Man Ordered At Gunpoint To Hand Over Phone For Recording Cops

HungryHobo writes with this excerpt from a story at Pixiq: "Miami Beach police did their best to destroy a citizen video that shows them shooting a man to death in a hail of bullets on Memorial Day. First, police pointed their guns at the man who shot the video, according to a Miami Herald interview with the videographer. Then they ordered the man and his girlfriend out of the car and threw them down to the ground, yelling, 'you want to be f****** paparazzi?' Then they snatched the cell phone from his hand and slammed it to the ground before stomping on it. Then they placed the smashed phone in the videographer's back pocket as he was laying down on the ground."

Comments

See with that Apple patent

[Scareduck]

the cops could have avoided all that trouble, and then it would just be a he-said/she-said scenario. Neat. Clean.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[CSFFlame]

Whoops, someone forgot about a 5 cent piece of IR filter film. On the other hand apple could just be cock blocking someone else from using this tech, which would be good.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[brillow]

Don't think this couldn't be done optically, or with RFID, or wifi, or NFC.

The idea itself is powerful, an obvious weakness in a pathetic implementation does not weaken it.

Of course, this will never happen as long as consumers refuse to buy technology which disobeys them. Oh wait, damn...

Re:See with that Apple patent

[asdbffg]

the cops could have avoided all that trouble

Yes, by not shooting people or threatening witnesses at gunpoint.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[MagusSlurpy]

the cops could have avoided all that trouble

Yes, by not shooting people or threatening witnesses at gunpoint.

But then why would anyone bother to become a cop?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[History's Coming To]

The real trick is to post everything directly to "The Cloud". Yes, yes, I hate the term as much as the average /.-er, but in this case it's extraordinarily useful. Destroying the device doesn't destroy the data, and you also have a record of the destruction. There's a good reason for decent systems to keep off-site (ideally off-continent) records.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Lord Kano]

the cops could have avoided all that trouble

Yes, by not shooting people or threatening witnesses at gunpoint.

But then why would anyone bother to become a cop?

There're still plenty of drug dealers to shake down and prostitutes to extort free sex from.

LK

Re:See with that Apple patent

[shipofgold]

Obviously the other extreme is when all regulation disappears and the sharks feast on the small fish. The rich get richer and the gap between rich and poor grows enormously. As a student of history you also understand what happens next.....The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and today the Arab Spring....Don't think for a moment that any of those societies ended up better off.

Unfortunately those who want to cut all the social programs which attempt to equalize society, also want to spend the most on big brother technologies to keep the masses in line. I would rather pay my share to make sure people are not hungry, and have at least adequate medical care. Go visit India sometime if you want to see a society that has no social safety net....not a pretty sight seeing kids grow up under underpasses.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

Ha!

50% Overrated
50% Underrated

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!

I guess we have a mix of masochists and others...not so much.

Strat

Re:See with that Apple patent

[MagusSlurpy]

the cops could have avoided all that trouble

Yes, by not shooting people or threatening witnesses at gunpoint.

But then why would anyone bother to become a cop?

There're still plenty of drug dealers to shake down and prostitutes to extort free sex from.

Or vice versa.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Artifakt]

See, you were making a pretty good argument, and then you threw in this:

Is anyone willing to *personally* take a good working-over by government thugs in exchange for another social program? (emphasis mine).

It's not the social programs that empower the goon squads. The US government currently has 17 civilian agencies that have agents empowered to carry fully automatic weapons. There is a line item in the federal budget equal to about half the overall FBI budget, and it goes just to pay for the FBI running rifle, grenade launcher, and even rocket launcher training ranges for all the other security related agencies. Those are not the social services agencies that have the police like powers. A person from the department of health and human resources may be able to take one of your kids away, but at least he or she can't shoot you in the head to stop you from getting a lawyer and fighting it. The BATF, DEA, and 15 other police/security related agencies most definitely can.

