a very big difference. A highly visible police patrolling the ghetto does us more good than a traffic trap. One actually lowers crime, the other gets arrests.
Police are fighting terrorism and crime, so therefore are above any kind of accountability?
No way!
Next, we could see the US military operating secret overseas prisons!
I wish the Cruz family the best of success with their legal actions against the police. This will be an interesting test of the US Constitution and judiciary.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Eye witness testimony is always suspect. Maybe all she had was a camera phone?
Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.
Yes, Its your rights, Online.
IIRC, that is the same logic that is used to prevent taking pix of death squads in 3'rd world countries. I wonder how far towards this, we have traveled over the last 5 years.
I'm in the UK, and I've seen this and worse happen for years. At an anti capitalist demo (I'm not a loony, but I do think some of the issues raised at those demos need to be raised - like subsidising the third world out of the world markets etc... but lets not go off topic)I've been charged at by police on horses FOR NO REASON AT ALL!.
And yes I've seen cameras blocked, and their owners arrested. I've seen the unlawful detainment of hundreds of demonstrators (I would have been one of them, if I hadn't been light on my feet, and had a friend to help me over a piked fence. Ironically the fence of the Royal Courts of Justice I believe).
So its not news, that there's a problem. But whats the solution?
I propose that a form of open source decentralised government evolve that slowly but surely makes the centralized government more and more obsolete. Leaching the power from centralised government will force them to be more democratic, and less hyopocrytical. I hope.
Of course "what about the money"?!?!
Well - taxes can be legaly sidestepped. Previously it was only the rich who could afford off shaw accounts etc... With this shiny new interweb of ours, we can build open source solutions to tax, for the masses!
So - imagine a karma system generating elected, regional education 'node leaders', for home and comunity eductator to amasses comparible resources as those in state schools. Now health, security, transport, energy,....
Yes this might sound wacky, but there's nothing stopping us trying. And I'm sick of the winging in here. YES your government is crap! Do something!
Because you can - or because you should?
Sure, you could say it. But you'd be wrong.
Parent worse than flamebait. More like: (Score:-1, Traitor to the American people)
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
I keep warning you people, but you don't seem to listen. The DEATHCAMPS are 3 years away!
What exactly are they charging him with?
Or did they just detain him in order to confiscate his camera?
I imagine that if it's the latter, that there are tons of lawyers just salivating over the idea of the case against the police department they could cook up.
Excerpt from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
10.Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a)to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
At the very least they have to tell you that you may retain a lawyer and, if I am not mistaken, the Supreme Court has ruled they must also tell you that you have the right to remain silent. I don't know where you get this idea that the police in Canada don't have to tell you your rights, you see them do it all the time on the Canadian version of Cops.
Why not "Traitor to sentient beings of the universe, wherever and in whatever form they might be"
Some criminals wear badges, which is why police departments have an internal affairs divsion, to find and remove bad cops from the force. These sound like cases for IAD to me, big time.
..... on a public street. The girl and her friend spent the night in jail. They weren't charged of course because they hadn't committed any crime.
Now maybe its just me, but there does seem to be an increase in cases of police officers getting confused and thinking they work for the gestapo. There was a case a month back or so where the daughter of a police officer was arrested for "trespassing." She and a friend were lost and had stopped to ask a police officer for directions. The officer refused to help them, stating that they would have to find their own way out. A few moments later they spotted another officer and drove over to where he was to ask for help, at which point the first officer rushed over and berated them for daring to ask her partner for help when she had already told them to get lost. So they drove up the street a ways, pulled over, and began trying to find out where they were on a map while trying to call the girl's father on a cell phone. A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing"
I don't know how this case turned out for the officers involved, but it shows a serious lack of oversight when two cops are able to run wild and abuse the public in that manner.
Now I know for a fact that most cops are decent men and women who treat citizens with all due respect, despite having to be human-garbagemen and spend much of their time doing what I call "white trash patrol." Just watch a few episodes of Cops and you'll know what I mean. But even so there are a few who are bad apples, and unless they're culled from the force then you end up with situations like these, or worse.
The last thing any police department should be interested in doing is making themselves the enemy of the public. The police depend upon public goodwill to do their job, and to come home alive at the end of their shift. If the police do not have the trust of the public, then they will not have the cooperation of the public. This is already the case in urban slums where calls of "five-O!" cry out day and night warning the residents that a police car or officer is in the area. When the police become a nuisance equal to that of the criminals they are supposed to be pursuing, then the public will treat them with equal disdain.
In most parts of the world, being a police officer is met with about the same level of respect as a personal injury lawyer would be here, if not less. The police are held in contempt because in most parts of the world, particularly the 3rd world, corruption and abuse are almost part of the job. Police officers in the US are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration. But this esteem is fragile because at the end of the day the police are armed agents of the state and that makes them difficult to love. So when officers abuse and betray the trust of the public and make false arrests, all it does is make life that much more difficult for them and and their fellow officers. Things like these are noticed, and remembered.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You are reading this online?
The guy was using a mobile phone to take a picture (Digital), he would have then loaded the photo/video to youtube/google/flickr.
All very much online to me.
The trick to doing it right is to upload as the photo/video is taken, and then spread it to as many people as you can.
No no no no no.
Under constitutional law, you have ALL rights. Law dictates limitations or prohibitions, it does not grant them. A law doesn't have to explicitly state you have a right.
Laws are subtractive, not additive.
This is a common misperception by the public at large.
If you kick a cop who is trying to arrest you for something that is not illegal, can you be charged with anything? I mean, it is illegal to arrest or detain someone who is not breaking the law or under resonable suspicion of breaking the law. So, if you kick or physically try to separate yourself from an officer who is trying to arrest you for, say, the same thing that Cruz was "arrested" for, are you breaking the law by doing that? What they are trying to do is illegal, and what you did was not, so can it be agued that it was self-defence? I know hitting a cop is a stupid thing to do in the first place, but in a situation like this, is it really illegal?
-----
Sig Sauer
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The US has become a defacto fascist state. Much like Nazi Germany last century. Starting wars without valid reason. Protecting governments that involve in state-organized terrorism (Israel). Bush and his gang and their counterparts in Israel are committing war crimes at a rate of which Hitler would have been jealous of.
... What deeply saddens me is that most of the European governments don't give a shit about what's going on in the world. They are very afraid of upsetting the their US or Israeli "friends". Israel continues to abuse its victim role of the second world war genocide. It's like in 1984 where the victims of the past became the butchers of today.
But that I already know for a long time
But correct me if I'm mistaken, isn't this supposed to be "Your rights online"
All cell phones that can take a picture are capable of accessing the internet, and hence it is online.
Disagree with me, and I'll call the cops on you.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Let's just strack picking any non white people of the street and deal with it later. Lets just pick everyone up with cameras. Or everyone near where a durg dealer is arested.
Great Intellect...
Remember, remember the fifth of November...
"He said he was taking pictures with his cell phone and that was obstructing an investigation," said Aracelis Cruz, Neftaly Cruz's mother.
Of course it's obstructing, because the officer had to leave the original scene to arrest some kid causing problems down the street.
Considering that cops were caught red-handed fifteen years ago beating the living mess out of Rodney King, it was only a matter of time when they would attempt to strike at the heart of the problem...and outlaw cameras.
Jesus Christ, these imbeciles are unbelievable! Be it drug hysteria or a phantom war on terror, right wingers always find an excuse to erode citizens' rights while erasing as much oversight for themselves as possible.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I always assumed it was a joke on phrases like:
"Your rights, on the line"
(Best pronounced in a pseudo-dramatic newscaster type voice)
my brother woke up on a sunday to a banging door, and police were up and down the street.
he ended up with a gun to his face, on the ground, and the police told him to "sign a waiver releasing the police dept. from all liability for the incident" (they had a clipboard, form, and pen handy).
his other option was "get arrested for resisting arrest" and told "people who resist arrest usually end up with bruises, cuts, and scars--even a broken arm or fingers--because we aren't too gentle with them"
so he (confused and scared, and probably smart) signed the paper and it was over.
turns out they had the wrong person, wrong address, wrong part of town, but it didn't come over the radio until all the cops were in place, so they went through with the show.
Do you remember how the constitution said the declaration of the united States of America was founding for their charters, whereby in every Constitution they bore not to be church States in themselves but at the minimum "We the People, greatful to Almighty God for our freedom, do establish this Constitution..."? That's because the original church-states (read that, not church States) "dried-up" and returned to the site of where Columbus arrived on North America: Columbia. The church-states merged with the admiralty venue as evinced by Rule B:
As originally intended from their common-law States, The People could restrictively enter the admiralty/church-states to defend their claim, by use of Rule E.
In Rule E(8), lack of disclosure, otherwise known as having "no bill of particulars" or not being "allowed" to confront and cross-examine witnesses and evidence, voids attachment by when "inducting" the personage into the corporate COURT (or lack thereof) with a restrictive appearance (which is a ghost, realy). Notice the corporate instrumentality known as "United States" can claims and is not the same as the United States (plural). Notice that "corporate instrumentalty" clause and how it is prima facie evidence of that federa corporation referenced by USCODE Title 27 Section 3002 15(b). That "United States" is singular/corporation, not plural American States united. That "United States" is known otherwise as "trust 72" whereby it secures incompetant/convalescant people (usualy stands as moloch/king to wa
without prejudice
How many stories do I need to read on Slashdot, Digg, Fark, Google News, Wikipedia about things like this before people start doing something about things like this?
If all you're doing is sitting here on Slashdot bitching about it, shame on you. If it's so important, get off your arse and do something about it.
This is what you get when the government keeps taking away liberties everyone takes for granted.
Next time when you vote, please remember that it's not just 'the bad guys' when they mean terrorists.
Since the term terrorist is used pretty wide and broadly, it may mean you next time you do something 'the authorities' inappropriate.
it seems that this stupidity is contagious. There's been a big issue in the media here recently, but this story pretty much covers it. In a nut shell, that old chestnut "think of the terrorists" has been dragged out. Now the management put out the signs, but the general consensus from people that should know is that this directive is neither binding, nor enforceable.
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
Now, please don't get the wrong impression about me. I don't consider myself conservative, I don't think we should all be slaves to the law, but I see little point in dancing around the fact that liberalism and the law don't mix. They are simply opposites. One strives to eliminate freedoms for the greater good, the other sees freedom as THE greater good. I can't quite place one as better or more right than the other, really.
