Slashdot Mirror
Citizens Given Video Cameras To Monitor Police
atommota writes "After years of complaints of police misconduct, the ACLU is giving free video cameras to some residents of high-crime neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO to help them monitor officers. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri launched the project Wednesday after television crews last year broadcast video of officers punching and kicking a suspect who led police on a car chase. 'The idea here is to level the playing field, so it's not just your word against the police's word,' said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU chapter. The ACLU has worked closely with the police to make sure they are aware of this program. This is in stark contrast to the recent Pennsylvania arrest for felony wiretapping of a guy who was videotaping a police stop."
What do you do if the cops say "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."?
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Pawn shops in high crime areas, such as St. Louis, have an overload of camcorders for sale dirt cheap!
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
...that while the ACLU is absolutely right in this context, the practical upshot of this is that many more folks in that community will become victims of Police "misconduct" due to their conspicuous wielding of cameras. And while fighting the good fight and filming anyway is great in the best of all possible worlds, that world isn't this one, and police officers know how to hurt you in real ways, not to mention the system of, ahem, Justice they represent is heavily stacked against someone who has a legit beef re: a police officer.
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
I can see this now, similar to police cars having cameras mounted in them, new cars begin to offer mounted cameras as optional equipment. Perhaps this would be more useful than a DVD player in the backseat.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
Cue the appearance of dodgy police videos on Youtube... with the Simpsons "Bad Cops, Bad Cops" soundtrack...
This is why I am a member of the ACLU. I hope this project can expand all over the nation.
Limina.Log
Half of those camcorders will be in a pawn shop or crackhouse within a week.
The other half will be stolen in burglaries/robberies (and the ACLU will defend the thieves as "expressing political speech", even if they kill their victims and the cops in the process.)
Cops HATE being videotaped.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
So, let's stage something where the cops "see" commisaro leading them on in a chase. Hilarity ensues...
As opposed to monitoring the criminals in their neighborhood? They're as much a plague on civil liberties as big brother.
Like we'll see citizens doing exactly that with their brand new camcorders. It's not like they'll run about with them all day just to catch some cops eating doughnuts. IMO, this is a waste of money (I'd put "taxpayers'" here, but this is just too cliche).
That, and I'd love to see this in the news sometime soon: a cop beating a guy for recording him while he was doing something... drastic... and destroying the cam.
Woo, a job well done.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
Cameras don't seem to deter the crooked cops in Las Vegas much. Then again, they did actually manage to take their victim to a place they knew the cameras mostly wouldn't see, and to post a guard near the doors so that any witnesses would be stopped before they saw anything... But you'd think an airport would be a difficult place to beat innocents. Seems not.
Soldier beaten at McCarran Airport Parts 1 & 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kiPuyssrko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQb7Aw2utRk
I agree 100%. If a suspect runs from the police, they should be required to shoot them in the back if they don't stop when asked to.
That way, you'll have less dangerous car chases and foot persuits, as well as less scumbags walking the street.
Lets face it, innocent people don't run.
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
In addition to reporting any misbehavior by the police, I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation. A little positive reinforcement can go a long ways.
What about privacy? Not of the police but of the person being stopped, questioned or possibly arrested?
With other folks taking the suspect's picture it is going to become common for these photos to make their way onto the web and into TV news. So you now have even worse situations with "Look who got arrested today!!!" even when no arrest was made.
Think about it - you are stopped by the police for going through a yellow light. No ticket issued, just a warning. Next day you find your very recognizable picture on some web page and half your co-workers think it is very funny. Of course the caption on the picture makes it seem like you are being hauled off to jail. Funny? Not when you have a public-facing job and people now believe you are "some kind of criminal." Even if all you do is work in a shoe store you are going to get canned if you spend more time explaining the picture than selling shoes.
If you are a public figure how much do you think a picture of you being questioned by the police would be worth? To tabloid newspapers? To your opposing candidates in an election? Think these pictures won't be sold because "oh these are ACLU cameras" - think again.
The only way this makes sense is with an underlying assumption that all police officers are violent thugs that need to be monitored constantly. If that is even remotely the case there are other ways of dealing with that problem than getting photographs and video of people being stopped or questioned by the police.
This is a great idea, though unfortunately this would be illegal in many states, including Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Not only would the tape be inadmissible, but you might end up in jail for surreptitious recording. It's happened...
But who will monitor those who monitor the cops? Not to mention the need to monitor those who monitor those who monitor the cops! And don't even get me started on the dire lack of those monitoring those who monitor those who monitor those who monitor the cops!!!
Concerning situations when a cop insists that you shut your camcorder, I suggest the 'urinanalysis test of privacy'. Say to the cop: "I would like to relieve myself, right here, right now. You cool with that?"
