Slashdot Mirror
Youtube Video Prompts FBI Probe of LAPD
PachecoJ writes "The AP has a story of a Youtube video showing police brutality that has sparked an FBI probe of the LAPD. A group called 'Cop Watch LA' placed the video online to draw attention to the actions by officers. The officers pictured in the video are now being defended by police defense attorney John Barnett, who defended the officers in the 'Rodney King' trial of 1991." From the article: "A search on YouTube for the terms 'police brutality' found more than 500 videos, including ones that claim to show police violence in the U.S. and as far away as Egypt and Hungary. A search of Google's video site also yielded hundreds of videos. In response to the surge in amateur videos, some law enforcement agencies have installed cameras in squad cars to protect officers against false allegations."
Here in the home of Kerry and Kennedy, a couple of people tried to record their interaction with police. They were prosecuted under the state's privacy laws. And the police were full of righteous indignation about the "invasion of their privacy." As were we all ...
1) Cops who are corrupt
2) Cops who are not corrupt, but ignore the corruption of others
3) Cops too stupid to know what's going on around them
I know plenty of cops that fit into varying categories above. Personally, I don't give a shit if some guy dealing drugs to kids (note to kids) or some guy abusing his wife gets an extra knock to the skull. At the same time, cops are typically dicks to people for no reason. They spend 90% of their time raising taxes (writing tickets) or playing cleanup after some dumbass.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
As a teenager I worked at an electronics company that built, among other things, circuit boards for in-car cameras for police cars. When I first got the job, the cameras were on if the flashing lights were on. That was it. Easy-peasy. A week into the job, we changed the design per the requests of the customers--the police departments wanted a way to leave the flashing lights on, but turn the camera off. Even at that tender age, I thought "Why would they want to turn off the camera?" Why, indeed. I still have never heard a remotely convincing argument why a police officer would not want to film his or her interaction with the public. Since they're so frequently accused of impropriety or even brutality, wouldn't a tape help them? Well, it would, unless they weren't innocent. The only time a cop would want the option of turning off the camera would be if they wanted the option of doing something they don't want a record of. I'm just amazed that more people aren't skeptical.
Some of these replies are so fucking ignorant that I don't even know where to begin. ...OK, I'm taking a deep breath here. I promise the rest will not be a rant or a troll-fest.
Some are saying things to effect of "The guy was breaking the law, so he deserved it!" What about the fact that the officers who behave as such, meting out their own justice whenever it suits them? Are they obeying the law, or are they breaking it also? Why is one any better than the other? Should I, seeing an officer behaving badly, beat the living shit out of him, or should I record him acting badly and report him to his authorities?
By the way, I have seen this argument from both sides. I have been thrown on many hoods of many cruisers for no good reason. I have been harassed by police officers who later claimed "they were just bored". Also, 3 of my uncles are cops, and every one of them is crooked. Then again, when I was falsely accused, one particularly stand-up cop was my strongest advocate, and the charges were dropped. So what I'm saying here is that cops require no special modicum of trust outside of that which we afford them in their commission as an officer of the law.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
Jail time for politicians who break their campaign promises? That would be so fucking sweet that I'm getting diabetes thinking about it. Elections would actually mean something. Politicians might have to ... gasp ... make reasonable promises and argue sensibly and rationally!
You know, I actually read a newspaper article about a group of law school students (in Toronto, I think) who formed a legal aid society to press lawsuits against cops. The trick was that they did it exclusively in small-claims court, where the burden of proof is much lower. And if you lose, the amount that you can be forced to pay to cover your opponents legal costs is quite small, making it the society more economically viable. Getting cops put in jail is virtually impossible; taking a few thousand dollars out of the station's pockets (plus legal fees) and generating massive amounts of bad publicity for the police sends a dire message. They had actually won a number of cases, and established some (admittedly minor) precedents for suing police officers. They had a whole archive tracking greviances against various cops. Pretty impressive for a bunch of students. I bet they'll have no trouble making top dollar in their own practices someday. I wish I had a link to post to the story.