Yeah, I can see why anyone who'd listen to the load of propoganda in that video would think that. I guess it depends on what you want police to be. Some see police as people who cause problems, some see them as people who solve problems. If they cause problems for you, you'll want to restrict them. As soon as you start putting more restrictions on police, the easier it will be for them to step over the line. Your rights, in other words, come at the expense of theirs. If they solve problems for you, you'll be happy for them to go beyond their duties. Unlike what the video suggests, they are not power-hungry arrest-making machines. They are human. They generally have compassion, and some idea of morality.
One allows you to act as though you're obeying the law, the other actually makes you wonder whether you can get away with it or not. I don't think we need studies to tell us that hidden police are a bigger disincentive to commit a crime than the patrol car.
Sorry about that, I get carried away with people posting crappy liberal propoganda
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
If you read the article you'll see that the author asked the American Civil Liberties Union for their legal opinion on this case:-
"There is no law that prevents people from taking pictures of what anybody can see on the street. I think it's rather scary that in this country you could actually be taken down to police headquarters for taking a picture on your cell phone of activities that are clearly visible on the street. Cruz's civil rights might have been violated. He was unlawfully seized, which is a violation of the 4th amendment the last time we checked."
To me that sounds like the cops didn't have any right to arrest him and that they could be sued for unlawful arrest. But hell this is the USA we're talking about, and maybe things have changed a bit since the last time they checked what violates the 4th amendment.
Second, what was Cruz doing before. I have seen to many incidents of small incidents escaltating because of bystanders getting involved. Once the riot has started the police is blamed for letting things go out of control but if the police orders the crowd to disperse then they are fascists. A no-win scenario for the police.
This leads to the third question, does the (US) police have the right to tell people to go inside/disperse? I am not a lawyer but I think they do. If the public doesn't have to follow police instructions then things would quickly become impossible "STOP, or don't, whatever you feel like".
Fourth is that journalists have a right to photograph and this is usually accepted with press-photographers only being hit by riot squads say every other riot. In general it seems the police is all to aware that trying to supress the press only leads to more attention. But how does this translate to every citizen having a camera? What if under-cover agents are present? SWAT teams and similar typically wear camoflage not just to hide but to protect their indentity. This is offcourse not possible for under-cover agents. Even drug dealers would notice a customer with a face mask. Does the police have the right to stop photographing in these circumstances?
Fifth, where was cruz photographing, in his back yard or on the street. Furthermore if the police wanted to arrest him why shouldn't they have the right to come on to this yard. I smell rats when two sides seem to quote bogus laws. Imagine that it was true you could not be arrested on your own property. If photographing the police is illegal (I don't know) then surely it doesn't matter from where you do it?
Sixth, was cruz really just an observer? Offcourse he is just an innocent angel harmless standing in his own garden just taking a shot of some police cars. You wouldn't expect his parents to admit that he is a flunky for the drugs mafia and trying to photograph undercover agents to warn other dealers? To often I read stories like this and then when you dig a little bit deeper you learn that much more was going on. It just sets of an alarm in my mind not to take everything this guy says at face value.
No I don't blindly trust the police but so far we only got the neighbours of drug dealers confused and unlogical accounts of what went on. Just because your neighbours deal drugs don't mean you are a liar but when you can't keep your own accounts straight and claim non-existent law (the police has a right to arrest you no matter were you are) I don't trust you. Remember, we only got their word for it that he was just arrested for using a camera phone. It may be true, it may not be. Yet I find it typically of slashdot that very few question the account given. I too would like to use this as an example off out of control police powers BUT precisly because I want to believe this I have to skeptical. If a story confirms what you want to hear you must be extra doubtfull or risk falling in the yes-man trap.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What is the "new law" in Pennsylvania that criminalizes photographing police? Please cite it. This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beynd photography. I have recently been threatened with being charged with "Obstructing" for not yielding to a warrantless search of my property, so I looked it up. See http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !! Our general defense in Montana is insisting on trial by jury--provided one represents himself; otherwise it invites rapid bankruptcy--but trial by jury is not guaranteed by all states' consitutions for all crimes.
Reading the article, he got in trouble for recording conversations, not for taking video pictures. In his state, it against the law to record conversations without warning all participants. The legal question will be whether the warning stickers on the outside of his house are sufficient.
I think the real crux of the conflict between the police and the populace is that they only really see each other when something bad happens.
I only ever talk to police when I'm about to get in trouble (usually a speeding ticket). The police don't always see the greatest members of society. The see the drunks, the druggies, the traffic offenders, the murders, and so on. So we have two groups that only ever see each other in a negative manner.
The story would be different if it were talking about Mr. Cruz were taking a photo of the policeman and his neighbor sharing a joke. Wishy washy I know, but would you rather talk to a cop when you're a suspect or would you like to wave hello to a friendly officer as he patrols your neigborhood?
I think both sides need to realize that no every person who made a minor traffic infraction is carrying 10kg of hashish in the boot and that people understand that not every cop is some neo-Nazi violent psycho working for Big Brother then maybe the serious situations like this article won't happen or if they do, they get settled more respectably.
Sure, Canadian police are angels and never do anything wrong. For example, spraying photographers with pepper spray or arresting photographers at a rally or slapping a handcuffed woman Etc. Etc.
I see we have an NWA / Ice Cube fan.
This story is about rights. You are reading about it online. No one likes a smart ass.
As well, no one can confiscate your film or digital media
An enterprising and civic-minded company should develop a camera that has built in wireless networking, probably a protocol not yet available on a massive scale. Pictures from this camera would be uploaded to the network as they are shot so that confiscating the camera can not jeopardize the pictures already taken.
Is this a patent waiting to be filed?
"just deleting the pictures (or confiscating the memory card so it can be securely erased down at the station) ought to have been sufficient"
What right do the police have to delete my own data?
Grr! Arg!
I understand how police -- especially unseasoned patrolmen -- can become jaded quickly without having the experience or training to know how to deal with a situtation they don't like. Police so often get a very warped view of the world since they most often are responding to terrible situations and people who would have very bad karma on Slashdot.
The Law does not giveth, yet the Law taketh away?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
So why doesn't every other Slashdot section have a "Online" suffix? Science Online? Games Online? Apple Online? Interviews Online?
Debunked.
Aren't you forgetting something?
What difference does it make if he was on his own property or not?
Taking a picture from your lawn or from the sidewalk next to your lawn is just as legal.
So big deal if he was not on his own property when arrested. He still should not have been arrested.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Does that imply all of Slashdot's other sections are not online? Is a little consistency too much to ask for around here?
In other words, police should be allowed to arrest people only for taking pictures of them (the police) not breaking the law?
"Give me that camera, you're going downtown!"
"But the only thing I have on here are photos of you beating that guy to death after he wouldn't give you a donut"
"Oh, in that case, you are allowed to keep everything. Have a nice day."
Reading the article, this guy and the police have apparently completely different stories about what was happening that night. I'd like to hear a more complete story before getting really upset.
I live in West Philly (yes, where Fresh Prince was born and raised) and this city has been having an incredible upswing in the number of people murdered. I'd rather see the police working on this problem than arresting someone for taking a picture.
LOL You gun nuts crack me up. What a kook! Keep up the entertainment please, you brighten my day.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Police officers in the US are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration.
What part of the US are you from? The only cop I can stand is my friend whos a cop. Other than him I hate cops. After 9/11 I thought cops might change their tune and be more people friendly, but no, they are still powertripping assholes, who are lazy.
I'm a production assistant on a movie being shot here and they hired some cops to block traffic for some street scenes. Well the cops did the crapiest job. Instead of blocking traffic they huddled around craftservices to indulge in the free food. Now the producers won't hire any cops here, so now the production assistants have to block traffic since the cops can't do their jobs.
Can I bum a sig?
History repeats itself - first as tragedy, then as farce. :)
-- Not my quote, you'll have to find the author
Lawyers only salivate when there's money involved.
Even if they win (unlikely) who's going to pay?
Even if they pay... how much?
Surely not enough to get all but the most desparate "lawyer" 'salivating'
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
Puh-lease. Richelieu might be a reasonable quote, but Ayn Rand? She's no more than an author and one that gave not a shit about anyone but herself. She verged on being an anarchist. Hardly one to honestly espouse the regulations that a government should be run by.
How do police patrolling the ghetto do anyone any good? I think you are caught in a logical fallacy. How can you establish any cause and effect relationship between increased police patrols and lower crime by citing an example of an area with high crime?
And just who are we supposed to vote for to fix it? The Democrats? Didn't they pass the Patriot Act?
When election day comes around, make sure your voice counts. Get off your tired feet, sit on the couch, and have beer.
In 2000, 54.3% of eligible voters voted. In 2004, 60.7% voted. Are you better off now?
Pretty much none.
If a criminal is afraid they will be seen/caught, they're less likely to commit
the act of crime- hate to tell you this, but that's an actual known fact.
By and of itself, the argument's not magically fallacious because you don't think
it actually does this- because of the above stated fact.
It might be a weak argument, perhaps, but it's NOT fallacious- it doesn't apply
chop-logic, circular reasoning, straw-men, or red-herrings. It actually has
a valid grounds and a fairly reasonable and valid premise. Just because you
don't agree with the premise, in and of itself, doesn't make it fallacious.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This is so offensive. I think every police officer directly involved in this incident should be fired. With a negative recommendation. I think that the man who was falsely arrested should get serious compensation out of THEIR personal savings, in addition to money from the department.
The only saving grace is that apparently they weren't physically abusive. If that were the case, I'd suggest that the whole department needs to undergo a public beating.
Nothing pisses me off more than people entrusted with public authority abusing their power.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Of this incident
They are public servants in the end. If you have a problem, raise it at an open forum for the community. If no one listens, educate them until your fingers bleed or find someone who can do it with/for you.