Only if the cop says "Sure, dude, go ahead" there's a reasonable expectation of privacy and you should comply with the request to shut down your camcorder.
Yes they do you asshat its HUMAN NATURE to run when you're scared.
From the article:
The fact that this made the national news doesn't surprise me. This is Pennsylvania where our new state motto is:
Doing our best to become the next New Jersey.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I realise you're being sarcastic, but this is exactly how things work in the UK. Of course he must have had something to hide, otherwise he wouldn't have run away would he?
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
you have nothing to hide. Right? Right?
That's all well and good. But do you deserve a beating if you didn't do anything wrong? (I'd post a less inflammatory link, but the mainstream press articles are behind a pay wall - however the article does give the basic facts, and I'll note that one of the officers involved in the incident later resigned over allegations of drug use).
Not to mention the fact that the incident the ACLU is reacting to was caught, start-to-finish, on the local Fox affiliate's cameras. No framing necessary. KTVI caught it all on tape. The chase, the beatdown, the arrest, all of it.
And before anyone goes spouting a bunch of anti-Fox, right-wing-conspiracy crap, I'd like to let it be known that KTVI (Fox, channel 2, St. Louis) is about as "liberal" as local TV can become without being dismissed as leftist-whackjobs. I'm not sure how they stay a Fox affiliate.
You're an idiot.
Seriously? They beat the crap our of you because you have long hair? Or were they weary of you because of your long hair and shady demeanor? Did they really beat the crap our of you, or were they trying to subdue you using physical force when you failed to cooperate with them?
Stopping police brutality is a good thing, but we have to be sure it is REAL brutality. Now, I do not know your situation, but I have heard so many stories similar to yours. Many backed up by video evidence. When digging further into the stories, I often find either the police did nothing wrong, or they were antagonized to the point where even a saint would have problems.
I do belive the easiest way to stop police brutality is to be polite and cooperative. I have long hair and have a very suspicious demeanor, but when I get pulled over, I get treated with nothing but respect. I attribute this to me being polite and cooperate. Either that or I just happened to run into the only nice cops in my area.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
This might even be an attempt to antagonize and create incidents with the police over the whole video taping issue, rather than a valid method of checks and balances. It wouldn't be the first time the ACLU has done such things.
Nor was the incident cited in TFA the first time a citizen has gotten in trouble for video taping police against their wishes. Just a couple of years ago a man, in his home, on his property, using installed surveillance cameras covering his property, got arrested when he taped officers coming to his door. That's simply wrong!
Of course, if you can manage to get away with the actual taping at the time, anyone with a video camera and YouTube can make their case without the ACLU at all.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You attempt to "police the police".
You are a defender of the U.S. Constitution.
You are a lone individual.
http://www.welfarestate.com/pamphlet/
In other words, this program to record the police seems like a good way to get on the FBI's watchlist.
I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
That way, you'll have less dangerous car chases and foot [pursuits], as well as less scumbags walking the street.
But many more shootings, and no matter how good you are on the range... it's a whole different ball game on the street. I don't just mean people running, but cars, houses, etc that are beyond the "bad guy" that you didn't hit because firing while running/driving, with your adrenaline going, is exponentially more difficult. Shooting standing still in a stress situation is pretty freaking hard. It looks cool when people do that in the movies, but that's Hollywood.
You say the cops should be allowed to shoot someone in the back? When they are running through an empty field in the middle of nowhere? OK. When the bad guy runs through a school playground at recess? Probably not... because the risk of hitting a kid is way too high.
Innocent people don't run, at least not in my experience. People who run tend to be those that think their freedom is all they have to lose. They may be running from a 1st degree murder rap, $50000 in back child support, or th $50 bond loitering warrant they never took care of...
I had EXACTLY that occur back when I was 22 (sadly, that would be a LONG time ago) in Fort Collins, Co. I was a passenger in a 1 car crash. The driver was put in cuffs and a female cop started beating the driver. I stood a distance away but was telling her to stop. She told me to leave right then and there. I pointed out that would be leaving the scence of an accident, to which she replied yes, but that I was to be arrested one way or another. I chose for her to arrest me for "interfering with a lawful arrest". Once she had cuffs on me, she started to hit and kick at me. Once the 2'nd squad got there, she stopped. But of course, she had the 2 of us in cuffs, with me hoping mad. The interesting thing was that the DA dropped the charges for the interfering with a lawful arrest, but got me on some other items. Of course, had she not been beating on the driver, or had not arrested me in the first place, then the later items would never have occured. Sadly, last I heard, she and idiot (ernie telez) from FC were still working there.
