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.
If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
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 &
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.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
. . .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
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."
As a general rule of thumb, it's usually safe to assume that anyone can be deemed to be breaking some law or other at any given moment. That, of course, is in itself an appalling state of affairs - it is the antithesis of democracy governed by law, as it gives the authorities carte blanche to arrest and punish whomever they wish.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged".
- Cardinal Richelieu
'There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with'.
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
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.
I wish I could find the original quote, but it went along the lines of:
When the laws become so complex that people cannot understand them, the people are no longer free.
The trend is getting more disturbing these days. I grew up with the believe that police were there to protect and serve. I'm not quite sure who they are protecting now. The sad truth is that if police weren't harming the innocent, there wouldn't be so many loopholes that the guilty can use to get off the hook.
And something else to ponder, if a law against cell phone pictures of police were passed yesterday, would you know (assuming the media didn't pick up on it)? Are we really free when the people making the rules have no responsibility to inform the public of those new rules. Yes, I'm aware that they are made available for the public to view, but the lawmakers are well aware that the public doesn't have the time, nor the ability to comprehend, everything that is made into law. So we are left with a world where getting arrested is based on whether the police like you, and how much money you have to pay the lawyers. The same thing applies to paying your taxes.
What about for people who just think it's important? What about people who don't think it's an important part of communication, but important as it's a factor that creates an outward appearance of the person writing? Does it demonstrate a level of self pride in attaining a certain level of accuracy?
Do people not wash their face and adjust their hair in the morning (/afternoon) before leaving the house, not because it changes how functional they are, but because not checking the things that create an outward impression gives the impression of a lack of self pride? Respect for somebody can suffer purely based on how much they appear to respect themselves.
Yes we can argue that appearance based opinions are shallow, but we can also argue that it's something that reaches others consciousnesses, and IS used to create an idea of how much effort somebody will put into something.
And before anybody jumps up at this being an attack at dyslexia, dyslexia to various degrees is pretty common, I share it myself, I know it's not a matter of just not trying hard enough, but where the extra effort into "learning spelling" would get you nowhere, that effort into checking spelling most certainly would (I alt+tab to a google window to check spelling of individual words, or even just switch to a different word as I struggle with one).
I'm not saying that mine is great, I'm sure people will find (and point out) errors in my post (like the last section beginning with "and"). What I am doing is pointing out the rationale behind spelling errors influencing the impact of what you saying having on people.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
"Much as people might like to think otherwise, police forces don't coordinate much with each other."
It isn't so much a matter of "coordination" as infec tious concensus building. If cops in City A get by with something, cops in City B will (a) leanr about it and (b) adopt it. There is no conspiracy or collusion, just observation and mimickry.
Further, police (and I have 5 cops in my immediate and extended family, so know a bit about them) very much have a common "us against them" attitude. Incidents like this camera fiasco are manifestations of that.
(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.")
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
It's also worth pointing out that based on writings (letters, journals, etc.) leading up to and following authoring the Constitution, the "well regulated" clause was in reference to/meant "well-trained", not "run by the government" because the whole point of the second amendment was a final check and balance against tyranny within/from the government.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50