However, I fear this nation's apathy has got the better of us to the point where we don't know what's no longer right or wrong. So much is obscured by agenda that one can pretty much get away with anything when it's in their favor. What happened to: "this government of the people, by the people, for the people" Abraham Lincoln
One last thing. If someone wanted to use that photo for a vendeta they would first have to identify themselves to get that information, therefore incriminating themselves. Considering legal fees and other expenses I doubt anyone would want to make things worse for themselves not to mention an attempt of acting out a federal crime. To get access to a photo of the cops that arrested them seems foolish when they could just get a copy of the arrest warrant listing the names of the officers involved in the arrest. Any legal action is recorded and obtainable by the public. Go to http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ or your local city hall and pay the fee to get a copy of it.
On the contrary, pictures of the police making an arrest in public seem to be newsworthy and perfectly valid to photograph. Plus, your distinction - if the police were not abusive, they should be able to have the photo deleted - makes little sense. Any officer who is willing to abuse the law in making the arrest wouldn't hesitate to apply undue pressure to have the photo deleted.
Transparency in the workings of government is absolutely crucial. The government is by far the most powerful organization in the country (as it should be), but also the most capable of abusing its position. There is a comment that far more injustice has been carried out by legitimate governments than by any other type of organization. As such, it's always safer to err on the side of individual freedoms rather than making the government's task easier. The government has more than enough resources to get around small obstacles (like having to get court orders); the individual rarely does. (That's the idea behind requiring warrants for wiretaps, isn't it? It's easy for the government to get warrants if they are only looking at suspicious cases...it's hard to get warrants for everybody if they just want to go fishing.)
So, while the police have a lot of power (as they should), they should also be subjected to a lot of scrutiny. And historically, internal controls have been completely inadequate. (See, eg. the recent news that Chicago police tortured suspects in the '70s and '80s...there will be no prosecutions since the recent investigation is beyond the statue of limitations...and there's evidence that the police chief knew about it but did nothing.) Only transparent, public scrutiny will work.
Protestors can protest, I encourage it, people should protest.
I even actually disagree with most protestors because they often don't understand the issue they're protesting.
Now as far as annoying me I think that's wrong.
Those farmers should have been arrested and had their handouts cut.
I work hard, I pay taxes which we give to them, they respond by spending that money to block MY highway? No thanks.
There are other protests people ripping up, blocking or burning tires on public roads. This crap has to stop, go protest make your point, even if it is a stupid point that is fundamentally wrong, but don't harrass the rest of us. Or be prepared for the consequences when we want to lock you up.
Protest all you want, over whatever you want but don't you date destroy my property, or interfere with my safe and proper use of my own property. (personal property and our collective public property)
wikipedia: A police state is a state in which the government maintains strict control over the population, particularly through suspension of civil rights...
8 04,5.html
One of the things I really appreciate about the founders is that they gave us equality under the law (if we could keep it, and apparently we couldn't).
One of my personal definitions of a police state, is when the police can do things that are illegal for "normal people" to do...because they are above the law.
Well, they want to photograph us, video tape us, monitor our every move, but they however, not only expect their privacy...they freaking get it by force of law and a jack boot for those that still don't "get it."
Here is a perfect example:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I firmly believe that the terrorists won with their 9/11 attack.
One attack, a few thousand people killed, and your country's civil rights are now being violated like never before "for the sake of security", and your constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
That's a common trope meant originally to shock people into think about what they're giving up for security, but to be honest, the terrorists couldn't give a damn about our civil rights at all. What the terrorists want is for the US to pull out of the Middle East, leave Israel to fend for itself, leave the Middle Eastern regimes that are not theocracies (like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) to fend for themselves against Islamist movements at home, and to reestablish the Caliphate.
If the US were to become a 1984-style eternal dictatorship where the very humanity was crushed out of our souls, the terrorist wouldn't care at all so long as we weren't in the Middle East anymore. The fact that our slide towards militaristic authoritarianism is being bolstered by fear of Muslims and desire to kick over more of their territory actually represents a significant loss for their agenda of getting us out of the Middle East.
We're not winning the "War on Terrorism," but neither are they. We're losing civil rights and world prestige, they're losing lives in droves and seeing us become more entrenched in their backyards. This conflict is many, many decades from being resolved, but right now it's a lose-lose battle.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene.
Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.
It's been argued in the press for years that in public, "We the People" don't have any reasonable expectation to privacy in public area's. This is about a public area as it get's. And he was taking the picture from his back yard. A private area.
This should get very interesting.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
when people think they are above the law. Bush certainly thinks he is above the law, but you have to be careful how you point that out, or you get modded down around here.
8 04,5.html
Seriously, Bush signs bills into law, but then he goes to his little books and writes in a little exemption to the law for himself, as He sees fit. It doesn't matter what Congress or the courts say, Bush has a little book to write in, and he isn't afraid to do so. He has shown little regard for the rule of law, but he can get away with it because he has the support of all that is holy and moral in America, the churches.
As the police state writes laws that put themselves above the law, I think you are right, they looked straight to the top for their inspiration.
For example, they want to monitor and video tape our every move, but they are above the law:
Watching the Detectives
The NYPD wants to take your picture--but beware of turning your lens on the cops by Sarah Ferguson April 10th, 2006 5:30 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
NYPD on filming protests: No harm, no foul
by Jarrett Murphy
Since 2003, the NYPD has been filming protesters at political demonstrations, regardless of whether anything illegal's going on. City lawyers were in court last month defending the practice, arguing that what happens in public view is fair game.
But police evidently aren't so keen on surveillance when the cameras are turned on them--particularly when those cameras show them abusing free-street-parking privileges....
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
... though presumably unintentionally and ironically in his own family.
... this at least according to reliable family sources who knew Karl and the wife's family very well.
One could argue that living out his socialist dream in London exile was one way to test whether his utopia could hold together. However, in the process of sharing everything with everyone, the money that his wife's family sent to support them was squandered, and several of their children died of hunger, malnutrition, and preventable diseases. After all, he had no steady income and thus had to leech of his wife's family.
Police don't have anymore power than an ordinary citizen. They are not some kind of super citizen. What police do have is organization and prosecutorial immunity for things done in the line of duty. "Super Citizenship" is a myth perpetrated by those who want to influence people's perception of power. They have no MORE right to privacy than you do. They actually have less right to privacy while on duty. If what the story says is true, the guy should walk in to the DA's office and file criminal charges for false arrest, criminal trespass, simple assault and kidnapping. Because the cop broke the law in a way that was not consistent with his duties, the DA would have to have him arrested. This is exactly the same thing he would do if his neighbor grabbed him of the street, and dragged him down to the police station for no reason.
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
The photography and arrest happened in meatspace, not online. He was not arrested for his online activities.
So that must explain why all the other sections are named Linux Online, Hardware Online, Backslash Online, Books Online, IT Online, Developers Online, Science Online, Politics Online, & etc, correct?
Laws are subtractive, not additive. This is a common misperception by the public at large.
It's not a misconception. There are times that your rights and the rights of another are in conflict and the law must define which is supreme. For example, the right to live vs. the "right" to defend one's honor against insult. We chose to outlaw dueling to positively affirm life. Another example would be the right to use one's property as one sees fit in pursuit of profit vs. the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. We have anti-pollution laws for this reason.
The classic, defining conflict of rights in my mind is free speech vs. private property. Can you express any opinion you want on someone else's property? Without coming down in favor of one right or the other by barring the opposition, neither right can truly be said to exist since either can be abridged at arbitrarily. In fact, all private property rights are essentially the creation of rights by the removal of the rights of others to use the property that belongs to you -- from laws against trespassing to laws against theft. And yet, without private property, how could we have privacy rights?
What the Constitution (and especially the Bill of Rights) does to protect your rights is to bar the government from taking certain rights away. You have a right to free speech only insomuch as the government cannot take it away, but private property owners can censor you or drive you out for speech such as wearing a T-shirt that contains a political message they don't like. You have the right to bear arms because the government can't take them away, but private individuals have the right to toss your out of their places if you come onto their property and refuse to let them confiscate your weapon.
This is different from rights created by legislation such as the right not be racially discriminated against. While the courts have repeatedly allowed private organizations to ban speech they don't like, they've repeatedly disallowed racial and sexual discrimination. You don't have the right to say whatever you want in a place of business, but you do have the right not to be treated poorly for your skin color. This is an example of a right that is not in the Constitution that is in some ways stronger than the rights that are in the Constitution.
Law is never so simple. It's always a give and a take, and it's not always an equittable trade, but to say that all law is subtractive is like saying that refrigerators add heat to an apartment without noting the cooling of the food that the net heat gain creates. It ignores half the equation.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I was under the impression that to be arrested you had to, You know, Break a law..
What "Law" did he break by photographing the police?
God Be Gone
ALBUQUERQUE -- Undercover officers with the New Mexico Department of Public Safety that were out Saturday night trying to bust drunks leaving bars arrested three men for videotaping them. The three men showed up in court Sunday morning with an attorney to fight the felony charges they are facing. Jacob Traub owns the Downtown Distillery, David Garcia and Lance Gomez both work for him. One criminal complaint says an officer asked one of the men to stop videotaping for security reasons since he was working undercover. The complaint also says the man told the officer they were harassing the customers in the bar. The men's attorney Paul Kennedy told KRQE News 13 that they were videotaping on a public street and there is nothing illegal with what they did. "Every citizen has a first amendment right to videotape public officers in the performance of their duties on public property and that's all that was going on here," said Kennedy. Deputy Director of the Special Investigation Division Jim Plagens spoke with KRQE News 13 regarding the arrest. "These three individuals were arrested for obstruction of the administration of the liquor control act. To comment any farther at this point, I think would be inappropriate," said Plagens Kennedy plans on filing an injunction in state court and a civil rights lawsuit. All the men are charged with obstruction of the administration of the liquor control act. They are out on bond and allowed to go back to work. http://www.krqe.com/expanded.asp?ID=15249
People always agree with me on this point, too, until I bring up Amendment #2.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
In Soviet Russia, there are secret police.
In the New Ameria, the secret police are there.
Believe it or not, this tactic is routine among police. I have seen police shout at anti-war protesters who were on the sidewalk to get on the sidewalk, then drag them off the sidewalk, and then charge them for disobeying a lawful police order.
I've also seen police box protesters in, order them to disperse, and since they can't, arrest them for failure to disperse.
I've seen these tactics many times. Sadly, they mostly get the charges to stick, and these guys get criminal records (probably the punishment the cops are trying to inflict).