The cameras are needed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I support this move because I hope it will prove more officers to be in the right than in the wrong. Working as a STL city cop is a wretched job. The low pay and low respect goes without saying. The police officers work in incredibly dangerous parts of the city and are in real danger to their lives. A crackhead will not hesitate to take an officers life. If an officer takes physical action to protect him/herself then I think the public should understand that. However, if the officer(s) abuse power (rare but it does happen) then I think the public should rightfully be upset. As it is now, the public is upset over either action because it is the "law's" word against the "innocent's". Officer's can and do get fired for protecting their own lives because the Police Department does not have the money to fight lawsuits.
As it stands now I can only worry that this will make St. Louis all the much more timid (and thus ineffective) in tackling its out-of-control crime problem.
I can see it now . . . a brand new show in the time slot right after Cops. "America's Dirtiest Police Videos"
In my opinion, this has as much of a chance of protecting citizen rights as it does to hinder legit police activities and responses to emergencies. Cops start paying more attention to the cameras and neglect the crime/crimals they were called to investigate and put themselves and others at risk.
I'm all for accountability, but does the ACLU also provide similar equipment to folks so they can monitor/document actual crimes in their communities as well?
Seriously? They beat the crap our of you because you have long hair?
Maybe it was a ponytail.
Seriously, no grown man has any business having his hair in a ponytail. A beating is small punishment for such an inexcusable hairstyle faux pas.
Actually, IIRC, the ACLU has come out and said that the since NRA defends the 2nd Amendment so conscientiously, they defer such cases to them. That's not at all the same thing as refusing to acknowledge it.
I agree with that sentiment 100% (both parts of it).
What's interesting is that this case seems to be pitting two things the ACLU fights for against each other. Due process vs. privacy (of the cops). I think they're making the right call here, but I still find that conflict interesting. (Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
And who gets to decide if you deserve this beating? Why, the cops who administer it. And what if your offense was "running your mouth", "not showing the proper respect", or "getting in the way"? What if you just happened to see something the cops would rather you not have seen, so they decide to "teach you a lesson"?
The police are supposed to be there to arrest those who break the law. Once a chase is over, the person who was fleeing is not putting anyone else in danger. And since there are laws against engaging in such a flight after committing a crime, there are appropriate punishments. And the responsibility of determining guilt and punishing anyone found guilty is exclusively that of the courts, NOT the police. If the police could do it, then we might as well let them shoot an alleged murderer in the head as soon as they find him.
(IANAL)
That's not the idea. The idea is that someone else has a camera and videotapes the incident. It's also meant to be a deterrent. If the cops don't know whether or not someone is videotaping them, it will serve to keep them honest.
Well obviously if there are people around you can't have police sending bullets all over. That's just bad!
That post is only 1/2 serious. I understand there are many implications for police every time they have to use deadly force.
I hate it that so many losers run causing more trouble for themselves and the cops.
What do I know...if I had the answer to social problems, I wouldn't be working in IT, ha!
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
There is a trial going on right now where a police officer shot an off-duty airman named Elio Carrion. Carrion was shot three times, but he managed to survive. Anyway, a man across the street got the shooting on tape, and it pretty clearly shows Carrion complying with instructions to get up off the ground when the officer shoots him. There's some pretty good coverage of the case here: http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_6200154
The officer's defense has been that he thought Carrion was reaching for a weapon. The trial isn't over yet, but this case points out to me that cameras aren't going to be enough to prevent abuse. Of course, until the trial is over we can't really say if this was a case of abuse or not. I guess cameras can help, but if the officer's word is assumed to be infallible, even cameras aren't a real solution.
As an aside, the guy who taped the event came forward to investigators on the scene later that night. The investigators noted that the guy seemed nervous and not everything he said made sense. In trial, the guy's response was pretty much: "yeah! i just saw a cop shoot a guy for no reason. It didn't really put me in a mood to be comfortable around other cops."
"Preceded by itself yields falsehood" preceded by itself yields falsehood.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'm not at all opposed to monitoring the police... go for it. When in public, they should be acting at all times like they could be recorded.
But, in a high-crime area, might not the criminals be more of a day-to-day threat? Maybe the cameras could be used to, I don't know, prevent crime? All crime, whether instigated by the police or normal citizens? Focusing on police make it seem like a marketing stunt more than concern for the populace.
This kind of "watching the watchers" project has been the work of the WITNESS project for several years.
--
make install -not war
Ah yes, another jealous BALD guy trashing us longhairs, what a sorry GIT you are!
Video Cameras? Lot of good they did us in L.A. during May Day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Los_Angeles_May_D ay_m%C3%AAl%C3%A9e
Alas, some nuance of communication is lost on the internet.
Me, too, but I like the exercise, and they're so much more cooperative when they're tired.
After reading it, however, I do see it as somewhat selective. As I understand their interpretation, they should be completely against national registration, but be tolerant of state registration of firearms.