Right now, you can take the amount that goes to Israel out of the foreign aid budget, and half the rest is directed by the DEA. For example, we give multiple squadrons of assault helicopters to Columbia to 'help stamp out Cocaine trafficking, add attack helicopters and air to ground Hellfire missiles to protect them, current elite grade scrambling to keep the drug lords from overhearing their communications, and many other forms of support, and then all their neighbors worry about what happens if Columbia uses all those neat toys for something besides the war on drugs, so we have to give the rest of Central America weapons too. If they don't have enough Cocaine growers to justify putting it in the DEA budget, we put it in foreign aid, earmarked to be spent only buying weapons from US based corporations. Then we have right wing radio show hosts frequently stress how foreign aid is all a liberal waste of money. (Yeah, because the Liberals are the ones who support a huge war on drugs.). Many of us strongly suspect there's still funding for covert ops hidden in the social services side of the budget, but it's a pretty safe bet nobody in, say, the National Endowment for the Arts is hiding money in the Military/Security part of the budget. The reverse however, is false - it has now been openly admitted that the CIA funneled money through the Nat. Endowment for the Arts for covert ops in the 1950s and 60s.

  Please don't fall for the idea that we have to cut social services to control the government - the power and arrogance they contribute to the whole is so trivial compared to the effects of all those agencies grouped under homeland security that eliminating all social spending would probably have less effect on the nation's slide into fascism than finding out why anyone else in the Treasury department, besides the Secret Service, needs full auto weapons training. (I'm willing to grant we need something like a Secret Service to protect various officials from nutcases - but why does a guy who's full time job description is to investigate insider trading, a guy who is required to be a CPA before qualifying for the job, but need have absolutely no military or law enforcement background, need to qualify on a M16-A4 assault rifle with under-mounted M203 grenade launcher?). Multiply that by all the agents for BATF that are not investigating firearms or even the few remaining old fashioned stills in the Kentucky hills, but need them for all those cases where someone is smuggling cigarettes without tax stamps - surely a few pistols or assistance from a federal marshall or two would be enough to handle such cases. Multiply by all the small towns that now have used federal grants for SWAT teams even if the most serious crime in a typical year there is likely to be a bar fight.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[schnell]

whenever the government is given control of more wealth and power to legislate & regulate...that's the same as saying they want more of this crap like this videographer received

EXACTLY! The action of these cops is DIRECTLY related to the growth of government! We should return to a time of smaller government - say, the 1950s or even the early 1900s - when police in the US deep South never abused anybody. I think we can all recall how much better the cops - and government in the South in general - behaved before that darned Federal government started getting so big. In fact, instead of shooting a guy and destroying evidence, they probably would have sat down and had a nice discussion together over grits and chicory, if it weren't for the insidious creation of the Department of Health and Human Services which turned them into jerks.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Any government big enough to have local police forces is big enough to do this. There's a reason we talk about "police states" rather than "bureaucrat states" or "social worker states". This has nothing to do with big government or little government--police brutality would still be a problem in a minarchist state.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Opportunist]

Mhmmm... and because the security goon can distinguish between an iPhone and something that's been altered to look like one, movie theaters will gladly honor this.

Or they will simply insist in a total "no cell" policy because ... right, because beeping cell phones disturb the other movie goers and spoils their experience, which also gives them a very neat excuse why cells are not allowed.

Please think for a moment and tell me which scenario is more likely.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[tqk]

Every time people want the government to do yet another thing, add yet another program, department, administration, taskforce, panel, bureau, etc...whenever the government is given control of more wealth and power to legislate & regulate...that's the same as saying they want more of this crap ...

Obviously the other extreme is when all regulation disappears and the sharks feast on the small fish.

I don't see how that's obvious at all. He was arguing for some one to stop doing things. You have a Constitution, and civil and criminal law; plenty of protection. What more is needed, another save the sanddarter campaign?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

It's not the social programs that empower the goon squads.

If there wasn't so much government to protect, there wouldn't be as many goons. If the government didn't control the amount of wealth necessary to pay for social programs, they couldn't pay for as many goons. Money going into government coffers gets used for whatever those in power want, regardless of what any Constitutional Amendment, law, regulation, or politician promises.

So, yes. More wealth...even for social programs...controlled by government means more resources for the government to use against the people's interests. Where's that Social Security "lockbox'? Outside of what's collected from current wage earners to pay current recipients, how much is *not* government IOUs in the form of Treasury Notes etc?

The government wanted that SS money and took it. Just as it will any other wealth it wants...unless enough people stand up and demand the madness stop.

Strat

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it was an Android phone so he could have uploaded the vid directly to YouTube. But he's being a money whore here so I don't have too much sympathy.