Lies about crimes
I hope you meant HAZMAT suit (i.e. Hazardous Materials.) The only HVAC I'm familiar with is "Heating, Ventillation, and Air Conditioning" ... you know, the butt-crack-showing maintenance guys. I'm amused at the thought of the SWAT folks having a "secret" conversation with some HVAC techs about the proper way to heat/cool a particular emergency site.
I used to hang out with a few cops, and they didn't personally consider themselves good people. Job perks include ass-kicking and groping, and arresting semi-innocent or innocent people for personal reasons. They also mentioned driving excessively fast in heavy, powerful cars as a perk too, and arresting people with probable lifetime sentances seemed to cause them pleasure. I would occasionally catch them humming the tune of a certain Michael Jackson song, too.
Most people have little or no exposure to the law, prefering instead to not get caught when breaking the laws a little bit. The first exposure many people get to the laws may be a ticket for a traffic infraction; what some people, especially drug users, fail to realize is that their breaking the laws each time they use, and not just once. Remember that three felonies is a life sentence in California and some other states, and that three misdemeanors is a felony, and that three infractions is a misdemeanor. Also, the standard of proof is not mathematical, and most convictions are based on the testimony of one or more co-working police officers.
Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.
Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public -- a mall, office-building lobby, etc. -- permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).
In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.
Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.
Please read the full PDF here with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.
Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.
Know your rights, and don't tolerate this supression.
Yes. The attorney general's office during Kennedy's administration (his brother, RFK, was the attorney general) wiretapped anyone they felt like. Hoover also did the same over a wide time span. As far as overreaction to a terrorist threat...how about putting the American Japanese population in camps during WWII?
Things happening "now" always seem more unique, rare, extreme, good, and/or bad than they really are. In reality, Bush isn't even close to being the first to abuse executive privelege. Doesn't make it right, but don't make it out to be some singular event in the history of the presidency, as it's not.
You have to read halfway through the story to see that there's no law about this at all, it was just a couple of cops being assholes (allegedly). This is news that's the quality of what's reported on local WB news at 9. Yeah, there's an internal investigation being started and obviously if the kid is telling the truth, the cops will be in some trouble.
On the subject of "cops doing bad things", detaining a kid on bogus charges for 4 hours and letting him go is pretty light. I wonder how often that happens in the projects? Go there and see, and then put it on the front page of Slashdot every time it happens.
She's no more than an author and one that gave not a shit about anyone but herself. She verged on being an anarchist.
I suppose if you equate "being on the verge of an anarchist" to being closer to what the founding fathers of the US are then I say she's okay in my book.
Try cops killing you while you are doing something perfectly legal, and the cops get away with it. It's ironic that the cops want to install cameras everywhere (because one of YOU is a criminal), but it's not ok for you to tape them.
Join the window installer's union, where prosperity is a brick throw away!
She verged on being an anarchist.
Exactly, she was one of the most peaceful individuals ever to live on this planet. (FYI, an anarchist is one who doesn't believe in employing coercion against others, as every government does by definition.)
Here's another relevent quote: civilization is the process of setting man free from men. Those aren't exactly the words of a selfish individual. In fact, to grant others your obligation to respect them as absolute equals is probably the most noble thing a human being can do.
Now what were you saying?
Cruz's famly said it has filed a formal complaint with the police department's Internal Affairs division and are requesting a complete investigation. Wow I'm feeling so good about our free media and free goverment.
I didn't mean legal power so much as raw physical power. Police have access to guns, batons, police cars, other police officers, handcuffs, jails, combat training, etc. That is what gives them more power than most citizens.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Who did you say is comitting war crimes?
You can't think of a better oxymoron than
war crime
Yes, agree about this...we will normally lose any confrontations with 'government', so an interesting (and non-violent) approach is just to create more responsive/useful structures of our own until it becomes irrelevant (though I have no doubt that its final death throes will leave some mess, its continued existence satifies many, many vested interests).
In this spirit, I've decided to downsize and work less (admittedly I'm getting old as well!) so I pay less taxes. I explain to my friends that I've got Blair surrounded and now I'm starving him out.
Also, in the middle ages, one 'worked' about 90 days a year, now two people have to work 220 days + overtime etc. What is wrong with this picture?
On y va, qui mal y pense!
I know that R.K. is no "model citizen". I know that Bad-Cops are neo high school bullies. I also know that a public law suit opens people's eyes and causes both parties to take a involuntary "time out." When people stop listening, they stop being people.
I was walking down the street in Barcelona, ES, when I saw a fully nude man being questioned by the police in the middle of the square. I pulled out my camera and took a picture of the scene while my girlfriend told me not to. Fortunately, a group of girls did the same thing at the same time, so the cops went up to them and made them erase the photo.
I wasn't really sure whether they were protecting the rights of the naked guy or themselves. In the end, they didn't arrest him and he carried on with his nude stroll.
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
I've been waiting for a mini-stealth-camera-and-recorder to appear. I want a little device, the size of a cellphone camera, that fits in a button or a necklace or a belt buckle or something equally inconspicuous. It should be connected to a waist controller, which would include battery pack, storage (hard drive or flash), and wifi. Wifi so that, whenever it can find an available internet connection, it can upload its contents to a secure server located elsewhere.
Just imagine that. "Sorry sir, you took a picture of something you weren't supposed to. I'm going to have to confiscate your camera." "The pictures are already in Texas, and in ten minutes they'll be posted online. Same as the recording of what you're saying right now. You really want to illegally take my possessions, Officer Frank, Number 3894?"
Obviously there would be privacy implications as well, but it's kind of inevitable that this will occur someday.
("Oh yeah, and there's six other people taping this right now. Don't bother looking for them. You won't find them. At least two of them are sending it outside the country.")
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Especially if the "revenge attacks" include things like lawsuits or idictments for criminal conduct, publicity that shows them up to be fools or abusing their power.
The same reason that you see some police on TV wearing ski masks or the like to hide their faces.
Of course, the claim is that the revenge attacks are by criminals, but (while I don't have any hard statistics) I doubt that that actually occurs very often.
I know I'm a little late to be starting a new thread, but reading that story, I didn't hear any mention of the Miranda being read, or any charges being filed...
Here's how it would go if it was me being arrested...
"Ok, I'm going to waive my right to remain silent (which you didn't read to me) and call your bluff. This is a bullshit charge. Am I free to go, or is it time to call my lawyer?"
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
She's no more than an author
She's not even that. _Atlas Shrugged_ isn't even a decent novel. The fact that people treat it as a philosophical treatise is unbelievable to me.
--saint
Either the ideas described in the quote are valid, or they aren't. It doesn't matter who said it.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
this is absurd - so much in fact that i feel the need to post.
IF circumstances occured as Cruz has said, the police officers need to be made an example of. Off the force, civil charges, Al Sharpton circus-like.
Beyond the fact the officers abused their authority - the image of police officers everywhere is now affected as evident by all the posts about how this is a "police state" and how "the police are bad".
The police are para-military - their power comes directly from the people, not the federal government. It is in the Police departments best interest to prosecute the officers to restore the departments authority.
if this is true he will be dearly compensated for the violation of his civil rights.
few years back, i was arrested for filming an accident sceen. I was warned several times by an officer to cease and disist- leave the area... I refused. Being a law student I was confident the law was on my side.
I was arrested and equipment was confiscated. Within hours of being booked, I was released. Long story short, the city settled my case on grounds that they violated my rights. Officer had to write a letter of apology and I was awarded significant financial compensation... enough to pay my school debt anyway.
-b.
then maybe they would not have to worry so much the badge means you suck kill a brown or black kid whenever they want a paid vacation
I agree, in principle, with your third point, but do you know what effect this is going to have on slashdot readers? Personally, I'm going to carry my digital SLR with me just to snap photos of police officers in areas where I expect this to happen. Bonus points if they damage my equipment in the act, making an easier entry to a civil suit.
This is a fight that we can take to the streets by exercising our rights. If someone has the incident report (from which we can pull the offending officers' names), let's get some Philly flash mobs to photograph these officers in action. Just make sure to keep your distance and avoid harassing any officers. Oh, and be ready to be arrested. The sort of police officers who do this sort of thing are scared children looking for a place to exert power.
Yes, there are people working against it. Alas not for a better Britain, but an extension of the Islamic caphilate.
From a February 2006 ICM poll of British muslims...
Although 90% of British muslims say they feel personally loyal to the UK, an alarmingly strong minority's definition of 'the UK' and 'loyal' does not seem to be civilised or modern:
40% want to see sharia law enforced in the UK. Unmodernised sharia law is barbaric and certainly illegal under existing law.
26% said Abu Hamza did not receive a fair trial. Wonder what kind of trial they are thinking of?
20% say they have sympathy with the London suicide bombers. These men butchered a diverse cross-section of Londoners and visitors including muslims.
7% are sufficiently extreme to say that western society is decadent and immoral and muslims should bring about its end if necessary by violent means.
Never mind incitement to murder or hatred, it is time to have a look at what the laws on treason say.
There are more than just Repubicans and Democrats, you know. That mindset is what truly destroys our electoral system.
FC Closer
... the state.
L.V.X., brother mouse
I'm on a project at work right now that has us digitially recreating a major city in the US. Because of this we need oodles of reference photo's, which sees us flying to said city frequently and snapshotting every major landmark and building style we can find.
We have been stopped *numerous* times by police and private guards for taking photos of buildings anywhere from the simplest little house to the most public business buildings in downtown. We have narrowly avoided having our cameras confiscated and others in my group have said they believe they would be confiscated if we took images of government buildings.
I don't care about the allegations that people may use these photos for "bad things", it feels to me that this is just more about control and supression than logical safety policy. So when the parent poster said "No pictures of architecture -- might be casing the joint" I thought I'd chime in and say "Already happened, buddy"...
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You will make sounder decisions for the long run if you see Bush as a symptom rather than a cause. He didn't ride a groundswell of popular support into office or even into the nomination. Republican Party leadership told all their local officeholders to endorse Bush in the primaries or else.
Not all Democrats are dishonest - but it only takes one to mess up your day, and generally the otherwise honest Democrats will look the other way when it happens - they have to stick together.
Not all mass murderers are dishonest - but it only takes one to mess up your day, and generally the otherwise honest mass murderers will look the other way when it happens - they have to stick together.