I'm conflicted on both. :) However, I think contributions from both groups (the ACLU and the NRA) are useful, even when I disagree with them.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I just hope the videos make it to youTube
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
The results of the whole brouhaha led to some rather huge riots, economic damage, bloodshed.
Without context being filmed, and with TV news reporters on a tight time line (spurred on by a sense of ratings), this will likely compel the filmers and the reporters to leave out the context in order to grab the sensational footage. The events chain is pretty ugly, and mostly predictable:
Witness films event. Witness sells the sensational parts of it for $$$ to local news station. News station trims it down further to the most serious ass-whooping in order to grab more eyeballs. Everyone watching will gloss over the cops' side of the story (if it's even presented), and think "those fscking dirty-assed cops! They should pay!" Popular opinion of local PD sinks just that much lower, fueled by only half the story... unpleasant relations increase as does fear and loathing of the local PD...
While I do like the concept, I fear the implementation.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
So, given the charges were for the audio portion of the recording because Pennsylvania is a two-party state, would it have been legal to make the recording in Ohio, a one-party state?
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
From the OP:
"The ACLU of Eastern Missouri launched the project Wednesday after television crews last year broadcast video of officers punching and kicking a suspect who led police on a car chase. "
This took place in a different jurisdiction entirely, with different police officers and a different city from where the cameras are being deployed.
Making it seem as if this particular crime happened in the same jurisdiction is completely wrong and at best misleading.
Its like saying that a crime in Chicago led the ACLU to deploy cameras in St. Louis.
Second, the area where they are deployed is a small section of St. Louis City proper. It is an area which has abnormally high crime rates if you break it down statistically. I'm all for this type of project, but you need to put the whole thing in context here. I hope that the people with video-cameras are equally willing to tape criminals and call police to help lower crime as much as tape only officers who are in a bad area and situation to begin with.
Bill
Just a note that the guy in PA that was arrested for 'wiretapping' video during a police arrest had the charges against him dropped.
s /news630.txt
Interestingly, the reason was because the police cruiser was already recording the stop, the officer had no expectation of privacy, therefore it didn't matter if someone else also recorded him.
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/06/20/new
From the same site as the original PA Wiretap case:
. ssf?/base/news/1182392732222890.xml&coll=1
"He's cleared in police taping DA drops charge stemming from Carlisle traffic stop, declares new county policy"
http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/stories/index
Cameras in public are a great idea, as long as the public gets to use cameras everywhere as well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They hate it, and they are the ones enforcing a lot of loosely written laws. And they have guns - you pretty much have to do what they say. If that sounds thuggish, it's only because I mean for it to.
Check out this Google search to see what I mean.
99 times out of 100, if a cop wants his way he's going to get his way. It's wrong, but it's also how the world (unfortunately) happens to work.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
http://witness.org/
It's tailored more to finding local stories that impact you and report on them as an amateur, but has also been lent in the same way the ACLU is working now.
I am a big fan of the police, but dirty cops make me sick to my stomach. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't worry about the cameras.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
That is some piss poor supervision... a guy in our department got fired for that. Well, he just hit the guy once, but still. Piss poor.
Who the hell uprated this? If the guy was cuffed then the cops had NO business whatsover "beating the crap out of him". Since when does long hair and a "shady demeanor" justify physical assault by a state official?
Cops are not part of the judicial system, nor should they be. Does a person who willingly puts others in harm's way deserve punishment? Absolutely. But they also deserve a trial just like everyone else.
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
Police issued huuuuuuge magnets.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
remember, fox is not conservative.... fox news is. Fox itself plays both sides of the fence on this one. Airing material on its regular network that gets bashed by the viewers of their news network and sometimes their own pundits.
I have no idea how they pull this off and keep viewers, but the clearly do.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
No, this is not in stark contrast to the PA case. The PA case is about someone recording *sound*, not video.
A flaming faggot!
You sound like an enemy to true democracy, and an asshole to boot. I guess we should just lick the police's assholes and thank them for their great job, while doing zero to improve their daily abuses of authority and child molesting? Go RSS subscribe to http://www.badcopnews.net/ for 2 months and come back to me and tell me you have the same attitude. (NOTE: Ignore his racist headlines, site-administrator is a racist, but it is a good information source nonetheless.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
God you're a fucking asshole. I hope the police beat YOU. Go RSS-subscribe to http://www.badcopnews.net/ for a few months and come back when you have a fucking clue. You would fit right in with the Gestapo.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
When digging further into the stories, I often find either the police did nothing wrong, or they were antagonized to the point where even a saint would have problems.
Really? Whenever I look into any conflict, I seem to find the police exacting punishment on somebody that has already been subdued.
