Slashdot Mirror
Citizen Photographers v. The Police?
"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him."
OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...
"A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw."
"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down...
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?
To tomstdenis's argument that, even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things," reader alienmole points out a crucial difference:
The difference is that police have powers which ordinary citizens don't have, so when police do bad things, it can have severe consequences. Quite often, they're not held accountable for that, which again results from an abuse of power. That's what this is all about: accountability for the actions of public servants, particularly those with extraordinary powers. Cops in general are not the enemy, but bad cops are certainly an enemy which needs to be guarded against and eradicated whenever possible.
Reader BINC wants to know whether Pennsylvania actually has a law which would illegalize Neftaly Cruz's cellphone photo of police in the act of arresting a suspect. He writes
Many readers linked to online information and commentary on the recognized rights of photographers (at least in the U.S.). Reader pen was one of several to point to Bert Krages' site:This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beyond 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 data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !!
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.
Reader hacker linked to an informative PDF and offers a useful summary:Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.
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.
PsychosisC contributed a link to a short video called " BUSTED - The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters," writing "I've only had two encounters with police officers... but both of them sort of leave me thinking less of them."
Rights on paper aside, many readers posted horror stories of arrest-happy police; leereyno pointed to one that made the news in the Mid-Atlantic region, writing
According to reader rs79, this sort of thing on wouldn't happen north of the border; rs79 writes "I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care." To this, RajivSLK says[T]here 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. ... A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing" ..... 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.
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.
[...]
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 U.S. 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.
It's not so rosy up here in Canada. This past Canada Day the Victoria police instituted a policy of mandatory searches on all buses heading downtown. They can get away with this because, on Canada Day, the bus is used mostly by young people going to clubs. I objected to being searched thinking that I would simply not be allowed back on the bus. Instead, to my complete surprise, the officer began to become very verbally abusive and I was arrested for "Drunk and Disorderly Conduct."
No breathalizer, no sobriety test, nothing. 100% solely based upon the officers "observation." I was processed and thrown into a dirty cement holding cell that lacked even toilet paper let alone a bed. As it stands, the Victoria police can arrest anyone at anytime under the charge of "Drunk and Disorderly" with no evidence and no sobriety test.
I can't wait for the day when *I* can video tape everything. That should provide a little balance to things.
ZorbaTHut suggests the sort of technological answer that RajivSLK's looking for, which might remind Neal Stephenson fans of the "gargoyles" in Snowcrash.
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?"
Many thanks to the readers (especially those quoted above) whose comments informed this discussion.
This was a local police department, they were in the wrong, they guy was released, and hopefully the citizen and/or others who are concerned will press this so that the officer(s) involved are subject to some sort of corrective action.
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.
It's an action of a local municipal police department, period. These inappropriate actions have been executed by people in positions of authority since the beginning of time. The point is we heard about it, it got covered, and hopefully it will be corrected. And hopefully the police department will issue a directive to think twice before they harass and/or arrest other citizens who aren't doing anything wrong from exercising their own rights.
If you are in a public setting and can be photographed, why can't you photograph a police officer in a public setting?
simple as that. the state can watch you, but you cannot watch it. Pretty amusing considering we all pay their way. Sort of like you buying CD and getting punched in the face at random by the cashier and there is NOTHING you can do about it. I never understand people that call for bigger government.
This is why you can't rely on the police, the courts, judges, anyone. They all work for the government, they are all agents of the state. Much like how the White House can get cases dismissed, judges are just another long reaching arm of our massive, bloated goverment.
even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things"
If the [P]olice do something wrong, they should be [P]unished just like the rest of us!
Does anybody else feel more helpless every day?
Yes, I do.
Helpless to stop the endless barrage of stories and claims that we're living in an Orwellian 1984 totalitarian police state, when in fact nothing substantial has really changed in 50 years (save the technology, which goes both ways: it gives authorities more systems to abuse, and it gives citizens more vehicles to document and comment, e.g., ubiquitous cell phone cameras and blogs where nearly everyone believes that we already like in a police state).
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
I've had a couple of incidents as well with police and now city run facilities where people want to restrict photography. It's getting really discouraging for folks that enjoy photography and all anyone has to do is invoke the spectre of "National Security".
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
You can get arrested for pretty near anything. Even on "trumped up" charges. Getting convicted is another matter. If the guy in Philly has a civil case, I expect he'll press it. If he wins, it's payday.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
that usually they don't or hardly get punished or even rewarded (they get 1-3 days paid leave) for doing such things. Another problem is that if you go after them (using an expensive lawyer) you can hardly sue for damages (spending a night in jail) because they have the right to put you in jail for a long time (48h or look @ Gitmo) without even charging you with anything. If the police wants to be anal they can hold you even longer (ongoing investigation without charging you) and I heard of people spending a week in jail without getting anything back (no damages rewarded, nearly lost their job, the neighbourhood viewing them as criminals) while they were not doing anything wrong (unless you say that a peaceful demonstration is illegal). The officers just got their kicks out of it. Then they wonder why they get shot (recently 2 officers in this area got shot) or dragged behind an ATV. I recently heard of someone in this area that got EXECUTED (as in shot after being in custody) according to witnesses after resisting an arrest warrant. 3 witnesses against a small police force don't stand up in court so what are we going to do about it. Yes this was the USA.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Why is it alarmism?
As technological advances ramp up faster and faster, and this endless amount of information begins to become available to most any people (especially government), why is it alarmism to be worried? I was not stating we live in Orwell's world, or anywhere close to it...
If anything has become apparent in the last twenty years, its that change happens VERY fast now. People become more complacent every day, the government and its actions become more shrouded and from what it appears, less responsible. With most peoples understanding of the government and the world around them dictated but what is seen in the media, opinions stop becoming personal and appear to becoming part of the mass (ie: media).
I completely understand your distaste at many peoples "alarmist" attitude, but it is a much better attitude to have then that of complaceny. As this article really shows, you must not stand down when things of this nature happen to you, be it from a police officer or a corrupt politician. And to get back to my original point, as information and access to it becomes nearly infinite and instantaneous, so will the ability to alter it and present viewpoints favorable to a specific outcome. Everything happens so fast now adays, people cannot afford the time to stop and just take a look around...