Not all cute and fuzzy kittens are dishonest - but it only takes one to mess up your day, and generally the otherwise honest cute and fuzzy kittens will look the other way when it happens - they have to stick together.
Not all cement blocks are dishonest - but it only takes one to mess up your day, and generally the otherwise honest cement blocks will look the other way when it happens - they have to stick together.
Not all cars are dishonest - but it only takes one to mess up your day, and generally the otherwise honest cars will look the other way when it happens - they have to stick together.
You are just 70 years behind Europe. What took you so long?
Nice leap. A man in New Hampshire is *charged* with violating a wiretapping and eavesdropping law. Another man in Philly gets busted by the cops for taking a photograph, which raises a big stink and likely will backfire on the police department.
The NH case is being reviewed. The man arrested in Philly was released, and the family has requested an inquiry. Don't be surprised if the police department is forced to apologize.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how do these two cases lead to the assumption that America is in the grip of jackbooted thugs?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Maybe give them some time? IAD has to function like normal cops in that they don't have the benefit of prescience and can't arrest people before the fact. This appears to have happened earlier this week. So check back in a couple weeks, after he's had time to file a complaint and IAD has had time to investigate.
I think there's a tendancy around here to jerk the knee too fast on stories and cry abot abuses and nobody doing anything when there hasn't been time to do something. Yes IAD should investigate this, but you've got to give them time to do so. 3 business days is not enough time.
A fellow I used to work with (he's since moved to other employment), was getting ready to move down here from Chicago, so being touristy, he took pictures of lots of things. He noticed a caravan of black SUVs. He made the mistake of taking pictures of them, as well as when taking pictures of a building, apparently, the security camera was in the picture. One of the SUVs promptly drove up onto the curb where he was. He was detained and questioned several times over the span of a few hours..
: zweck.unixhosts.us/terrorist/+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk &cd=1&client=firefox-a (Please use this googlecache link to NOT take down his site :) )
The whole story is here: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QXT0jj75xr4J
Actually it is a big deal because you can't be arrested in your own home without an arrest warrant. Cops can attempt to use deceit to get you to leave your home, but they can't physically drag you off your property. So the arrest, on it's face, was a violation of his rights.
The Founding Fathers beleived that a standing military was a bad idea, that it was a sore tempation for governments to get involved in military adventures and that it made for a military that felt set apart from ordinary citizens. They intended instead for an effective citizen militia, capable of defending the nation. Given the history of American military intervention and the development of the "military-industrial" complex, it seems that their fears about a standing military were well founded.
This presents a bit of a contradiction in Thomas Jefferson. He was one of those those who were against a standing army yet he was the first US president that sent the military on an international adventure. He sent the military to fight pirates along the Barbary Coast of Africa in the Mediterranean:
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
The pirates were demanding tributes or ransoms be paid to them by ships in the Med and at first the US was paying a tribute however Jefferson was dead set against paying anything so he sent the navy to deal with the pirates. About a hundred years later Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing, he sent the marines in navy ships to Morocco when pirates again demanded tributes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Nikon has cameras with Wifi, both point & shoots and Professional dSLRs. You could stash a laptop with cellphone modem & wifi in a nearby location and automajically upload to the world.
Durring the NAZI occupation, Pastor Martin Niemöller said it best.... When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's perfectly legal for papparattzi to stalk and abuse any member of the public they want, because when you are in the public domain you have chosen to open yourself to surveillence. ... but when a public organization run on your tax dollars, operating in a public place has a picture taken, you go to jail.
You have NO REASON AT ALL to complain. You brought it on yourself.
- Americans chose to give up their constitutionally protected freedoms in the name of 'security' (as defined by your government). That choice happened when Americans allowed the Patriot Act to stand above the constitution.
- Americans didn't overthrow their government as is their constitutional responsibility when their government destroys their constitutionally protected rights.
You're just adjusting to the consequences of your actions. Deal with it.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Not really. Court is great if you're talking about constitutional or criminal law. Checks and balances abound there. But the laws that are created by the government beauracracies are a different beast altogether. Ever tried to appeal a parking fine? It's easier to appeal a murder conviction than a speeding ticket. Being drunk and disorderly is the kind of thing where you get arrested, spend the night in jail, possibly receive a severe beating and/or tasering, and no accountability will ever be enforced in any way. Unless you count the periodic city-wide riots that places like LA get as "accountability", and since very few cops are killed in those events, I don't count them at all. The point being, the police don't NEED evidence, because you already spent the night in jail, you already got strip-searched, and it's all over and done with before you ever get a chance to involve a lawyer.
Doesn't the US have that "Guardian Angel" group? In major Canadian cities, we keep hearing about how they're trying to establish a presence here, but it turns out that very people want them here since they're bascally little better than vigilantes that harass teenagers and assault the homeless.
but that's how many cops and procutors feel. They want enough laws on the books to bury the "bad guys" when they need to. We have to trust them to do the "right thing". Why do you think so many people are charged with multiples of minor offences when they so something stupid like rob a bank. The way the legal system works, the minor charges can all be tried together or seperately, if you try to get of on the bank robbing, they'll keep you in court for years on trivial charges one-at-a-time. That's where the real treasonous behavior really is nodays.
You can damage your cause with unruly protesters just as easily as you can help it with an orderly permitted march.
As many environmentalists and groups or organizations do, Earth First! being one of the more radical groups. While I agree with some of their aims I don't agree with thier tactics.
FalconShould there be a Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_King\
No tape, no proof. No proof, no accountability. No accontability, police get out of control.
Problem is, Americans have guns, and we know how to use them. If the cops don't want to keep business civil, we won't either. I'd like to see cops break up a bunch of guys who are legally open carrying firearms and copies of the law.
Then there are the cops who are undercover and are trying to bust up drug rings, and having pictures taken of them makes them uncomfertable since it makes it easier for the drug rings to target them.
He's trying to influence the moderation system by indirectly refering to it!
LOL!! Priceless.
Snitch.. ;-)
You just got troll'd!
i actually find it rather disgusting that you'd say something like "Who the fuck is he to do such a thing". we, as Americans, should be more focused on the safety of our President than an extra 20 minutes commuting to work in the morning!
Yes, I'll say it, "Who the fuck are you?" The president of the USA is a servant of the public that's who he is, the public who pays his salary. He's not King George, as much as he'd like to think he is.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You also can't legally arrest someone on bogus charges and make up fictional laws to back up your actions, but it seems they did that too. So it seems they screwed up on many fronts.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Yeah, but you must admit that that the Richelieu quote more than made up for it.
The NBC 10 Investigators asked the ACLU union how they viewed the incident.
Gotta love the "American Civil Liberties Union Union." I just have to find my PIN number so I can go to the bank's ATM machine for membership money.
As personal, body mounted covert cameras come down and down in price (you can buy a button camera for $20 on Ebay), and solid state recorders with 4 or more GB of memory come down to the $50 mark, you'll be able to film the police without them having a clue, unless they search every single person who happens to be anywhere near them. (Clue: don't put the button camera on your front, put it on your back... Then they'll never suspect you in a million years). The widespread availability of very small, virtually disposable cameras like this, will change a lot of things: people who abuse others - the old, children, animals, etc. are going to get caught. People who threaten you in the street will be arrested based on the evidence you have provided to the police from your body cam. People who drive up your ass on the freeway, etc. will be filmed from numerous cameras built into your car.
If your neighbour's an alcholic who threatens you all the time, you'll be able to get something done about it as soon as you show the video to the police. In short, nasty, criminal types will have to change their behaviour for the better, as they won't be able to swagger about the place acting as if they own it any more, threatening everybody they see.
As far as I can tell from the article, there never were formal charges filed - just threats, and the "crime" he was being charged with changed every time he was asked, especially the charge under the non-existent "new law" about photographing police with cell phones. That didn't mean they didn't have to write something on the forms when they stuck him in the can, but they didn't formally file charges or arraign him, probably didn't even schedule an arraignment. Basically, the cops lied a lot. The "You're lucky there wasn't a supervisor on duty, so we could just let you go" was also a partial lie - if there'd been a supervisor on duty, the cop would have had to do more formal charges and paperwork for the supervisor, or else the supervisor would have thrown out the arrest right away. My experience with police lying is that they do back each other up, and in most cases a supervisor would have let the arrest continue, so the guy really was lucky, but he might have gotten a good supervisor who didn't want to put up with it (or didn't want to do the extra paperwork), which would have been better.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
i usually video tape car accident scenes and then go and sell them to the local news stations (well i used to untill i recorded a accident and it ended up being one of my friends mom that was ejected from a car and died on impact... then again the driver of her car was drunk and she was too but still when my friend found out i recorded it and sold it for a profit we didnt say close friends for long but neways back to what i was going to say) every time me or one of my friends would roll up to the scene of an accident we would have out police scanners and then recorde that to track 2 on the DV tape and then record the accident scene. most the time we would get "media is here go to cellular" and they would switch to cell phones to talk to disbatch or eachother. only one time did we get told we were not allowed to be there and we had to leave and that was when there was too many people around and it was a shooting (what eventually the REAL media showed up in their news vans and they were allowed to stay) but never have any of us been arested for this.
(yes i know i suck at spelling fell free to correct my grammar and/or spellin i dont care, im still not going to change
Absolutely no where does the Constitution say anything about protecting the comfort and safety of the American people, as originally written its only purpose was to protect the FREEDOM of the American people. All of our public servants take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, but as long as the American people keep electing politicians who place the importance of better economy, increased social safety net, and absolute safety from ever coming to harm through crime or mischance; over the importance of FREEDOM; you will see this steady increase in the police/nanny state events, and eventually, sooner than you think, that which is not required will be forbidden, and the Constitution will be dead.
And for those of you who think this is a result of the recent Republican control of the government, bear in mind that these things take generations to happen, and the Democrats are just as liable if not more so for the growth in governmental interventionism.
There are members of both parties that regret this direction we have taken, please pay attention to who you vote for, participate in your party's candidate selection process, and remember when you vote for a candidate or new laws, not to be concerned about your own situation, but the situation of our society. Study history, in our current situation, I particularly recommend the history of Republic of Rome and the Republic of Venice. NEVER take a position on any topic after only listening to a sound bite, or seeing a 10 minute news story on it, study it in detail and context, and think about the ramifications/unintended consequences of your new legislation. When you want to talk about a point of view or an opinion, pick someone you disagree with, not someone you agree with, to talk to. By the way not all opinions are valid, and facts rule.