[cue]I AM THE LAW.[/cue]
Those guys need a severe beating.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When the ACLU does anything supporting the second amendment give us a call.
The NRA is the oldest civil liberty organization in the USA. They will continue to get my money (unless they continue to waffle then it will be GOA).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Firstly, people in hand cuffs can still be feisty. Put me in a pair and try to fight me. I guarantee you will win, but I also guarantee you will loose a good chunk of flesh. The point is, if this man was still struggling while in hand cuffs they may have had to use physical force to keep him from causing problems. Now physical force could mean a lot of things, as could "beating the crap out of me." I am not saying he is right or wrong, I am simply saying people have a tendency to reword stories to make them look like the victim. I have seen it done many times, heck, I have done it myself.
Secondly, perhaps whoever modded me up was modding me up for other reasons. My post did have multiple parts.
Thirdly, I did not say a shady demeanor justified physical force. I said it made them suspicious (weary was the word I used). The fact that he would not cooperate justified the physical force. But I do not know the real story, so I cannot say who was really just.
I think that's what I said anyway. I can't remember, it was a while ago. I suppose with just a few clicks I could read what I wrote. Why bother? No one is going to be reading this anyway. No one of any significance anyway. HAH! suck it blue. Just kidding.
I wonder what else is going on... eh, I think I'm starting to ramble. Eh, whatever.. good night.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Will the ACLU also encourage citizens to record a crime in progress to help the police investigate? Or is the ACLU really only interested in helping criminals walk free?
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
freakin' idiots, I tells ya...
Why would you think that?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
I find it interesting:
1. That there was an article in the KC Star about this same information November of last year and people are now talking about this.
2. In the same paper I found an article about installing camera's at known areas of the city where violence, gang "discussions", and or drug dealers were known to hang out, but the ACLU came out against this policy stating that "we were drifting toward a surveillance society".
3. The police department that want the cameras to watch for criminals, find something wrong with people videotaping their disgressions.
Double standards are great, and I bet the lawyers can't wait until the lawsuits start coming in...
When i was pulled over for "running a red light" in Pasadena, I was worried about paying a fine. When i showed up in court and was charged with speeding, i was like "oh noes, there goes my insurance!" Being the first time i've been pulled over, i was a little nervous, so i guess i didn't ask the correct questions to find out what i had done wrong AND what i had been charged with. Maybe the fact that i had a gun put in my face had something to do with that.
I see the recording of officers of the law as a good thing from the civilian perspective. It can only insure that they do their job, which is everything they are expected and assumed to do. Doing it correctly, fairly, without treating the "innocent until proven guilty" as escaped convicts. And if it can help prove abuse then it can't be a bad thing, from this perspective.
What i think could be bad is the fact of how people act when they know they are being watched. I don't know about you, but most people become nervous when they are being watched. That is why so many have problems speaking in public, and find it easy to use the net! But even if the officers can't see someone recording them, it could be in their minds and possibly harm their judgment.
The problem with officers is that it is not black and white. The laws protecting us from each other, and those protecting officers from us are pretty bad. For example, recently i was told by a trainer for the so cal area that officers aren't allowed to hit people with batons, this has been so for a while, but the flashlight is ok! Now, that isn't the best way of describing the circumstances, but that's how it works out. Do we want officers to be scared to "protect" themselves if need be because they might lose their job? They aren't in a situation where they can get written up for following or breaking company policy, they can end up dead on the side of the street.
If we could deploy some sort of wide spread camera system like england seems to have, that would definitely take away the added stress of "they could be watching me" and hopefully they'd be "acting normally."
One last thing worth noting from my personal experience, i've seen sherrifs race late at night on major streets. More than a few times working at in n out my buddies and i thought it was some sort of muscle car race or emergency cop take off when we would hear loud engines or peeling out tires, only to see the cars stop at the next light and take off again. Its instances like these i wish someone would have recorded the cop putting the gun in my face when i reached for my insurance when he had asked me to get it for him!
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
Woosh!!!
I was in a bar when a fight broke out, and was doing my best to get out of there when I was grabbed by two portly cops, slammed against the wall, cuffed, thrown to the ground, sat on, and then punched what felt like about 100 times (probably only 10 or 15...im a sissy). The left side of my head swelled up pretty good, and I had a good bit of road rash on other parts. I was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The cops wrote outright lies on the arrest report, the judge naturally took their word over mine (look at his spotty grooming habits!), and I spent almost a month in jail. You can't imagine what a surreal experience it is to stand there in front of a judge, black and blue, weiging 150lbs soaking wet, and hearing two beefy cops carry on about how hard you were to subdue...and having the judge act like he beleives it.