It is not Orwell yet, and may not be ever, but it is beginning to lean in that direction rather then away from it.
Did you guys read that? You should:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.ht
"It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, provided that the peace officer was acting under the peace officer's official authority."
What???
So, if the police are acting illegally by not having a warrant to search my house and asking to search it anyway, I'm obstructing and this law makes it legal?
Ohhh - but they were acting under official authority. That's so comforting.
Sheesh, it's just the "watch out for big brother" conspiracy groups.
Slashdot is just as susceptible to the same fearmongering that other media outlets are accused (and guilty) of.
This is a somewhat left wing, technology astute, but politically naive group. So a lot of the articles are about the bad political machine that they don't understand and how technology is the solution.
Similarly the politicians are scared of this bad technology machine they don't understand and they think politics/legislation is the solution.
Keep this in mind you'll keep your audience happy (they like to hear things they agree with) scare them a bit (to keep them interested).
So tell the NRA you want to take their guns, tell womens rights groups you want to ban abortions, tell gays they shouldn't have any rights, tell ethinic/religious group X they can't pray or be identified and obviously you'll get that group going.
Tell slashdotters the gov is listening and they're gonna take away your computer for reason X until it's obsolete and they'll get just as upset.
I honestly think some cops are bad, but most (like most people) just want to do a good job, make the world better or at least not any worse and go home to their happy and safe little home.
If you really were a sadistic bastard who just wanted to mess with the world, there are easier and more lucrative ways to do it than going into law enforcement.
In America, the Government is the People. All of us. You and me. We get to voice our opintion on things. If we do not like something, we change it by voting.
I fully empathize with people from Kraplickistan living under a dictatorship. If you live in America however, you have no excuses if you chose not to participate.
Say you don't like the good folks at the White House; who's stopping you from writing to your Senator, going door-to-door to get the vote out, starting up a collection for your favorite party. Starting up your own damn party, if you don't like any existing one.
Yes, I understand it is hard work, and it is much easier to sit at home instead of trying to change the system, but at least folks like you should have the courtesy not to stop being a whiney little bitch!
Apathetic jerks like yourself make me sick to my stomach!
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
I agree with the parent post, and yes, I agree with the criticism of this incendent. I don't think it's representative of police nationwide. After all, the media made it public knowledge based on the word of the victim; the ACLU may be getting involved (the family should sue -- they have a case); and there is already an investigation. So the good news here is that it's a big deal. When is it time to start worrying, and not just making a fuss about it, but taking real action against a police state? That time will come when incidents do not provoke the kind of outrage we have seen here. 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.
It was a drug bust. It's likely undercover cops were present to confirm/asssist arrest. Taking pictures of said drug busts could cost lives. Your 'precious rights to an afternoon sitting on the couch' stop the moment you put somebody's life in danger. Period.
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
The police? No most of them are good but it scares me a bit that the "us against them" mentality is so pervasive that even the good majority will back the bad apples in a "band of brothers" sort of way.
But government? It scares me that you can look at congress and honestly believe that they are NOT all only looking for ways to extend their power and line their pockets. The number of honorable congress-critters who are not in the pocket of a special interest or corporation can be counted on one hand.
Finkployd
Being arrested IS a penalty in itself.
When a foreigner enters the US they don't ask if you've been convicted of a crime, they ask if you've "ever been arrested".
Also an arrest in many areas means you get fingerprinted and put in the databases. Plus in more and more places you have to give a DNA sample.
I feel that your best defense in these situations is to call 911, if possible. No, it won't help you at that immediate point in time, but now there is a recording of the conversation you had with the law enforcement agent: Police, Sheriff, FBI, etc.
In this case, if the person called 911, there would be a recording where you could hear them being dragged off the porch and hear the gate being opened and closed. Proof that the person was not on public property as claimed. If someone is attempting a warrantless search, you can have it on record that you aren't giving them permission to enter the premesis, and have a recording of any threats that they make to you to force their way in.
Another benefit is the recording is now stored off-site. With a video camera, regular camera or phone if they take it, you lost your evidence. If you can get that data off-site, they can't take it from you without a lot more work. (Maybe the 911 tape disappears, but without the FBI or NSA, AT&T isn't going to delete the record of the phone call to 911.)
Now, I don't think that all cops are bad. In fact, I have nothing bad to say about any of my experiences with law enforcement. However, I am white and live in a low crime area - the last "major" arrest in my town was over 10 years ago. So my experience may be different than yours.
Perhaps the best advice I can give is to think about the best thing to do if you were ever in these situations. Everyone does it for RPG games, just think about real life in those same terms.
FBI wants to search my house?
My wife calls 911 and tells them armed men are trying to get past me to enter the house without my permission. Didn't lie. Just didn't mention that they are federal agents. I'm sure the Sheriff will show up pretty fast with a call like that. Now, I have an officer that will hopefully be on my side in the matter. If not, I have pissed them off, but am no worse off. I also have a record that I didn't give them permission to enter. Then my wife can start calling the neighbors to come over and call the TV station, and I have made a big enough scene to (hopefully) be protected. I don't know if that is the best thing I can do, but at least I have thought about it enough to have a plan. In this case? Immediately send the photo to everyone in your address book. They can get the phone, but not the data. (It may cost you $0.50 or something, but probably worth it.)
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
They are definitely not all corrupt. However, some are corrupt, and at least here in Canada their duty officers seem to support them to an unreasonable degree.
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
I actually believe this is some deranged form of hope. I think the realization that world is just really messed up is too much for many, and they cling to hope of simple explanation -i.e. "they are out to get me!" and other conspiracy theories - because this means there is a simple "bad guy" that is responsible and if only we can get rid of him all would be well. I mean its just an alternative religion. Same basic need to fill the void. In the past they rose up against devil and witches, now its the evil corporations and governments. Not to say that there are no conspiracies, but they are so much more complicated to pull off than people think - and as a rule, a simpler explanation is usually the correct one. Or to put it another way, don't attribute to maliciousness that which can be explained by stupidity.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.
Bullshit. You don't read sites like photo.net, where stories of police harassment and intimidation are the norm, not the exception, and many photographers have stopped trying to photograph anything they think they might get in the slightest trouble over.
Those are just the few examples that immediately come to mind.