One other item to bear in mind, our justice system was founded and structured around the concept that it is better that a 100 guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent be imprisoned. And the purpose of our courts was to find the truth of a situation. Recently we have seen that our justice system is willing to imprison 1000's of innocents in a vain attempt to prevent all crime, and our courts have become a tool to reapportion wealth, by both unscrupulous poor "victims" of society and big business eager for competitive advantage.
Take responsibility for your own health, your own safety, your own education, your own charity ( help your neighbors in need, don't ask the government to do it for you ), make the government responsible for your Freedom.
Some of this may seem off topic but it is all symptomatic of the abandonment of the responsibility of the American people to manage their government.
The Great Experiment is failing, and WE are to blame.
my old sig is obsolete, and I haven't come up with a stupid enough new one yet
I have had to mention the case to one or two employers, and to the DoD security clearance investigators the next time I got my security clearance renewed. It wasn't a problem, but I'd been at my job for 10 years and most of the jobs I've had since were with other branches of my company; for a young guy just starting out it'd be a much more serious problem, or if I were in some non-high-tech business where they care about that sort of thing. Explaining that they dropped the charges helps, but if any charges actually were filed, which they probably weren't, the guy needs to get them expunged.
I'm really surprised that the cops bothered arresting him, especially post-Rodney-King. The more common procedure at events like demonstrations is to beat up the photographer and break the cameras and not bother with paperwork, but perhaps the cops didn't like how their main event had just gone, or else this cop showed up on the scene as backup and didn't get to have any fun with the main event.
First off, that's got no bearing on whether the quote itself is valid. You should judge it on its own merit, not the author's. Personally, I think the quote is incredibly apt.
Second, you're entirely wrong. Rand was actually quite vehemently anti-anarchist. In essence, she believed that the "American system of government", as originally concieved, was the perfect system under which people could live in enlightened self-interest, and that "libertarians" were just hooligans who wanted to disregard the rights of their neighbors. There are some logical flaws here, but it's still what she said, and it's still the word of the "official" Objectivists. So you should probably avoid putting words in anyone's mouth, even if it does get people on the internet to call you "insightful".
You will be amazed, stunned, and then shocked at what is going on in America with regard to police corruption.
http://www.mustbme.com/
You may not belive that his is even your county anymore.
It may not be.
Somehow I never considered ignoring a problem to be a viable solution.
The only way to demonstrate to these terrorists that what they do is illegal and barbaric is to simply have them shot out of hand. The modern government is the worst terrorist and tyrant possible, and we all let it just happen. It's really time to demonstrate the intent of the 2nd ammendment and simple remove those in office by removing their heads.
And what about TJ doesn't present a bit of a contradiction? A slave owner - indeed a slave-raper - who beleived that "all men are created equal", for crying out loud.
Yes, slavery was another contradiction in TJ, though he owned slaves he didn't believe in slavery. When he wrote the Declaration of Independence he wanted to include the right of all men to be free but because others had to approve the DOI this was stricken from the DOI.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm sorry, you won't be able to do so. You see we've already informed them that we have reason to believe your comment may be in violation of the Patriot Act.
Oh, it's fine when us little people are under surveillance, but God forbid the cops should feel it. I have no sympathy for the "police" who did/do this kind of crap.
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.
Everyone should own a gun.
"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. ... They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.
What if had used a Nikon or Canon camera that was not a camera phone? Would it have made a difference? The law specifically states cell phone cameras, according to the police.
qz
Actually it is a big deal because you can't be arrested in your own home without an arrest warrant.
I am pretty sure that is not true. Just like cops don't need a warrant to enter your house if they see something that makes them think there is emminent danger to someone or an illegal activity in progress.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Noone is innocent in the eyes of the law.
Why some people in the field make bad choices those in the office are much less willing to "ask" (nicely or not so) for the video after the fact. Remember, get the video and distribute it as fast as you possibly can.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
(On a side note, one of my grandons-in-law who is a cop in a major city has a refrigerator magnet that reads: "Hi, I am police officer and I can kick your ass and get by with it.")
I just got back from an aikido seminar. I would *love* to see some cocky young police officer try to do that to a nice 70-year-old man who just spent the day introducing me to the floor.
Offshore accounts do not make failure to report income legal in the US. Ever. If you are in this country and you earn income--whether that income is salary from your job or revenue from prostitution or sale of cocaine, it doesn't matter--you must report it to the IRS to be taxed. Period. I suspect we are not the only country to operate this way.
Offshore bank accounts make tax evasion more difficult to track... but not by any means impossible. They don't make your tax payments optional. The only thing that gets you out of reporting your income is if you don't have any (or so little as to not make a difference; I admit I don't know the cutoff number). Even if you spent every last dime on tax-deductible expenses--which would be difficult unless you're living on savings and donating your income to charity or something--you'd still have to report the income, you'd just get out of paying taxes on it.
So no, taxes *cannot* be legally sidestepped. Sorry, try again.
People tend to agree with me after I bring up amendment #2.
That might have to do with my "hands-on" demonstration though.
Does it makes movements like Blackwatch, who, IIRC, film police arrests and such, illegal?
You just got troll'd!
...is that the worse the US gets in terms of being a police state with concentrated power, the more they'll meddle in international affairs, because they'll have a freer hand in that regard. The best thing they could have done is ignore the US, because in the end if this scenario continues you're going to end up with solutions right out of that Dead Zone movie with Christopher Walken.
"Sir, we have a diplomatic solution!" "The missiles are already flying. God bless America."
This is nothing new. I am in Australia and a few months ago I was in Sydney. I was walking down New Town Rd with a friend and saw a two cops force a guy to take off his trousers while another went through the blokes trousers. A few months previous I had seen cops make another bloke in Melbourne move on, because he was sitting on the sidewalk rather then on a chair. So back to Sydney I thought that the cops were just harassing the bloke 'cause they were scum. I pull out my trusty camera snap a few shots, and get a film going. I was at least three metres away. One of them tells me to move on and so I pass them and four or five metres away I keep taking the film. Before I know it one of them is chasing me and pushes me against a wall. He asks me why I was taking photos (which I deny) and tells me to go away or he'll arrest me. So I leave and a little latter goto the local cop shop and complain. Apparently I was interfering in what they were doing (even though I was no where near them), simply by taking photos. Scum. That is what cops are.
I wank in the shower.
I was at a protest once where I was arrested for "being annoying". We were on the footpath in a protest. I was arrested and later charged with the smallest crime, "fail/refuse to comply with police direction, to wit move on". A charge which does not apply in the event of a protest. I subsequently had three more charges laid (including "hinder police" and I was offered the chance to have three of them dropped if I pleaded guilty to a minor traffic offence. I had to fly back to the city twice for court dates. The second time I was rung up by the lawyer after I had arrived (the day before the court date) and was told the charges had been dropped. Apart from time and stress that incident cost me over $500 dollars in plane tickets. None of which I can get back. The cops can and will charge you with anything they want, impose strict bail conditions, and you cannot do anything at all.
I wank in the shower.
May I suggest some ways that _might_ improve things.
I have felt for many years that government / Civil Service jobs should be filled with people over 45. In fact, I would suggest 50 might be a good entry level age.
The issue is not discrimination against those who are young. The issue is that we have many people over the age of 50 who end up unemployed for many reasons - including age discrimination. By age 50, these people have typically raised a family. People learn a great deal by being a parent. Also - I do recall a documentary which aired years ago about 55 yo laid off executives and how the stats are that most will never hold a meaningfull job again.
My consern is not about old executives (and I am one) holding a job. My consern is that people who are over 50 have learned many un-measurable things over the years. They have often much better judgement than the under 30 crowd (under 40? anyone? Never trust a person under 40?).
In addition - we know that the civil service is full of people who have retired by the age of 30. Then - what of the politics and skeletons in the closet?
Someone at age 50 who comes into the civil service has only 15 years to be a bastard. If someone comes in at age 25 then they can inflict their ideas for the next 40 years. So old age both selects more experiance while at the same time old age limits the damage people can inflict.
It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So what of our police forces?
Suppose we allowed an officer only say 10 years in the force... then off to some other occupation.
My feeling is that most bad cops don't start out bad. They learn on the job.
There is simply too much power trusted to the wrong group of people. We all know the personality types attracted to law enforcement.
When you have people who like to push people around and be in their face taking on a job which encourages this activity... then mix it with often low pay - at least lower pay than most people with more ability are willing to accept - this equals a receipe for disaster.
Since we generally agree we need to give our police forces the power they have so that they can fight crime - perhaps we need to limit the individuals in a temporal fashion.
A career path that for instance might include 5 years on the police force followed by say 5 years as a fire fighter followed by say some other public service occupation might be viewed as positive to those people who wish to follow such a career.
At the same time - if a bad apple is limited in the time period where he / she can inflict their harm then everyone benefits.
The USA presidency is limited to 2 terms. Here in Canada we have had pollies inflict their spew for decades.
Tennyson wrote:
"The old order changes, yeilding place to new
And God fullfills himself in many ways
Lest one good custom should corrupt the earth"
Maybe we need to apply what Tennyson wrote to our hired civil servants and our police.
Ok, so Mr. Cruz here is probably going to have a big chunk of his tuition covered once he gets through with the lawsuits against the police officer(s) who arrested him - provided he was just taking pictures, and not video w/ sound.
The guy (Gannon?) from NH however, is going to have a problem. The problem isn't the VIDEO - in fact, you can video ANYONE visible outside, pretty much at any time. Truth is, if you can get a clean shot thru somebody's window, you can probably get away with it. AUDIO on the other hand, is a different ballgame entirely.
The guy in NH was recording both VIDEO & AUDIO on his cameras. Now, the way the federal, and most state wiretapping laws work, if you're audio-recording a conversation, SOMEBODY INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION HAS TO KNOW ABOUT IT. So, if you're recording a conversation you have w/ someone, you're OK (you know about it, and you're involved). BUT, if you're recording people who DON'T know, that's illegal - so if ANYONE walking by the NH guy's cameras was recorded, and wasn't talking to him, or his wife, or somebody who actually knew they were being recorded, he's going to jail.