Had I even SEEN the cops, I would have been polite and cooperative. As it was, all I got to be was a punching bag. Maybe somebody else antagonized them...I dont know. I do know they flat out lied about what happened, and I went to jail for it. If there would have been video of the event, you can bet they would have beat up the videographer too.
I have friends that are cops, so don't think I'm down on the profession, but it does draw psychos...probably 30-40% of cops are like the ones that beat me up. Probably 30-40% of the judges are crooked or brain dead. I suppose it has always been so...but up until that happened I had thought America was special.
The second amendment is the ultimate check on government power.
What is it with you non-shooters. I bet you've been told this before, but didn't listen.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
No grown man has any business using the term "inexcusable hairstyle faux pas".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Not good enough. Not nearly. He should have been fired AND prosecuted and given the stiffest possible penalty (in these cases, where government officials break the law, double the normal maximum penalty should be mandatory) with an extremely public trial. When those who are sworn to uphold the law decide to willfully break the law, they harm the entire concept of rule of law for everyone. Notice I said willfully; a genuine mistake is one thing and is to be expected from time to time, but when intent can be demonstrated, the punishment needs to be harsh, swift, and public.
Put another way, if you want lots of authority, that's fine and I hope that you do a good job. But along with having more power than the rest of us, you should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us to go along with that, and I do not see this happening.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
And how much of your work day do you spend reading Slashdot? ;)
My point wasn't whether or not it was OK for your employer to tape your actions. My point was how the ACLU would tend to respond to an employer taping his/her employees' actions (if it weren't the police). That is not intended to be a criticism of the ACLU; I'm just pointing out the conflicting interests involved.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
As a UK citizen, I wish I could see it helping. But I can't. We have more CCTV cameras than practically anywhere else in the world yet still, when Jean Charles de Menzes was shot - on a busy public underground train in front of many witnesses, the police essentially got away with it.
For days after, the media was reporting complete rubbish as "facts" - the biggest thing they latched onto was "He was wearing a coat in summer and was therefore suspicious" - even though he wasn't.
That's not the only case, either. On several occasions where police brutality has been suspected, the CCTV footage was mysteriously "unavailable" due to technical breakdown.
You'd think in a nation festooned with CCTV cameras we'd have them working reasonably reliably by now.
Or the cop who thinks that blurping their siren for half a second is all the warning they need to give a person to indicate that they want them to pull over, or the cop pulling over some woman on a dark street in the middle of the night who just wanted to get up to the well lit gas station on the corner, or quite a few other reasons I can think of where someone is "running" from a cop.
It looks like the ACLU's position is that random, ad-hoc videotaping of police interactions by citizens is of a different nature than 24/7 videotaping of particular locations by the police. The specifics on the ACLU's concerns about public video surveillance are given in this summary:
2 5.html
http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/14863res200202
Glancing through this article, I don't see that any of the points they raise would apply to citizens with video cameras on the lookout for police misconduct. I can't think of any legitimate downsides to the practice, but if anyone can, I'd be very interested to hear about them.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
Why not film the actual crimes? I believe the local gang banger drug dealer might stop if he knows he is being filmed.
So, groveling before hired goons with guns is the best way to stop the problem of those goons abusing people? Stroking their massive egos is the best way to solve the runaway problem of police brutality? Hey, I'm always polite as well, but under no circumstances am I required to be. When talking to a cop, I'm not the one being paid to be in the conversation. I am polite as a human courtesy, not because it is my duty. This is not the case for the cop, and my failure to extend that courtesy is not grounds for him to beat me.
See, I don't pay the cops to lose their temper and beat people. I pay them to keep an eye out for trouble, to be helpful when I need them, and to always be the people who DON'T lose their tempers. You know, the Good Guys.
I don't care if an officer feels angry. I don't care if an officer feels threatened. I don't even care if an officer is in grave mortal peril. In fact, that's pretty much what I pay them for. It is their JOB to be in uncomfortable and/or dangerous situations AND DEAL WITH THEM WITH A COOL HEAD.
A police officer is not a regular member of society. We give them souped-up cars, weapons, comm equipment, firearms, and body armor. We do this with the expectation that they will always act in a fair and safe manner. "With great power...," and all that. So while I have sympathy for a civilian who loses his cool, I have nothing but contempt, anger, and fear for a police officer who does the same while wearing that uniform.
Police officers are our servants. Not the other way around. They are beneath us, not above. Increasingly, it seems that US cops don't understand this. That isn't surprising, because, to be honest, I've never met one that wasn't a complete and total moron, and an asshole to boot (think about the people you know from high school who went on to become cops--were you surprised?).
It is our responsibility as freedom-loving citizens of the United States of America to resist them, within our rights, every chance we get. Bone up on some basic law. It's our job to keep the state in its place.