Try this search on for size. Add on fun keywords like "harassment","arrested", "questioned", etc.
People are rotuinely roughened up, threatened with arrest or being "reported" to the FBI, arrested and detained then released before the charge-or-release 24 hours are up, lied to about their rights, what the law is, or what they are criminally liable for, had film/cards confiscated, their IDs demanded (would it scare you more if I called them "papers"?), and so on. These days just about anything gets you on various watch lists and that means even more fun.
We live in a country where you can be arrested for taking a picture of a bridge on vacation and get harassed trying to board a flight home because you were placed on a "watch" or "no fly" list. Wake up and smell the fucking coffee- we're fast headed the way of fascist and communist countries.
Please help metamoderate.
Being convicted for this would be completely asinine, but "just arrested" doesn't make much better.
Having cops intimidate and arrest people would be enough to scare most from doing whatever they were doing. Do you think people would be willing to get arrested every time they see the police doing something? I don't think so, most would just turn away and "forget" about ever seeing anything.
Despite what some might believe, this is not uncommon. It has to do with the way police are trained, and will remain an inherent flaw until something changes. I personally see it all the time. I live in Isla Vista, California, which is what I affectionately call the nicest ghetto in the world. It is only one to two square miles, with a population of about 20,000 people (not a typo). It is comprised almost entirely of students attending UCSB and Santa Barbara City College, as well as a large latino population. Here, we have the Isla Vista Foot Patrol, which many people don't exactly like. They constantly lie to students, illegally enter property, and illegal search people, usually in the name of writing an alcohol or marijuana possesion ticket. I was at a friends house when the IVFP entered the party for a "noise violation" and proceeded to bang on the door of the room we were in. The door was opened and the office claimed that he could smell marijuana. No one would admit they had any, and no one had been smoking atleast since I had entered the room. The cop proceeded to take people out of the room one by one. When he called me up, he stuck his hands in my pockets, and I immediately objected, claiming he had no probably cause or consent from me to enter my pockets. In my pockets, I had nothing illegal, though I did happen to have rolling papers, which I made quite clear were legal. This caused me to be taken into another room, and tested to see if I was drunk. As RajivSLK mentioned, this is what happens when you anger a police officer. Aslo, as he pointed out, there is no evidence(i.e. breathalyzer) required to cite you with drunk in public, or drunk and disorderly conduct. After determing I was not drunk, the other officer said he was "going to be nice and let me go this time" as if I had commited a crime. No marijuana citations were issued that night.
A month later, at another house, police arrived, again for a noise violation. One of the officers promptly recognized me and called me "the marijuana man", and proceeded to pat me down. He stayed over my clothes, keeping the search legal this time, however he kept yelling at me to spread my legs farther apart until you would have sworn I was an olympic gymnast. Furthermore, I was lucky. I can't even fit on one hand the number of friends I have had arrested for saying something to the police when someone else was being arrested. Things were so bad here at one point that the student government had to launch a campaign against the police, informing students of their rights and accepting police complaint reports that they would then file for you. Thankfully we also have free legal advice available to all students and are currently forming an official position called Office of the Student Advocate.
Anyways, here is the point:
Police officers operate this way on purpose. This is how they are trained! It is not really good cop bad cop thing as much as you would believe. The police's job is not really to uphold the law. That is the court's job. The police are there to investigate crime and catch "bad guys". If the 4th ammendment gets in their way, oh well, let the courts decide that. They are trained to lie, decieve, and push the boundaries, usually in search of a verbal confession. Most cops don't even know the law, they are just there to do what they were trained to due. Read Breaking Rank, by Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief, to learn about how the police system fosters violence, racism, and homophobia as a matter of practice. Finally, if you don't know how to deal with police and refuse a warrantless search, please please please watch Busted. There is a YouTube link already in the slashback. Finally, if you are afraid to talk to police officers in such a situation, keep something like the NORML Freedom Card in your wallet. Simply invoke your right to remain silent, and hand the card to the officer. Its simple yet very effective.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
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 [villagevoice.com]
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
Maybe it happen while you were napping, but there have been some significant changes in the laws, in the US, in the last 6 years.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,728
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
If anybody thinks the cops are any different in Canada they are living in fantasy land.
Canada is a very large and diverse country, with many police forces. There is simply no way anybody can generalize about the police and be at all accurate. Some local cops in Ottawa or Edmonton or any other city or province or even the RCMP can be just as corrupt as cops anywhere. They can be and sometimes they are. Probably most aren't, just as most citizens are law abiding, but there are usually a few bad apples in nearly barrel.
I would wager that many Canadians have story or two to tell about their experiences with police corruption. I know I do.
The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
Well, there *are* things the police can do today they couldn't do fifty years ago. For instance, there's the whole seizure of personal property (including bank accounts and homes) for minor drug busts. In some cases, you don't even have to be convicted, just arrested. The seized property is sold. Some police departments are funded by the selling of seized property.
Then there's the whole widespread phone tapping craze. This is something that could not have been done fifty years ago. Sure, US government resources were spent monitoring regular citizens, but it happened on a case-by-case basis, not wholesale.
We most likely do not live in an Orwellian society. But, y'know, I'd like to keep the government from obtaining the tools required for 1984 to come true. They are currently creating them in front of our very eyes. You may be a pollyanna, but there are some of us that are worried.
Honestly, we have the right to be worried. It's called "oversight of our government." As responsible citizens, it is our right and our duty to question everything the government does in our name.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Link got mangeled, sorry:
8 04,5.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I have to wonder what your circumstances are that you can have such a smug attitude. Have you never dealt with "the system"? Or are you just so lucky that you are in it (job) or have never had to deal with it? The simple fact is that bloated systems such as the US Govt. aren't out to make criminals of everyone. But its very bloated nature causes people to get stuck very easily when they become a number on a piece of paper with no regard for concequences down the line. Sally Paperpusher has no concept or care of whos life she is changing when she stamps her stack of papers to hand to Bob Wantsabreak. _THAT_ is what is going on. It is simply too big to be manegable anymore. The letter of the law is paramount. And the more letters there are in the law - the more conflicting and restricting it becomes. Imagine a really huge game of Magic: The Gathering - except the game is several rooms large, and never stops. And now imagine that the players just dont care.
when the 2nd revolution comes, there will be a few changes.
