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?
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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)
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
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.
Do you know any cops? I do. My brother used to be a cop and I got to know quite a few of them both through him and by just talking to them. Almost every cop and even security guard I've ever talked to has had issues with anger and control. When within ten minutes of meeting someone they express to you how they wish they had a good excuse to shoot someone or how they became a cop because they could not get into the military and really just wanted to learn to be a better killer you start to have a very different view of cops. Most of them are people who grew up too slowly and did not realize that all the action shows on TV were just revenge fantasies and not life goals. A whole lot of them have sadistic tendencies and/or a strong desire to assert dominance over everyone they can. Every cop I've ever asked has a "funny" story about how they broke the law and did things normal people can't because they can get away with it. Most cops abuse their power.
You say that most cops just want to do a good job, but in the opinions of many of the cops I've talked to "doing a good job" might mean driving those "niggers" out of town or making sure those weird guys are properly frightened so they know it is not alright to be different from the NASCAR watching majority.
I get along just fine with cops for the most part. I never get tickets and know enough about martial arts and guns and have enough good stories about the military and crimes so that they generally consider me one of the "good guys." I'm also something of a social chameleon and am almost universally accepted in any clique. I don't, however, have an illusions about the fact that for the most part cops are bigger criminals than the average person, they abuse their authority, and they are violent and prone to use violence unnecessarily. They also always want to be in control and are more likely to respond with violence or by arresting someone with no legal justification than they are willing to cede that control. For example, from stories I've heard from cops, most are likely to arrest anyone who points out that they are wrong and that the act they are claiming is illegal (like photographing them) is legal. It is a challenge to them and the fact that what they are doing is illegal is only a technicality to them. Most cops feel anyone doing anything that is not what they direct is in the wrong, because most don't ever admit that they could be wrong.
I find your view of the police to be very naive.
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.
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
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.
Driving while Black.
I worked as a database admin in a fairly well-to-do district. I and just about everybody else on our team never had any problems with cops there, but the operations manager would get pulled over on average about once every three months. As an amazing coincidence, he was also the only black guy on our team.
At least he never got arrested.
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.
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
Someone needs a hug.
And a medal for being simultaniously the most inflamatory, uninformative, ignorant and unfunny post I've ever seen on slashdot in 5 years.
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Of course he kept getting pulled over! He didn't have his license to Drive While Black prominently displayed in the lower right corner of his windshield. What, do these people think they have the freedom of movement guaranteed to all citizens by the Constitution? Where did they get the strange idea that they have the same civil rights as the rest of us? Why, the next thing you know, we'll have blacks with long rifles strolling down the street as if gun ownership and open carry was legal. And Huey Newton will roll over in his grave.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
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
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.