Slashdot Mirror
Charges Dropped In PA Video Taping Arrest
Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed has reversed himself completely over the charges against Brian Kelly, arrested for wiretapping after videotaping a police stop. Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest. From the article: "... [DA] Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide. 'When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,' Freed said yesterday. 'The law itself might need to be revised.'"
While no judicial and law systems on the planet are perfect, the reaction in the US over this charge, and the eventual reversal say only one thing; as far as direct action is involved the USA is *still* one of the best places on the planet to do it. I can't remember the quote exactly, but it goes something along the lines of us in the west having freedoms we simply don't take advantage of. We pussy foot about and don't act, and that is the problem. If Brian here had not received the support that he did, he might still be in jail. I feel safer in the USA than I do in any other country when it comes to expressing my rights, even though I know that in some backwater town that ability may be more suppressed than in other areas.
"Permission to yell 'Bravo' in an annoying loud voice?"
"Permission granted."
"BRAVO!"
I wonder if the downfall of Mike Nifong has given prosecutors a dose of humility.
While I am impressed that the DA admitted that a mistake had been made, he still went too far in covering the ass of the very unprofessional police officer who made this stupid arrest. From TFA:
[Freed] said the officer who charged Kelly acted in a "professional manner."
Avoiding accountability by throwing someone in jail for recording how you do your job is NOT professional. Rather, it is the act of a petty tyrant on a power trip who, if left unchecked, will most likely end up harming the public in other ways in the future. The citizens of Pennsylvania deserve better than this from their law enforcement agents.
My truck is like a series of tubes.
This is one of my soapbox issues. More and more, investigations into your personal history (job applications, police investigations, security clearances, and the like) are questioning your *arrest* record. Being arrested (or even charged, but that's another discussion) denotes NOTHING about guilt, intent, or even behavior. You can be arrested for nothing more than being an out-of-state bystander who is witness to an (alleged) crime.
The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative, as is the inference when you refuse to reply, or respond that you have not been convicted of any crimes. (I started to type "have no convictions, but it got very confusing very fast!)
And no, I personally have neither convictions nor arrests.
KeS
I will tern into a complete police spy
Tern? That doesn't look like a typographical error, since the "e" and the "u" are nowhere near each other on the keyboard, so we must assume that you intend to watch the police from the water while preening your feathers and searching for fish to eat. Or, perhaps you'd swoop down on them from the sky and crap on their shiny cars?
Oh, you didn't mean "tern" like the type of bird, you meant you'd draw the three winning numbers in a lottery? Well, that's just confusing.
I'm a bit confused about your use of the abbreviation for Post Office though - or did you mean Pissed Off?
Guess you haven't looked for a job lately. Most places where I've worked ask about one's *arrest* record in addition to convictions. If you have been arrested, you of course could lie about it, but if the company does any kind of background check on you it most definitely will show up unless you were a juvenile at the time, and even then, "sealed" doesn't always mean sealed.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Driving and getting pulled over are normal parts of traveling. The other 2 are only involved in contingency plans.
So, in light of recent events I should be able to videotape police activities, right?
Anytime I see police making a traffic stop, I whip out my camcorder and get some nice clear pictures of the police officer and the person being stopped. Sounds about like what is being promoted here.
The reason this is (was?) illegal in many places should be clear to people but apparently isn't. Yet, I hope.
The first problem is the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even in America today. So what does my videotape show? Someone being questioned by police. This is the sort of thing that attracts voyeurs like rotting meat attracts flies. People will pay for video like this, especially (but not exclusively) if the person is some kind of public figure or celebrity. Should it be legal to publish such video? Well here in the anonymous Internet age once you have something in digital form there is literally no stopping it from being distributed. You can't stop it and you can't shut it down.
See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?
This means a simple traffic stop where the cop tells you to watch running through yellow lights has the potential to become an issue with your job. Why? A lot of public-facing jobs really are closed to people that have even a hint of controversy about them. Would you leave your child in the care of a teacher that was accused of having sex with a child? Would you hire someone as a bank teller that was accused of embezzlement? Would you still hire them if your insurance company told you that hiring them would raise your insurance rates? 50 years ago this sort of information could be private and not disclosed. Today, it is readily available to be misused. And it certainly is misused, every day.
Is it right that groundless accusations can prevent people from getting a job? No. Does it happen every day? Yes, absolutely. Is having video tape of accused (but not convicted) people going to help or hurt?