1) police will face 2x the punishment a citizen does for every crime. police get 0 tolerence for bending the rules. they enforce the law by example as much as anything else.
2) the basic unit of society is the citizen. goverment exists to serve that citizen. goverment has no rights to tell a citizen what to do with his / her body. you can take what you want, you can kill yourself, sell yourself, whatever. so long as you do not infringe on another citizen.
3) the highest crime shall be corruption / incompetence in a public servant. this will be punishable by death in a painfull and public mannor so as to be a deterrant. if you want to serve the citizens, then serve.
within 10 years, the idea of gov corruption, and lawbreaking would be a faint idea.
it can't happen soon enough. the current gov is corrupt and needs to be formatted.
-.no
A rich black girl friend of mine got arrested for DWB in a nice neighborhood. The police department appologized in a letter, which the family handed to their lawyer. The department settled for a cool $250K. Not bad for a few hours in lockup.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
The link got all screwed up...sorry:
8 04,5.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0615,ferguson,72
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Well, all the politicians, police, etc...those in power, are all human, and subject to the frailties of character that all humans are...Love of money, greed, power hungry..
With that as consideration, I'd say a continuous healthy distrust of the government is a good thing. Because it 'can' go bad...that is a good reason to always question what it is doing..to ensure it stays in line. Not to mention making sure that the definition of what lines for govt. and public behavior aren't deteriorated, so that the public loses rights and such...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
'cause he has a gun or a baton and the right to use it, whereas you do not.
I'm not a police basher. I think a good majority of our (Norwegian) police is just as hard-working and honest as I am. But there's no doubt that we've got racial issues when it comes to bringing people downtown due to suspicion for selling drugs, for instance.
AND a friend of mine was kicked the sh*t out of by three police officers. They apologized when they learned that he wasn't a junkie...!
When a party has power, it will naturally yield this power to protect itself.
A step-father who abused his daughter from age 5 and up got 4,5 years maximum in prison.
A student who threw a cream cake at a prominent politician is facing 15 years maximum.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Helpless to stop the endless barrage of stories and claims that we're living in an Orwellian 1984 totalitarian police state, when in fact nothing substantial has really changed in 50 years (save the technology, which goes both ways: it gives authorities more systems to abuse, and it gives citizens more vehicles to document and comment, e.g., ubiquitous cell phone cameras and blogs where nearly everyone believes that we already like in a police state).
/. a few days ago about a camera searching every passing car and doing NCIC lookups to see if there were any hits. I think that every city should have one of those systems for each of their major transportation hubs. Humans can't catch much, but with a system like that, if an auto is in the system as stolen, then a police person can atleast be alerted and stop the car that he would have otherwise missed.
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
I'm the IT guy in a small city police department. Trust me on this police don't want to share data with anyone and what data the police collects you can pay $10 for copy of the report. Why don't police want to share data? Because they collect "intel" data and some of the people in there may have done nothing wrong. Take gangs. If a gang member is arrested, they like to try to link together gang members. Well, just because you are a gang member or linked to a gang member doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong. I've been amazed at how little the police can legally share with each other. There are both state and federal laws limiting the "intel" information. I think the rule of thumb is that you can generally share your data among your department, but you generally can't share intel information farther than that. If you wand some potentially scary stuff, look up N-DEx
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm? fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=908&issue_id=62 006 . NIBRS is about all the feds care about and it's all just crime stats.
There is a policeman that I work with. I tell him routinely, that I think that the feds should be the final resting place for every report that they write and everything should be stored by them. In car dash cameras should be attached to police reports and submitted up to the Feds and stored both to cover the individual policeman's butt, and incase anyone else in the nation wanted to compare video. I'd want that one automated though. Heck, there isn't even a "national" standard for finger prints. Each state has its own system and doesn't look outside of its system.
It's amazing how well the police do their jobs with the tools that they have.
The end total of the IT that I'd like to give to my cops would be a virtual police state. I really drooled over the traffic cameras that London could afford. We'd never be able to spend like that though. Heck, there was an article on
That device was something like $25-$30K. For my department to afford it, we'd need a grant to cover it. We could purchase something around $4-$5K, but not something for $25-30K. There are alot of neat police tools that I'd like our department to have access to, but each one is priced around $25-30K and we don't have that much to spend.
We looked last year and replacing our analog cameras and VCRs to the digital cameras with lowlight and storing them on 4 GB flash cards and wirelessly transmit. We were going to setup 5 cars with plans of upgrading our entire fleet of 25 units, but it was going to cost about $65K for the inital 5 cars and setting up the backbone system. The night vision on that system was sweet. I wish our department had it. One other nice feature was that it was always rec
You, sir, are part of the mass of people here who don't understand the purpose for backslash. I'd give you a couple, but I don't want to be modded redundant. What I don't understand is why you're in the comments section of this article.
And just so you know, I'm here because comments to backslashes tend to be more interesting than the knee-jerk reactions from the previous day.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring.
This may be all you see. I've noticed a lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye on this (and the last) administration.
If the government is only trying to protect us, why are they so quick to step outside the bounds of legality to accomplish its goals? Why have they often resorted to lies and misdirection to accomplish their goals? Why have they so readily blocked investigations that might clear up their honor?
My Dad used to tell me, "If they act untrustworthy, they probably are untrustworthy." Respect and trust are to be earned, not demanded, nor due. This current administration has destroyed the little bit of trust and respect I had after the *last* administration.
The government that demands transparency from its citizens, but is in turn completely opaque, is hiding something dishonorable. *That* is why some of us make a big deal about seemingly insignificant details. After all, most of us realize it takes a lot of pixels to make a picture.
Personally, I'm glad we're making a big deal about this. Part of it is education. There are too many people who think police have the right to infringe on *your* right with no just cause. Too many people are unaware that we as citizens *have* many rights.
And finally, it's always nice to see a bully get his come-uppance. I really hope that fucker gets nailed to the wall. I mean, literally. I've got a hammer they could use.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
i don't know how they compare to cops in other major cities, but the philly cops ive had the misfortune of encountering (having gone to drexel for 3 years, and growing up around philly) are a lousy bunch of arrogant, self-aggrandizing, abusive, asshats who i hope are first against the wall when the revolution comes.
ive met small town cops who were actually helpful, reasonable human beings; but i guess the danger of working in the big city makes them crazy.
really, large cities in general seem like a sort of stupid idea to me, after seeing how much nicer everything works when everybody has a little more space, as in a suburb...