You would love to see a 70 year old man get pepper sprayed and beaten with a baton?
Dude, that's kind of sadistic...
You posted a report, and cite it again above, about a Mr. Gannon arrested in New Hampshire for recording police abuse without their permission, being apparently unaware of the law against it at the time--which is, of course, no excuse. But first the Nashua Telegraph in its article http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic le?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121 and then /. also committed felonies under that same statute by publishing and republishing that article. Specifically, 570-A:2, 1(c) states that a person is guilty of a class B felony who:
0 -A/570-A-2.htm Such is our national descent into a police state. I hope you have better resources to deal with the fallout than the unfortunate Mr. Gannon.
"(c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a telecommunication or oral communication in violation of this paragraph" --See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LVIII/57
Actually this is not the entire truth.
I was holidaying with a group of friends in the Hunter Valley area (in NSW). On our way back to Sydney, we saw a couple of cops packing their speed camera gear (or maybe their breathalisers?) Anyway, one of the cars in our convoy had to stop for some reason, so while I was talking to one of the guys in our group, I dared them to approach the cops and see if I can get them to pretend to arrest one of our guys so I can take a funny photo of the "incident". I thought there would be no harm in this. The cops could say no, or they could play along.
Well, no one in the group dared to do that except one guy. He got out of his car, put his hands on the side of the car and spread his legs (as in a body search position). When one the cops saw this, he came over smiling, took his baton out of the holster, and posed for me (pretending to be hitting my friend). I'm thning to myself, this is much better that what I originally had in mind.
Needless to say, that was a great shot. We ended up spending about 15 minutes chatting to these cops and talking about where we came from, where they came from, and general chit chat. Everyone was very relaxed. They didn't seem to mind me taking the photos. I took heaps.
Anyway, after I got home, I had in mind printing the photos and sending them to these cops at their station. Then I realised I am dealing with dangerous stuff: The photos are quite incriminating (if one can manage to get rid of the laughing and smiling group in the background). I was actually too scared to do that so I don't get them in trouble. I've still got the photos, and one of them actually shows the nametag of one of the policemen. Now I don't even want to use them where I originally intended (on a slideshow for our youth group).
You may wish to look into a little idea from ancient Greece called Ethos.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
I've shot photos of cops several times and had them complain. Sometimes they'll be jerks and demand my cooperation simply because I have to do what they say or they will arrest me for 'disobeying a police officer.' In Cruz's case, there is some stupid law prohibiting people from photographing police officers. As the ACLU rep says in the article, the 4th ammendment protects our ability to photograph police officers on public property (i.e. the street).
In NYC, I shot a photo of under-cover police arresting two guys. They told me to stop taking pictures, but their hands were full with the suspects, so they couldn't come after me. here is the photograph.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Ad hominem attacks are a logical fallacy, and you shouldn't be modding them up!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think this kind of stupidity needs to be protested. If you don't actually live (or want to live) in a police state where the cops have the right to arrest someone for taking a bloody picture in a public place, show it! Exercise your rights, or you'll lose them.
I suggest that for the next couple of weeks everyone gets a new hobby: taking pictures of public officers doing their work in public places. When you see a cop, shoot him -- with your camera. The same goes for firemen, paramedics, and other public servants. Just don't prevent them from doing their job, that's not nice.
What you have said doesn't disagree with what I've said. If there is a conflict of rights, then one's right is subsumed to another's. That still means a right is limited by law.
So yes, no matter how you turn the equation around, law is subtractive in all situations. If your right takes precedent over mine, then my right has been lessened while yours remains intact. Your right isn't "additive", because you had it in the first place.
1. you go to court, it costs $$$$, and you loose pay from not going to work
2. the cop goes to court and still gets paid, along with his generous pension plan, on the border line of racketeering.
You win, you still loose. The cop still wins, he gets paid, no punishment, they should be criminally punished, not do desk duty.
You loose, you loose big time.
The revolution will come, there always are revolutions, but pitty so many casulties happen too.
They should pay cops $60k/yr and require a 3yr degree.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/34
besides ignoring black votes, and hijacking the dumb christian heart lands, they totally faked the election result.
CHANEY admitted it pure and simple to the OIL BARRANS, ie ceos etc.. in russia.
http://www.gregpalast.com/madhouse/index.php/34
In Ohio, there were 153,237 ballots simply thrown away, more than the Bush "victory" margin. In New Mexico the uncounted vote was fives times the Bush alleged victory margin of 5,988. In Iowa, Bush's triumph of 13,498 was overwhelmed by 36,811 votes rejected. In all, over three million votes were cast but never counted in the 2004 presidential election. The official number is bad enough-1,855,827 ballots cast not counted, reported to the federal government's Election's Assistance Commission. But the feds are missing data from several cities and entire states too embarrassed to report the votes they failed to count. Correcting for the under-reporting of the undercount, the number of ballots cast but never counted goes to 3,600,380. And there are certainly more we couldn't locate to tote up.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Funny, I didnt hear a big K-CHANK sound every hour when a US spy satelite or digital globe sat takes photos of earth from space.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
If you took the criminal case to court and won, you would be all but guarenteed to win your civil case, in which you can sue the department and/or arresting officer for damages for all of the above items.
"Hey guyz culd sum 1 pleeze tell me whut mi rights argh as a photograffer? Perhapes an artikle on tha intranets?"
Really, I saw like 5 links to the same article and everyone of them (save the first) were to the effect of "Hey, check this article on Photographer's Rights! It's informative" And those were just the ones above my threshold (4?)
So yes, no matter how you turn the equation around, law is subtractive in all situations. If your right takes precedent over mine, then my right has been lessened while yours remains intact. Your right isn't "additive", because you had it in the first place.
The problem is that no right exists until people are told they can't take it away from you. Just because you're doing something and no one is currently stopping you doesn't mean that it's a right.
Property rights don't exist until people are told that only you have the right to use something. The right to free speech doesn't exist until people are told they can't punish you for what you say -- a point I tried to illustrate with the dichotomy between speech rights as preserved by the government and as not preserved by private organizations. The right to bear arms only exists so long as they can't be taken from you.
In essence, the equation often balances (more or less). It is incorrect to only look at the negative side and to label all laws as taking rights away when, without laws, the only right that exists is that of might.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I think the whole idea that you can build a structure, place it in public, and then prohibit other people from taking photographs of it from either public or their own property is ludicrous. The "copyright" of an architectural design ought to only apply to reproductions within that same medium -- i.e., physical structures -- and even then I'm not wholly convinced of the logic of having it under protection. If I take a photo of a building, even if I then reproduce that photo all over the place, I fail to see how it devalues the actual structure.
It's yet another example where our governments (collectively -- not even finger-pointing at any particular government this time) have woefully undervalued the rights of the public in favor of the interests of "rights holders."
My personal feeling is that Copyright should be approached in a minimalist way: it's not a right, it's a grant, given only where necessary in order to encourage the development of the arts where they wouldn't be developed otherwise, and where the net gain to society as a result of granting the monopoly exceeds that gained by allowing free reproduction. Given that we have thousands of years of historical evidence showing that architecture has progressed just fine without copyright protection, I think it's ridiculous that we've decided to "protect" it just now.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
A lot of Libertarians consider her work to be part of their core philosophies. Just because a person is an author doesn't mean that the ideas they present are without merit. Personally, I feel there are a lot of things in her books that are valid both when they were published and today. At the same time I take a lot of her stuff with a LARGE grain of salt.
I'm looking at a form right now that asks have you ever been "charged or convicted" for a number of different offense categories. However there's two other categories of interest. A section called "Pending Charges" asks "are there currently any charges pending against you for any offense?" The final section dealing with these matters is called "Other Offenses" and asks "have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s)" not listed in the above sections?
I went to high school with a couple of people that went on to become police officers...lets just say they werent brightest bunch
I agree. The most effective camera in situations like this would automatically send every photo, video, and voice note to the web site or e-mail address of your choice as soon as you hit the shutter button.
This is exactly the sort of thing that mobile phones should be able to do, since they already contain the necessary hardware. Nevertheless, a laptop could be programmed to scan a USB-connected camera and upload new files as soon as it can connect to a wireless network. In cities where ubiquitous wireless coverage is being planned, this would be a snap! (Pun intended.)
Consider joining the http://freestateproject.org/
Read all about Your Rights being destroyed every day at http://hammeroftruth.com/
Join the http://freestateproject.org/
Browse news blogs for the mere chance of posting about the FSP, the LP, or HoT.
Consider joining http://freestateproject.org/first1000
Search and watch everything related to America: From Freedom to Fascism on google
Consider buying lots of gold ETFs
Feel very scared, not smug, that you realize you are in a police state enacted because of an eminant economic crisis.
Post on /. about all the above hoping readers will point out which datums merely require a tin-foil hat to remedy, which to point and laugh at, and which to really worry about.
I'd like to see him just curl up in a ball and roll away (think sonic the hedgehog), or levitate. Either way would be cool.
Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
Firearm prohibitions do the same. They create an "elite" citizenry (cops, politicians, wealthy) that has rights the rest of us do not - and that's a very, very dangerous attitude.
Constitutionally Correct
I was about to say, hey, wouldn't Freedom of Press cover taking photos in public or even my own private property? Then I said, oh wait, we're in the New Amerika.
Good thing many private citizens still own automatic weapons. It may soon be time to exercise the right to bear arms, wipe the governmental slate clean, and start over again. Next time, we should drill the constitution into the heads of law enforcement and politicians until they get that when they violate those, the citizens will get seriously pissed off.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
All -
Several years ago in an excellent book The Transparent Society:How Technology Will Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom, David Brin argued convincingly, that "privacy is gone, get over it!", and that in trying to hang onto it, we put our freedom at risk. For we would put ourselves in the position that those in authority/power would be able to hide their actions and those of us who aren't would be on the short end of the stick.
In the society envisioned by Brin, this street would have been covered by cameras, the homeowners would be able to dump their feeds into the grid for observation by others, and all of the officers and their vehicles would have cameras. And all of us would be free to examine the feed in real-time or pull materials out of the archive. In fact, the "surveillance" Brin envisions would provide the kind of check that articles such as this do.
I will be honest, I would be more than willing to live in Brin's world - with the checks it would give us on those in authority - and the privacy zones it would grant us (need to read the book to get the full details).