However, what those cops did, that's easily a few million in the guys pocket. When are cops ever going to learn, NEVER and I mean NEVER fuck with someone holding a camera and recording. He/She can be your best friend or your worst enemy depending upon how you decide to act.

And state legislators, stop with the bullshit laws on recording audio, video, etc. Cameras and in particular video cameras are no ubiquitous on the streets. Cops had best be on their BEST behavior.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

Any government big enough to have local police forces is big enough to do this.

Local police who are locally funded and controlled by local officials can only go so far before the other local citizens take their power and wealth away and replace them with better police with better, less-abusive policies.

When law enforcement gets a large amount of funding, receive orders, and follow policies and directives from a large central government, then local law enforcement loses accountability to their local populations.

There's a reason we talk about "police states" rather than "bureaucrat states" or "social worker states".

Yeah, the former USSR and China didn't/don't have much bureaucracy to run their police states and control their populations...

Oh, wait...They do/did! You're just talking out of your cloaca.

Strat

Re:See with that Apple patent

[shutdown -p now]

The real trick is to post everything directly to "The Cloud".

True. And the easiest way to do it is to use Qik. You can even set that up for the vids to land directly onto YouTube.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[CompZombie]

I should probably be used to reading stories like this by now. But the fact that I should be terrifies me all over again. I wonder when its my turn to get a barrel pressed against my head for the greater good of society.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[La Camiseta]

Already exists.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[t2t10]

Local police who are locally funded and controlled by local officials can only go so far before the other local citizens take their power and wealth away and replace them with better police with better, less-abusive policies.

And this astounding theory is based on ... what? Local police can become locally corrupt and start doing the bidding of local politicians and local wealthy people. And they have done that.

When law enforcement gets a large amount of funding, receive orders, and follow policies and directives from a large central government, then local law enforcement loses accountability to their local populations.

Historically, it's the federal government that has curbed corruption and excesses in local and state police.

In this case, you don't seriously believe that anybody would lift a finger locally to get these people their camera phone back.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Lemmy Caution]

The goons are busy protecting private property and the wealthy who own them. Absent the government, they'd skip the middle man and simply hire goons to get rid of people they find disagreeable with a lot more impunity.

"Government" is a discrete collection of programs, not a mass noun.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Lemmy Caution]

Yet, generally, the societies that offer the fewest social services to their citizenry are often the ones with the highest corruption, while social democratic governments in Europe seem to have a lot less of this kind of thing. I think you're the one fluent in cloaca-speak.

Need I point out: this story is about locally-funded, locally-controlled police. Not federal officers.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[MagusSlurpy]

I wonder when its my turn to get a barrel pressed against my head for the greater good of society.

Probably going to be November 6, 2012.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Kyusaku Natsume]

With the "Arab Spring" we see now that much of the preparation & planning in most of the countries where uprisings occurred/are occurring was/is being, at least initially, organized and funded by Code Pink, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and other Liberal/Progressive, Socialist/Communist activist organizations who oppose Israel and wish for worldwide chaos as an opportunity for them to gain power and overthrow Western Capitalism.

What about the Elders of Sion, Illuminati and the reptile men from Venus?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Hal_Porter]

That's bullshit. There are places where public spending is a low percentage of GDP that are very pleasant to live in. E.g. from here

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

Taiwan has 21%. The US has 19.9%. Both are a lot less than the UK (50%) and Sweden (58%). And I'd much rather live in Taiwan than the UK and the UK than Sweden.

In fact looking at the table a small state seems to work well if the majority of your citizens speak Chinese.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[droopus]

Um, one problem. The National Endowment for the Arts was created in 1965. Please, if you would, explain how they could have been use as a money conduit in the 50's when they didn't exist till the middle of the 60's.

Roger Ailes has even reached /. Go see what the hard right loons post on the very busy Fox forum. It will amaze you, I promise.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[toetagger]

I'm confused, why would drug dealers shake down cops, or why would prostitutes extort free sex from cops?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[phantomfive]

Miami may be different, but in California (for the Highway Patrol specifically), prospective police officers are given a psychological review, and if they give any indication that they are there to shoot people, or that they want to shoot people, they are rejected.