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
how to make a long story short, I had a court date for 11:00am I arrived at the court house at 9:30am at 11:30am I got in line with the rest of the room to see if we had missed of call to speak to the judge. When it was my turn to speak the the court marshall he quick flicked though the papers and to me I wasn't in them and I'm not supposed to be in the court house that day. I tried to show him my letter inviteing to court, at which point he turn all Mr. Hyde on my and dragged me outta the room by my shirt neck. I tried showing him the letter again in the hallway he responded with, "How would you like it if I punched your fucking teeth out!" and then walked away leaving me to figure out what I had done wrong. lucky the prosecutor was walking back in side the the room so I stopped her and explained that I'd been here for 2 hours and now the marshall thinks I'm not supposed to be here. She took me inside walked right up to the front of the room and found my paperwork in the wrong pile and the got my case going right than and there. Being alittle upset at the marshall I decided to tell the judge what had just happened outside the courtroom Which got a very loud "I DID NO SUCH THING" from the marshall. The judge instructed me to go tell the head marshalls offfice if Ifelt there needed to be a complaint filed. This is finally the funny part when I got there they couldn't have acted I stress acted any sweeter too me there even barrow a few blank sheets of paper from a near by copier and a felt tipped red marked so I could write the whole thing down. Now for those at home take a blank peice of paper and write on it with a large red marker believe you'll look like a jackass. Well thats feels good to vent. if anyones wondering that happened in New Haven, CT and I was there for a speeding ticket.
sense of security, like pockets jingling...
...here's a limited range solution of sorts http://www.nowpublic.com/node/82826
Size of a quarter, wireless! http://www.spycameras.com/cm-1201.htm
It's considered by some police to be a crime in some places.
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
It reminds me a bit of the TV Show Max Headroom. When Edison Carter was live and direct the cops didn't say boo to him. When his camera when off air things got a bit more ugly.
You are right, nothing has changed in the last 50 years or so.
The government ( as an institution ) is still as corrupt as ever, and hell bent on taking your rights in any way they can.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
Is a marijuana citation in CA such a terrible thing? AFAIK, the penalty for possession of quantities for personal use was equivalent to a parking violation (i.e. civil fine and no more). Sounds like a quick was of raising revenue for a town in need :)
-b.
DUPE!
There was no "War on Drugs" 50 years ago. That was a substantial change and expansion in police powers.
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).
In reality, you've little say over the how the President is being selected- for the reasons you state in your post. However, you DO have a say over how your Representative and your Senators get selected from the populace. The President gets to sign things into law, choose potential Supreme Court appointments (which then get approved by the Senate...), but he doesn't QUITE get to make laws unless Congress isn't doing it's job like it's supposed to. That's Congress' job. For all of your talk of not having a value to your vote, you let the one thing you CAN control languish- and it's something that can put a curb or choke off the problem caused by the thing you can't control. Remember, you get to pick the people that propose the laws and have the authority to remove the President if he's breaking the law.
The reason the country's in the situation that is in this day and age is from talk like yours and people BELIEVING it, hook line and sinker.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
For possession of an ounce or less, it is a ticket not an arrestable offense. However, it is the only non arrestable offense in California that is a misdemeanor. It is not an infraction like a motor vehicle violation. You cannot pay by mail. Court appearance is mandatory. Furthermore, misdemeanors can show up on backround checks and influence job hiring etc. Not to mention, if you are over 18 yet under 21, you can lose your driver's license a year, even if your possession had nothing to do with driving. So it is a big deal for many people. As far as raising revenue for a town in need, what makes you think our town sees a penny of the hundreds of dollars in fines a person has to pay? It goes to the police and courts, none of it gets invested in our public parks or health programs or anything that would benefit the citizens.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Actually, any officer can walk up to you and inquire about any illegal activity you may be up to. If you refuse consent to search, and one of the exclusions to the search warrant rule do not apply, then the search would be illegal (if you consent, you're an idiot). In this case, any evidence gained would be thrown out at an evidenciary hearing (which even a public defender can manage; you're a fool if you represent yourself). No evidence, the People cannot meet their burden of proof, and thus the case is dismissed.
I think what may be the intention of the law is to discourage people from physically resisting, and to pursue other means (lawsuit) to recover damages. There may be a lot of abuse out there now, but it is not anywhere near the levels it was at when the Constitution and the Union were formed.
Just to be safe, though, you may want to rethink whatever it is that you're doing that has the cops asking to search you house/car/whatever.
Under the first admendment we the people of the United States of America have the right to question their government of their actions. Below is the First Admendment in it short and clear form:
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You are not cool. You are not l33t.
The votes from the Electoral College do decide. The President. Do you have a representative? A senator? A governor? A mayor, a city councilman?
The president has surprisingly little to do with how police officers in one (or two, or ten) particular area(s) behave. The election of John Kerry (or Al Gore) would not have had a material impact on cases like this. Perhaps the *repeated* election of more liberal presidents would have some impact, but you can't really blame the lack of that on the EC. Even there, you're talking a limited amount of power over this particular situation. Or, in fact, most situations that influence your actual everyday life.
The electoral college usually does *not* vote contrary to the vote of states, although it does mean that 'winner takes all' within a state. That means that your vote does count even there, because they generally do listen to the way the state votes. But even if you don't take that into account, that isn't the only election that ever happens in the US, and you don't have that excuse for any other. So tell me why your vote doesn't count again?
I think the key to a lot of these problems comes from a misunderstanding between the photographer's right to photograph and the photographer's right to publish. There are a lot more restrictions about what a photographer can publish and in what contexts than their are about how they obtain it. However for those on the other side of the camera, I think this gets mixed up all the time. They assume that if a photo can't or shouldn't be published, it can't be taken either. This is a false assumption.
