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
As opposed to monitoring the criminals in their neighborhood? They're as much a plague on civil liberties as big brother.
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.
The ACLU isn't funded by taxpayers, so how is this a waste of taxpayer money?
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.
As someone who has given money to the ACLU from time to time, this is a GREAT use of my money. If it can catch some of the cops abusing the power of the gun that they wield, it's a huge win.
Also, similar to how concealed-carry weapons lower crime even for those who are not carrying, the knowledge that there's a lot of people out there ready to catch the police abusing their power can act like a great deterring factor, which is an even better win. Stopping the abuse before it starts is a much better solution.
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
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
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.
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?
Here in the UK, each police force's budget has a large amount of taxpayer's money earmarked for 'we don't admit any liability' compensation settlements for the inevitable cases where the police have been caught wrongfully arresting or assaulting innocent people each year. If this ACLU initiative deters police wrongdoing, it could easily end up saving the US taxpayer money...
(IANAL)
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.
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
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."
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
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...
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.
No grown man has any business using the term "inexcusable hairstyle faux pas".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Agreed. Similarly, I was thinking about helping out Habitat for Humanity, but they don't work for gun rights, so I decided not to.
The ACLU fights for some rights. Maybe they pick and choose for poor reasons, but they aren't fighting against gun rights, so their failure to fight for them is no more relevant than the NRA's failure to fight malaria.
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.