(Here it comes, but it is relevant, I swear.) The Nazis didn't "take power." The Gestapo and the SS didn't just show up overnight. People GAVE them that power, and they gave them that control (power is the ability to punish, but control is something you give up willingly). A lot of everyday Germans had to be pretty pissed about the stupidity and evil they saw around them, but they did nothing to stop it. As we see mace and tasers used against people who pose no threat to society, as we see cops wantonly lie about the law, as we see them violate our civil liberties and abuse the power we gave them to protect us, unless we push back, we have no one to blame but ourselves if/when we find ourselves with a nation, a dream, a grand experiment, a philosophy that says the general goodness of mankind will lead to a peaceful and prosperous nation if we just let people do what they want, left in tatters as we grovel before an army of buzzcut bullies in body armor.
Cops are not like you. Not when they are in uniform, anyway. Just because you think you might lose it and punch someone if they are rude to you doesn't make it right for them to do so. If you did it, you would (and should) be charged with assault. If they do it, they should be too, and be stripped of their badges. Cops do not have MORE rights; they have FEWER. Remember that.
a) How many people in high-crime areas will use the things without fear of retribution?
b) How many of these things will be pawned off within the first five minutes?
c) Context. How many incidents will be "taped" only at about 90% completion? No record of the criminal firing a weapon at the police, etc.
d) 90% of the general public (from any neighborhood) is ignorant and confrontational.
You think these things will be used in a "correct manner" you're crazy.
I can just see it now:
Cop: "I pulled you over for speeding, license and registration."
Person: (pulls out videocamera) "I wasn't speeding you lyin' mother f*cker. What are you going to do now, b*tch? I got you on tape. I got you on tape. Come on, hit me mister kkk, I'll be a millionaire. I'm leaving now, try and stop me. I got you on tape."
Gee, let's just make cops jobs harder in the worst crime ridden areas of the city, that's just great.
I can remember the last time a cop was murdered in St. Louis, there was practically a block party celebration for it. Sick.
The St. Louis Chief of Police actually made a statement about the cameras. He said "it's legal and there is nothing wrong with it." The ACLU contacted him a while back to discuss it. They all agreed that the cameras will likely catch more good behavior by police than bad. The police chief is actually a pretty reasonable guy, and he understands that the community sometimes has issues with police officers. I figure that if this makes the cops and the people get along better, he can deal with it.
I think with the ACLU being the ones distributing the cameras, it would be much more difficult for the police to get away with confiscating them.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Sorry, no sympathy from me. Innocent people get killed when these scumbags decide to flee from the police and in my mind, the person who decides to run fully and consciously makes a choice to endanger other's lives by doing so. I'd charge them with murder if they actually killed someone or attempted murder if they just injured someone.
I say beat the shit out of the jerks, maybe they'll think twice before doing it again.
Even so, I don't think cops should be allowed to give chase unless a capital offense was witnessed.
The image verification word for me was victims.. the only way it would have been more appropriate would have been if it said irresponsible.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
For a couple of years, I had a crew cut. In that period I was pulled over by police twice, in two different states. In each case, I was given a warning, not a ticket.
Now I have a normal haircut, and I always get the ticket.
For what it's worth, my manner has been uniformly polite and cooperative.
I'd use it on my crappy, tweeker neighbors so the police can take them away. Repeat as necessary.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
The "job" of the ACLU is to pursue its goals of ensuring government bodies act appropriately. A "stick and carrot" approach is most likely the most effective way to do that.
Local STL news coverage seems kinda frosty: ...from which you glean that the ACLU is an "activist group," which is probably fair, but interesting how they're called such first, instead of simply saying ACLU in title or even the 1st sentence like the Associated Press did.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
And the obligatory non-response from the local PD...
"The St. Louis Police Department has had little to say about the ACLU's plan. [Chief] Mokwa has said the taping would be legal and that he believed it would capture scenes of officers acting professionally. When asked for Mokwa's thoughts on Wednesday, a police spokeswoman sent an e-mail that 'the chief's reaction was the same as it has been in the past.'"
Ok, so will the "residents" of North City (they did say high crime areas of St. Louis) record actual crimes too?
s es/johnsonetalvstlouispoliced.htm -- Oh, look, the ALCU again. http://law.wustl.edu/news/index.asp?id=4339 feel free to google "st louis police homeless" for more info. It's amazing how much you can get away with here.
I'm sorry, you should drive around North City. It's sad. If you cant, pull up http://64.218.68.50/slmpdweb/crimestats/ or http://64.218.68.50/slmpdweb/safecity/index.htm and see the sad nature of these neighborhoods. Police actually admit to not patrolling certain parts of District 9 (a specific area of North City) late at night, for officer safety [sorry, no citation, just actual conversations with police].
I in no way defend the police acting poorly, but I feel the ACLU is off here.