Here's an example from my days on my college newspaper as a photo editor. The student EMS had been informed that people treated by them were under patient confidentiality. They were also informed that, for the patient's privacy, they shouldn't enable someone to take pictures of said patient receiving treatment. That doesn't mean they can force someone to not take pictures, and if they state is illegal to take pictures they are just plain wrong. The injured is not the patient of the photographer, and therefore the photographer is not bound by patient confidentiality. If the event is in a public place, there's nothing the EMS can do except not let the photographer get close enough to interfere. Does this mean a reputable paper would run a shot of the patient's face without permission? Chances are it wouldn't.
Similarly, pictures of arrests are not illegal. Now running a picture of soemone getting arrested might open yourself up to legal repurcussions when the arrestee claims their reputation was damaged by said picture. That doesn't mean they photographer can be arrested on site. Chances are it's just another case of the police being poorly informed of where the boundaries lie.
And in Soviet America, you police the photographs?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Here's an idea: We should organize a "Police Photography Day." On this day, the participants would go around legally taking photographs of police officers. This would be done in the most polite manner possible, and would be photos of officers doing their everyday activities. There could be a set of documents participants would carry, explaining the idea of "Police Photography Day" to concerned officers, and explaining that such photographs aren't illegal.
Seriously, a big problem seems to be that officers (and many citizens) simply don't realize that citizens taking photos of them in public places (or from their own property) is completely legal. Organizing a day like this could help raise awareness about that.
I wonder if somebody was able to get a call in to a lawyer to quickly show up and "observe" if the cop would behave himself. You could distribute little flyers: "In case of harrassment by The Man, call this lawyer for protection from the police..."
Immediately lose their job?
Or did you mean immediately after they've been given a fair trial, had the right to legal counsel, had the right to appeals, etc. and so forth?
I'm not saying this case is one in which there is a lot of doubt, but there are two sides to a lot of stories. Dismissing your police without appropriate compensation (just turfing them out) would (one would think) demand a high level of proof in a court of law to back it up. Just an accusation would hardly be sufficient. At least not if you happen to believe in due process. Administrative suspension, taking the officer off the street for a time while the issue is investigated... that I can believe. But firing them outright before they are brought before either a professional review board or a judge in court? Can't see that being viable.
On another point:
Last time I talked to a friend from Baltimore, he pointed out they rarely if ever reached their nominal police staffing levels because of the pay being not so good. This led to bleed off to other cities of all of the best cops. So, here we have the remainder of the cops being overworked, underpaid, and knowing that they're just not the top notch cops... they're what is left when those folks have went elsewhere. So, maybe if you want top notch cops, you want to make sure they have top notch training and very good salaries. Otherwise, you'll pretty much get what you (don't) pay for.
I've worked extensively with a national police agency and a number of smaller PDs as a civilian contractor doing computer related work. I've met a lot of officers. I have a lot of respect for the tough job they do, the crappy treatment they often get (dealing with obnoxious drunks is fun for most of us, I'm sure...) and I've seen what happens when things go badly (Mayerthorpe as one example).
But at the same time, I've had senior members of these forces point out that the basic personality type of criminals and of most police has many points of commonality. The points of difference are pretty critical, but it is important to consider the degree of similarity. Projection of authority, taking charge of a situation, meeting violence with violence, attitude with attitude, and being willing to push hard to get the job done... these can make a cop good at his job. But at the same time, they can mean that if you're John Q Public running across him, if you give him grief, you may find his response isn't very tolerant. But to a certain extent, the nature of the job (of beat cops especially) requires a certain mindset and emotional makeup. Most of us could not or would not do the job (most of us don't...).
So, I'm not suggesting bad cops get a bye or are let off. Yet at the same time, they too have to be given due process. That's called not compounding a wrong with another wrong or making a bad situation worse.
Oddly enough, no one wants to see truly bad cops busted and dismissed than the good ones who get a bad name as a result.
The reality is though that they are people doing a tough job, often with insufficient training or remuneration or numbers, and this tends to manifest itself in their attitude. You can attack that situation by blaming those involved but you could also look at the funding for training, for pay scales, and for manpower levels. Policing by the lowest bidder isn't uncommon (contract policing I believe they call it) and often times manpower levels are far below where they should be. Maybe if we dealt with some of these issues, we'd find cops a bit easier to deal with because they'd be a bit less tired, stressed, and pissed off.
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
. But I do believe some things should remain classified, period; else, a system of classification has no meaning or purpose.
Democracy doesn't mean anything if the government can slap the label "classified" or "secret" and hide from the citizens. Democracy require openness in government. If it's not open then it can't be trusted and that's the deathneel of democracy.
I fear government more than terrorists.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I used to think we had a pretty good legal system, but over the past few years I have begun to believe that that is not the case at all, and judging by a few of the responses to the original story, I think the Citizens of the US have been screwed over legaly. Taking a picture of police aresting a guy illigal?! WTF So the show Cops could do it for profit (I think they had to have consent if they showed faces of suspects) but a "normal" dude gets arested for it?! WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY?! Its a fucking photo, and was not distributed to other parties, wich I could see if you posted it on the internet could be damaging and make the photo taker liable in a lawsuite, but not get arested. If I was religious I would say Jesus would be ashamed, hell I say it now, because I believe a good guy named Jesus exsisted, I just don't think he was the son of god or had godlike powers-he still would be ashamed though.
Firstly - you've used the words "an afternoon sitting on the couch" instead of the word "Freedom." This was to make it hard to argue with you without sounding like an insensitive dick who doesn't care about anyone but themselves.
Secondly - you've used the emotive words "life in danger" when "personal safety" would be more appropriate.
Thirdly, you've gone on to state that a human's safety is worth more than freedom.
As a British Citizen, It isn't my place to tell you why that is so wrong. So I will leave it up to Benjamin Franklin (Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
http://skeptobot.blogspot.com/ - A site for the Renaissance man and woman
However I then read the comments and realized that since the discussion centered around highly rated comments, there was less noise and there seemed to be more interesting side discussions.
However what Slashdot truly needs to implement is a system where the link-only stories on the main page (I forget what they're called) have buttons next to them that lets you expand them to fully viewable blurbs. I should not have to click a story to find out what the hell it is about. My time is precious (as you can tell from all my posts made during the work day) and if I can't tell immediately what a story is about, I won't click it.
I also think all Backslash stories should be relegated to link-only front page placement. Its a rehash, it doesn't warrant the full page real estate that a new story does.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
For people to read and hopefully gain another prospective & protect yourself.