Cast of "COPS," a show where they blatantly break the law by filming COPS.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096563/fullcredits
Malcolm Barbour/executive producer
Hank Barr/producer
Bryan Jerel Collins/coordinating producer
Murray Jordan/associate producer
Steve Kiger/associate producer
Jimmy Langley/co-producer
John Langley/creative executive producer
Maria Remiro-Jordan/supervising producer
Paul Stojanovich/producer
Mark Bozman/camera operator
Si Davis/camera operator
Richie Forman/camera operator
Chip Goebert/camera operator
Bob Good/camera operator
Jeremy Gray/assistant editor
Christian Heaton/production coordinator
Tom Koester/camera operator
John LeCount/camera operator
Loy Norrix/camera operator
Ron Norton/camera operator
Mike Pierce/camera operator
Zack Ragsdale/camera operator
Mark Rast/camera operator
Charles Ruiz de Castilla/camera operator
Matt Sohn/camera operator
Porter Versfelt III/camera operator
Paula S. Warner/production coordinator
Mark Whaley/camera operator
Andrew Thomas/co-producer
Bert Van Munster/field producer
Jack Walworth/associate producer
Douglas Waterman/supervising producer
String 'em up!
So the family is requesting a complete investigation, filing a complaint..
they need a damn lawyer!
They were lied to and manipulated ("we let you go because we're such good people") - this is a crime.
Any cop who makes up laws to arrest innocent bystanders deserves what he gets when he goes to prison.
Check it out.
The most outrageous journalist in an o-so-familiar city filled with surveilence and counter-surveilence.
Why do you accept such insanity even if you grant a legitimate benefit for
them not to be recognized ?
I hate to tell you this, but as far as PD/DWI is concerned, this is quite common. I served on the Grand Jury in Tennessee some number of years ago and we had a case where an officer arrested an individual for DWI. In our case, the officer was off duty and the citizen arrested was moving a car in his driveway and was partially blocking a road in the process. There was no tests given of any kind. I forget the exact particulars (the number of years is > 10) but the point was, in the absence of contrary evidence, the opinion of the officer stands -- if he thinks you're drunk, you are. The assistant DA told us that his advice to anyone in that position was to demand a blood test once you arrived at the station (unless, of course, you are drunk and/or have other substances in your bloodstream).
Remember though, this was Grand Jury testimony. For those unfamiliar with the way the system works, we hear ONLY the prosecution's side since we're not supposed to determine guilt or innocence, just whether or not it's worth the state's time to take it to trial. If we decide it's not, it never goes to trial at all. In this particular case, we returned a bill (so he went to trial) but I have no idea whether he was convicted or not. From what we heard though, the fellow probably deserved to be.
Fortunately, in my area the officers are, by and large, quite honest. One of the advantages of a small town, I suppose.
Sorry, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post, and I usually enjoy your thoughts.
You don't care about the livelihoods of those compatriots that grow your food? Why should they care about you? About your precious drive-to-work times?
Where else are you going to get your food? America?
Fucking brilliant. Encourage "free-trading" countries that subsidize their industries enormously. Yeah. That'll teach those un-subsidized Canadian farmers to be thankful for their pittance, won't it?
I'd hope you'd re-think your position after you get over driving 3 times as long to work. Otherwise, go to america and eat all the (GM, desert-grown, unsustainable) produce you can stuff in yer gullet.
RB
They were originally in the area to apprehend someone for dealing drugs correct ?
I suspect that the Polices' argument for the photos having been taken being Impeding Justice will have somthing to do with the original drug dealing suspect being able to "get off the hook" because the photo taken could show evidence of Wrongfull arrest.
If that were the case, the Police could not have had enough evidence to apprehend the original suspect to begin with.
Whoever put that "new law" about photographing officers into effect, should be reviewed & possibly relieved from serving the public.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Don't the cops have better things to spend their time on than arresting citizen photographers? There are muggers and robbers and rapers out there. Go dig around for them, not photographers.
Table-ized A.I.
- My story (this will probably fry my under powered server)
- My cousin was recently pulled over, asked to get out of his car, was choked by the officer, then the cop left without arresting or ticketing him. Cuzz did not get a badge number. This was near Sacramento.
Are there good cops? Yes. I've met some of them. The problem is that there are also bad ones. 'course, I've met my share of bad programmers, too. That doesn't mean that we don't need programmers. We just need a good way of filtering the wheat from the chafe - or more precisely, getting people to do the jobs they're best at and that are fulfilling to them.If there's one thing I've realized, people abuse the power they have when they feel helpless in some other part of their lives. Further, and maybe this is cheesy-hippie, but the best police officers out there are going to be the happy, well balanced ones. People who are happy see no need to rain on other peoples' parades. Let's find a way to make our police force happy, then we'll have fewer problems. This doesn't mean giving in to their hate, it means bringing them back from the dark side of the force, young Skywalker, also known as Win-Win!
Yes Yes YES!!
Kicking, punching or even laying a finger on a cop can be considered assaulting a police officer; which is a felony in every state I'm aware of. NEVER physically resist the police, no matter how innocent you are of the original crime. Doing so could land you years in the slammer.
The solution to the police is to shoot them in the head.
Andy Out!
Well one thing is you have bad and good cops. Second thing is training. Every state/district has its own training requirement for the police academy. Some 21 weeks other as little as 7 weeks. To be a police officer takes a lot of training. In other countries their police officers can go more than a year for the training-which I think is needed. You cannot memorize and understand all the laws you enforce in such a short period of time. Also you cannot be expected to totally perform your job after a few months of training-with that you get a bad supervisor and it all goes down hill. Lastly there should be a tougher policy on who becomes an office-and the ones who become police officer should also get paid a lot more.
This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
On the assumption this comment (clicked on the Popup menu "Reply") is for Slashdot's New Discussion Systemto comments, the popup is troublesome in that it covers the left side navigation, and you cannot drag it out of the way (at least not in Firefox).
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
I live in a good part of the bad part of Minneapolis (or Murderapolis if you prefeer). Specifically, I live in the Camden neighborhood of North Minneapolis. In our neighborhood there is very little crime and we rarely even see a cop patrolling our neighborhood. Unfortunately, much of the north side is not like this. The cops are overworked and seem to come under scrutiny for everything that they do. To me, this seems to come with the territory - they have a job where everyone gets to second guess their decisions and behavior. Still I have seen a number of things that leave a bad taste in my mouth.
One night a police officer stopped a neighbor. The lights and comotion woke us and we went outside to see what was happening. He had her at the back of the car and was not speaking to her like a decent human being addresses another human being. As the crowd gathered he told us to go back inside, that this was none of our business and that we would be arrested if we interfered. Someone told him we were witnessing and not interfering and that we were concerned for her children (who were terrified seeing their mom up against the squad car being bitched at by the cop). Several of us (including myself) murmmered agreement and he and his partner looked at each other and said that this looks like some sort of neighborhood intervention and maybe they should call backup. Again, he told us we would be arrested for interfering. By now there were probably twenty of us on the street (at 1AM). One officer got in the car and used the radio (after closing the door) while the other held our neighbor against the car whith her hands behind her back. One of his hands held her fingers together and lifted them a bit and the other was on her back pinning her against the car. All this time she had been nothing but cooperative but he was hurting her and she started yelling "ouch" and was crying. Someone in the crowd yelled "Is that really necessary, she isn't resisting!" and someone else yelled "you have plenty of witnesses against you!" The partner came out of the car and had his hand on his mace. The cops let the nighbor go and got in their car and left. The neighbor did not get a ticket, a warning, or an explaination as to why she was stopped. She was not drunk and was bringing her kids home from a babysitter, she was getting back from a date. Nothing sinister there at all. I think our little crowd prevented something bad from happening that night but I am not sure what.
A few years ago two cops walked uninvited and unannounced into our home. I was in the kitchen, my wife was in the living room, and my son in the basement. When two strangers walked in the house without so much as knocking or ringing the doorbell (the door was open, the screendoor was closed) the dog went nuts and started barking and growling. The cops pulled their guns and pointed them at the dog and threatend to shoot. The dog was going to attack but I was able to get him by the collar. With his gun still drawn he pointed the gun directly at my wife who had stepped between the dog and the cops. He yelled something like "Goddamn it when you call the police, put the dog in another room!" We told them nobody called the police and they refused to believe it. We asked them to leave and they insisted that they had to conduct an investigation because someone from this address called the police. They checked the entire house and talked to all of us and we all said nobody called the police. They never appoligized or acted as if they could have made a mistake (quite the opposite in fact). When they left, we called the precinct and asked that a supervisor call us. When she arrived she explained that they had the right address on the wrong block. A block away, a woman was being beaten by a man. Her call for help took an extra fifteen or twenty minutes because the cops sent to her address came to ours by mistake. As a result, she got to go in an ambulace to the hospital. They wanted to come back an appoligize, we did not want them to and they
well, either its me or the police here in Arizona are the picture of polite.
they don't mind the picture taking. in fact, I think they welcome it considering
that all those extra "witnesses" might see something the cops missed.
now if we could just get some cams rolling on the serial shooter/rapist
pair making their mark here in Phoenix....
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
Having read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I'm one of the persons who believes this.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Most likely, it'll be part of a laundry list of Bush Administration failures in a chapter called "How did Americans manage to do this to themselves?"
Tech Public Policy stuff
If we didn't need oil out of there, would it matter to us if they built a Caliphate? Really? Personally, I can't think of anything worse we could do to the terrorists than letting themselves be put in a position where they have to fix what's wrong with the Middle East in a group of countries whose portable assets will leave with the oil monarchs who own them, leaving their ex-nations stripped of anything they can buy food / technological products with.
As for Israel, if the Arabs are no longer selling us oil, who's the only place with Western technology on earth that will have the slightest interest in providing aid to that part of the world? (on the basis that prosperous neighbors are better to have than the other kind... and when the oil monarchs follow their assets to the West, those nations are NOT going to be prosperous. I'm not all that concerned about the ability of a nuclear power to deal with its non-nuclear neighbors. Or its nuclear ones, for that matter, all attacking a nuclear power gets you is a chance to glow in the dark. I don't really think Iran's leadership, even the theocrats, think Iran's appearance would be improved by mushroom clouds where its cities used to be.
Tech Public Policy stuff