I guess that's why I moved out of the city too.
This is just how downtown, the police fear dealing with any of the homeless because they will get sued by a local reverend. http://www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/recentca
Either due to someone stealing them or the people who they were given to wanting some quick cash.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
if this country continues to allow people to come in speaking whatever language they want... it's just going to slowly dissolve the country into something that can't communicate with itself.
A good organization, free speech, free communication networks, can allow achieving substantial gains on the adversary without having to resort to firepower. Even big battles can be fought without a single bullet spent.
ACLU does a good tactical decision here by effectively outsourcing the support of the 2nd Amendment to specialists like NRA. More of the limited resources can then be spent on other cases outside of the NRA's core competence.
ACLU and NRA are not opposing forces; they are complementary.
The ACLU doesn't oppose gun rights, just as the NRA doesn't oppose the other 9 Amendments, but if someone is faulting the ACLU for being selective, it seems they'd be much more critical of the NRA. But the aren't, and we don't see the same argument used against the NRA, even though it would be vastly more appropriate for them. Why?
Perhaps because many NRA members happen to believe that warrantless surveillance is okay, torture-induced confessions should be allowed, prayer should be part of the school day, habeus corpus only helps the terrorists, and so on? Not all pro-gun people are like that, but if you're around long enough you see a rough correlation between being pro-gun and a certain tepidness towards aggressive defense of the 9/10 of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU champions.
Similarly, ACLU types (myself included) are generally skeptical that guns need to be as available as they are. So though charges are bandied about of whom is more faithful to the Bill of Rights and who isn't, it still falls out along political lines. But even so, 9/10 is still a larger number than 1/10.
And:
So, part of the training, conducted by a former Police Sgt. from the same city, is specifically how to avoid being in the way while taping. (The zoom others mention should come in handy.) There's strong emphasis on not interfering, with the training being delivered by someone that should know the situation really well. In addition, there's training on constitutional rights under the circumstances.
Since they are working closely with the police in setting this up, both the police and the citizens doing the filming should be aware of the situation, that the citizens know their rights, and that they should know how to stay out of the way. There's little doubt that both sides are aware of the national news aspect of the situation as well.
The police will likely be on their best behavior, and there'll be nothing bad to film. However, far from being a
[Begging some karma. Informative, please? =8^)]
Duncan
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
I never got how the refusal to learn a second language is related to culture. There has never been a proposal for a language police to arrest you for speaking another language. All it is is a formal statement saying that if you want a say, you need to say it in English.
If I move to France, do I refuse to learn French? (Well, being American, the answer is yes, but I'm talking about a perfect world and doing the right thing.) Picture me living there, having a croissant in a nice cafe, which proceeds to explode. I die because I don't know the French word for "Bomb!" or "Oh, shit!!" Having a common language is important as a survival skill, not a quaint cultural artifact. If I write this post in Swahili, does it change the idea behind it? The only thing that changes is the audience that can understand it.
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Actually, he was. The guy didn't want to press charges because he wasn't injured. I agree, though that it certainly hurts the public trust.
That is a statement that always drives me crazy... Cops pretty much always assume you are guilty. Otherwise no one would ever be arrested. The whole statement is, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. When you walk into a courtroom you are presumed innocent (or are supposed to be). IANAL but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time
I agree completely. I was just playing devil's advocate and not doing a very good job of it. I was trying to consider why some police might legitimately not like it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I not an American either, but I lived two years in New Jersey. It is not Hell, it is just ... boring. One huge suburb. They call themselves "The Garden State", and their national pride is the color of the leaves in the autumn. I can understand why young people are eager to leave, and badmouth it. They will come back when they get kids themselves.
In the USA their are more guns in civilian hands then in the military's + cops.
By quite a large factor. That's neglecting that most of the cops and a good part of the military would be on the populations side.
That fact alone will prevent a police state from developing.
Tanks/fighter bombers justs aren't very effective tools in dealing with insurgencies. As our turd world 'brothers' continue to demonstrate.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...was doing my best to get out of there when I was grabbed by two portly cops, slammed against the wall, cuffed, thrown to the ground, sat on, and then punched... Lemme guess... you're black?Your refrainment from speeding, stealing, or selling drugs is every day life or, to paraphrase you, just showing up. xplenumx specifically said "acting responsibility in a difficult situation." In this society, we regular criticize those who, when push comes to shove, make the wrong choices and we commend those who make the right choices. xplenumx pointed out that the ACLU already does the former and would gain credibility if it also got involved in the latter.
Do warnings still show up on your record? If so, wouldn't that possibly influence you getting tickets? What if you left out the part about the hair and just said "The first two times I got pulled over I got a warning. Now I get tickets." Doesn't sound so weird.