At 1 am on the morning of September, 2005, I was awoke by a persistent knock on the door. I opened the door to find three officers asking me about a smell in the building, and asked me to enter the apartment. I told them I did not smell anything, and refused to allow them entry into the apartment. The main officer continued to ask me about the smell, and if he could come in, and I refused by telling him "no you may not come in". At some point in the conversation my fiancé came into the room and the officer ask if she was ok.
He again asked me if he could come in which I said no one final time and attempted to close the door. At that point the office had his foot inside the door jam to prevent the door from closing. I again attempted to close the door by leaning on the door. The officer pushed the door back throwing me back while stating that I had committed battery against an officer by hitting him with the door and proceeded to hit me about the right side of my face, while attempting to cuff me. I struggled with him only mildly trying to understand why I was being charged, and never threw a punch or was violent in any way against the police. He continued to hit me after being thrown to the ground and being completely cuffed.
I was then taken out to the second floor stairs were the officer hit me multiple more times on the right side of my face. I was completely hand cuffed at that point and was not able to resist. I screamed out multiple times "stop hitting me, stop hitting me".
The officer then grabbed me by my cuffs and lead me to the car were I was placed in the back seat. The officer returned a few minuets later with my marijuana pipe asking me if this was why I did not let him in. He then stated "I can't wait to get you to the station and kick your ass." In front of the transporting officer in this case. The transporting officer had no other involvement in this incident he pulled up on the scene as I was being taken out, and was polite and professional in his duties. I was seen in Ward D at the local hospital and released without medical aid to the county jail.
I was seen and treated for my eye and a concussion in the jail by nurses station within the jail the next morning after vomiting twice in the holding cell over night, and complaining of pain. I was given pain relief and given a call back and was told to see some one outside when I got out. I was released on bail the next day.
I returned to the Emergency room twice and was diagnosed and treated for an Ocular Floor Fracture on the right side of my face. I still suffer from numbness on the right side of my face under and around my eye. I had a follow up appointment a few months later to determine if I need surgery to correct orbital sink or any other complications that can occur due to my ocular floor fracture.
I am not known here by many, but the few that do can attest that I am a college grad, and navy war vet. I have not been in a fight since high school and am not violent by anymeans. I never resisted hit or otherwise attempted to hurt the officer in question.
I was charged with two felonys and two misdomenors neither deserved, & foolishly listened to my lawyers advice & took the states offer of a PTI which nullified any possibility of a civil suit. I live in a small beach town, and see the officer on a weekly basis, and fear him returning to my house so can not file a IAS investigation.
By carefull everyone because they are NOT there to protect you despite what it says on the patrol car.
DP
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
First, ALL COPS ARE PIGS.
Second, there are three rules in dealing with cops. Shut up, Shut up and just in case you don't understand, SHUT UP.
Pigs abusing their power should be put in JAIL and left there to ROT!
Look all over the world at the strife and in all cases, it is this one simple mechanic.
Photography student is detained and his IDs 'reviewed' after taking night-time photos of a firehouse [photo.net].
I should read photo.net more. I visit occasionally but not often. I knew about the Golden Gate instance but not the others. In a photography class I was taking we were talking about it and another case where a student photographer was shooting near a chemical plant and was interrogated for around 30 minutes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Facism occurs when the efficiency of the government is more important than the rights of citizens.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
How is it abuse to call 911 when a crime is happening? When armed intruders show up and threaten your personal safety and property, and they aren't acting under orders from a judge, they are not cops. They are robbers and kidnappers. You wouldn't call 911 if you were being robbed or kidnapped?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Well, of course. That's a Yale town, isn't it? Couldn't have too many kids of society's high and elite getting arrested. They might start sending their children to Hah-vahd. And we couldn't have that (or the downturn in the town's economy from the dearth of kids with Platinum AmEx's paid for by daddy) ...
Or am I a cynic? :)
I'm reading through some of these things and am appalled to see things my proverbial brothers are doing. This should not stand, and officers who are truly guilty of such offenses should be punished with the maximum penalty under US chapter 18 for violation of civil rights.
I have never done anything on duty or while as an off duty representative of the state that I wouldn't want photographed, recorded, or otherwise witnessed. I am proud to protect and serve, not to bully and harass. In fact, there are times that things have happened when I wish I had a camera or tape recorder to back me up on what I had to say. I've arrested people who try to bang their faces against the side of my patrol car in order to cause bleeding and claim that I beat them up. Fortunately, I had a civilian witness in the case to back me up on what I said.
While some cops lie, remember that criminals lie too. There are cops who do bad things who should be soundly punished, but there are people who will go out of their way to ruin a cop because they don't like them, and they should be punished as well.
Maybe it's because I'm a small town cop, but with the exception of the "bad" part of town I feel like a welcome presence everywhere I go. If I can't hold my head up high and know that people see me as a friend and protector, not a tyrant, I couldn't do my job.
Oh, so we're supposed to cooperate with the secret police? How about 1) asking politely? Or 2) buying the images from you? After all, private property shall not be taken for a public purpose without due compensation.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I believe you have read into more then you should have in my story. They were responding to a "dead" smell in the building. There were no dead bodies in my apartment. Further I was asleep for 3 1/2 hours before and hadn't smoked since 3pm in the afternoon, there was no pot smell in my building.
Had they been answering about pot they would have came right in. Ever heard of probable cause? They had none nor did they have a mitigating reason to enter.
Further telling me it's my own fault is a total ass hat move and without coming across as an a-hole myself, I want think about what you said and when a loved one has something like this happens to them go tell them..... It's your own fault...
I wouldn't wish a beating like what I got on anyone, but buddy you are one fsked person if you think anyone deserves being beat down like that in handcuffs, while already in restrained.
I hope you re-post a rescind your statement, if not well you have just showed your own stupidity & true colors and are nothing but a troll, not worth my or anyone elses time.
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
You notice that they're not rounding up Tobacco executives or bartenders.
9/11 was spectacular and it was easy to pin on an identifiable 'someone else'. (Oklahoma only had one of those two features). This makes it a good excuse to waste a lot of time, money and civil rights.
If the government can slap the label 'top secret' and 'security' on their worst rights violations, it makes it that much harder for us to fight for our rights. If the neighbour who mysteriously disappears in the middle of the night is 'the only one it happened to', then it's an anomaly easily ignored. If you know that 10,000 others have been nabbed in the same way, then you've got more incentive to fight.
