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)
Quite frankly I'm of the opinion that police officers should be allowed to beat the crap out of someone who leads them on a dangerous chase, endangering the lives of the officers and of innocent civilians. You can't even claim "innocent until proven guilty", since they obviously saw the person engaged in the act. Why do we spend so much time worrying about the "rights" of people who endanger the lives of others... To my mind you sacrifice your own rights when you choose to do something like that, and deserve a good beating.
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.
In your butt!
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
...basically for having long hair, I applaud the idea, but it won't work. They cuffed me before the beating began, so there would be no way for me to work a camera.
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.
I would use that video camera to videotape drug dealers and other criminals in my neighborhood. The ACLU will protect hate groups, PEDOPHILES, terrorists, and the police are somehow the enemy? Doesn't that group have strange priorities?
Also, NEVER DONATE TO THE ACLU. They will send you mail asking for more and more money. Even if you send them a letter saying stop sending me solicitations, they will continue to do so. I made the mistake of sending them $10 back when I thought they believed in the protection of free speech, not the protection of pedophiles and terrorists who hate America and what we stand for.
Plus wasn't some high level leader in the ACLU just recently busted for child pornography?
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.
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
This is just more proof of Slashdot being a haven for pedophilia and Communism. FUCK YOU. Research your facts before you mod me down to flamebait, you fucking faggots.
you have nothing to hide. Right? Right?
What a whore!
You're an idiot.
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.
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?
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?
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
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
nuf said
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.
Police issued huuuuuuge magnets.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
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
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'
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
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
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'
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.
with this, is that these people will only tape the "end" of a so called problem. Let's say, that a suspect fights with police, and is kicking and screaming, then, two police tackle and start to cuff him, then, the tape starts rolling. All you see is the police trying to cuff a suspect. The problem I have with this is just like I have with so called racial profiling tallies. Let's say you are a white police office who predominately works a black area of a city. Now, the MAJORITY of the people you come into contact with are black. So, when the results come out, the only thing you will hear on tv, radio, newspaper, and black leaders is that 87% of the time, this white office is stopping black people. He's a racist. They won't say where the officer works or other details of the reports. I know a LOT of officers who "fudge" these reports, just because they work a predominately minority section of town and are in fear of being labeled racist. I don't care what color your skin is, if you are doing something wrong in a car, such as broken tail lights, no headlights, dark tinted windows, license plate expired, speeding, weaving etc.... you should be stopped, regardless of color. These video cameras will create the same problem. Only telling HALF the story.
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.
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!
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
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'
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.