In the other direction, if the government is transparent and you can actually look up the names of everybody nabbed in this way and you find that your neighbour really was one of only 4 in the last 2 years, then there's no need to start considering conspiracy theories. (a raw head count gives no way to verify that the numbers are (in)accurate).
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
There was no need to push the door closed. His foot had entered your dwelling without permission, so even if they saw anything through the open door, it would have been without probable cause.
But hey, other people can learn from your mistake, so it's good that you told your story; thanks.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
...and Police photography day should be every tuesday, thursday, saturday and sunday.
If you are going to watch me, then I think you need to be watched as well...
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
Yeah. Good luck with that.
'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
Thanks for the nice words Rus,
Yes he entered without permission as soon as he crossed the threshold of my door.
They found the pipe when conducting their "sweep" after arresting me. (it was on top of my fridge)
Getting people the knowledge of the mistakes I made, is all I want by posting this nothing more.
If you find yourself being offered a deal or a PTI and you have a civil case don't take it no matter what your lawyer tells you. Call a civil attorney!!
dp
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
please don't confuse communism .. which really has nothing to do with politricks .. and fascism
.. communism is an economic model .. not a political model
..
.. who had elected the world first democratically elected communist government ..
..lead by Augusto Pinochet .. on September 11, 1973
l
.. it would put a big hole in the fascist/capitalist ideology ..
but which has everything to do with economics
it apples and oranges
just ask the people in Chile
which was then promptly overthrown by a United States backed and orchestrated military Coup d'État
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.htm
29 years to the day of September 11, 2001
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A716591
http://www.iisg.nl/collections/chile/
the ruling class could not leave something like democratic communism laying around to work it'self out
To all who think the police should be left to do their jobs and nosey citizens/moaning hippies etc should mind their own business, I would draw your attention to a long running news item from the UK concerning Jean Charles de Menezes [wikipedia.org] who was mistakenly shot(at close range, seven times in the head and once in the shoulder) on a tube (subway) train as a terror suspect.
Initially the Met admitted their mistake but claimed that the suspect was 1. running away, 2. Jumped over the ticket barrier and 3. was wearing an 'unseasonably large/bulky coat' (which may have concealed a bomb). All three allegations were disproved by witnesses and some cctv footage (a lot of the most important cctv footage is 'missing'). No individual officers will be charged with the killing , it has been decided that the Met will go on trial as an organisation...
I like the original Max Headroom film a lot! :)
There is similar in the book Vineland by Thomas Pynchon. I've not read it for some years, but i recall that in the story the camera crew rely on their lighting to 'protect' them -- so if the lights go out they can be in big trouble.
Pray tell... what is the "purpose for backslash"? I am not trolling.. I just reviewed the FAQ, and did the requisite google search - both yield nothing. I *thought* the purpose was a way to revisit a somewhat recent topic in today's context - something of an update - and in many cases in the past backslash stories have been quite interesting. But the original story and the backslash to it were posted within 24 hrs of each other. The content appeared to be nothing more than the most intersting of the comments. My point is how is this any different than simply reading the story at threshold 5, given that the details of the underlying story hadn't changed at all since the story was published.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
In fact, or the two dozen or so cops I've known (some in my hometown, some fraternity brothers from college) not a single one of them WASN'T corrupt in at least some way. Hell, some of them learned stuff like "beat the shit out of any suspect who runs from you" in the *police academy*.
And it's been a given my whole life that the police will "take care" of tickets, minor citations, etc. "gifts" (I suspect this applied to bigger stuff too, providing the gifts were also much bigger). My first memory of the cops was them showing up to my father's business and walking out with armfuls of free food in exchange for taking care of some of his employee's traffic tickets.
And don't even get me started on the racial element. Just pray that if you do get arrested, the arresting cop is the same color as you or you WILL get a beating (used to apply only if you were black, now it works the other way too).
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"because the masses have been so brainwashed to see anything is worth changing"
Translation: a lot of people happen to have different opinions than you do. You'll have to do better than dismiss different of opinion as "brainwashing".
"yeah, I say time for a revolution"
That's a kind of risky roll of the dice. The track record is not the best, with more revolutions making things much worse than there are revolutions really improving things.
"And then there is the fact the vote is always bought by companies and the rich"
I have yet to have either pay for any of my votes, and I don't know anyone else who has either. I suppose I could write a letter to Donald Trump and tell him that, for every one of my votes he gives me $150 for, I will vote the way he wants.
Where were you when the voynix came?
They are given powers and abilities above that of normal citizens
Sir, I think you're referring to the X-men.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
you're thinking of slashback, not backslash.
This is just a summary of yesterday's post. It's been edited a little, so it's mildly different than browsing at +5. But more importantly, it lets people comment on it again. That's why I like it.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
IANAL, That Montana law doesn't cover photography unless it is an intentional effort to prevent police from doing their jobs. The statute is worded in such a way that police can use it to hide behind and most people don't understand the bit about acting under official authority.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Most often corrupt cops are not turned in by their own department because of the "blue shield." Cops do not usually rat out their friends. But this is harmful, and could go both ways. The citizens could become organized, kill cops and any witnesses would never testify because of the new "anti-blue shield" and people just got fed up with the cops BS.
I am what I am and thats what I am -Popeye
They say: PhotoPermit.org "... is about keeping photographers out of trouble, and supporting them when trouble looms. Have you been hassled while trying to make what you thought was an innocuous photograph or video? Have you been threatened? Have security guards demanded that you hand over your film, memory cards, and/or camera? Perhaps snatched them from you? ... Have you been one of millions of honest, non-threatening photographers who are anxious about visiting the streets of their own cities, national parks, or public landmarks for fear they will be targeted by overzealous authorities? Then PhotoPermit is here to help you be sure and comfortable in your rights and responsibilities."
Here are a few additional links and references on photography rights.
yup true troll...
foad
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
I was able to repost your comment, almost verbatim, and get lots of karma. For myself and also on behalf of the anti-slash movement, thank you for your valuable contribution! Your efforts have helped further our efforts to disrupt Slashdot and make it as shitty as possible.
Join Tor today!