A person can lie of course, but we really don't want that kind of person to be a cop.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[justcauseisjustthat]

Hi Karl Rove, when did you start reading /. ?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[hairyfeet]

Yes because how dare they bring medical supplies and food to help out them niggers...err I mean Arabs, whom the sky bully says must be kept under boot or else Jebus won't come back, praise Jebus! Funny how the right wing wouldn't care if the Israelis had them an old fashioned lynching party for them poor bastards on the strip as long as there remains a Jew standing there to fulfill that "when the Jews return to Zion" line which IIRC wasn't even in the King James version. Don't you think it is kinda sad that our ME peace policy is based on a line written on a sheepskin by a 1800 year dead goat herder about a 2000+ year dead mystical figure?

As for TFA, as someone who still has a scar on the back of his head from a cop who said, and I quote "Fucking niggers and God damned hippies, i don't which makes me more sick" I can tell you that most cops I have encountered touring the south has been roid raged bastards going out of their way to start shit.

I have found for every decent cop you got a half a dozen or more roid raging, crooked, vicious, nasty, all around mean motor scooters. That is what happens when your police for cares more about its code of silence than it does in keeping out the dirty and the mean, but what truly makes them dangerous is they know they can get away with murder and that a good 95%+ of the time the laws simply won't apply to them. I know in my own area they actually got the coroner to testify that two teens that died by being hit by a train had passed out 'due to marijuana intoxication' even though the engineer said repeatedly that the kids were covered by a police tarp BEFORE he hit them and that neither body lying under the tarp so much as twitched even with the horn blowing full blast, and that the same coroner testified a year later a body found under a bridge in the same area belonged to someone who 'committed suicide'. Yeah he beat, shot, stabbed, AND strangled himself before jumping off a bridge in an area where it is pretty common knowledge that most of the cops are running meth.

So frankly is anyone surprised? When folks take videos of the cops acting like SA what does the prosecutors do? Oh yeah go out of their way to arrest the one who took the pics while the cops get a small suspension WITH pay, if they get anything at all. Funny how some many on the right scream that we are becoming 'socialists' when it actuality we are becoming (I would argue we are already there for the most part) fascist totalitarian.

But if anyone thinks this is shocking they should watch The Largest Street Gang in America and see how 'aggressive looking for a fight SA style' intimidation and oppression are the SOP for the blue shirts.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Tei]

People shotting to police with videocameras is a growing problem.

See this video:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/06/201164124745790709.html

Or better, ask your country to create a "firewall" to protect you from seeing videos like this.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[AmiMoJo]

That is easy enough to do for photos, at least on Android, but what about video? Mobile networks are slow, especially when there are a lot of people around. Maybe you could stream it live somehow.

Calling 911 and turning on speaker phone would also help. Even if the cops take the phone and smash it all 911 calls are recorded so there would be audio evidence of their crimes.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[AmiMoJo]

The French Revolution... Don't think for a moment that any of those societies ended up better off.

Are you seriously suggesting that the French Revolution didn't improve the situation for the average French citizen (or subject as they were prior to it)? Not only did their lives materially improve, they developed one of the strongest constitutions and ideals of social justice anywhere in the world.

The Arab Spring would seem to have made things better where it succeeded in changing the government too. The secret detentions, police brutality, dictatorships, no press freedom... Clearly many ordinary Arabs think these things are worth fighting for.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[ShakaUVM]

>>Calling 911 and turning on speaker phone would also help.

Last time I dialed 911 on my cell phone I was on hold for 10 or 15 minutes.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[RockDoctor]

It's what happens when government grows too big and powerful. It's happened every single time throughout the history of national governments whenever they grow too big.

So, what you're saying is that EVERY (your word, not mine) single government which has been "bigger" (your word, not mine ; I note that you don't define your terms, so I have to guess at what you mean) than yours (and presumably those that are "as big", but you need to define your terms) suffers the problem of redneck idiots running around in uniforms with guns and little sense of public service?

Speaking from a country which almost certainly has "bigger" government than yours (again, define your terms), we don't have this problem to any significant degree, because we haven't bred-up a society that is so wedded to the gun that public servants feel the need to carry a gun themselves.

You have a small degree of sympathy for being caught in an arms race between your government and the police. But continuing to do the same thing isn't being a successful solution to the problem. And the main problem is not the morality and intelligence of your police forces (they're always going to be kept relatively cheap because of tax-cutting pressure, which means that they're always going to be on average thick because brighter people will fuck off and get better-paid jobs), the problem is that they, and society in general have lots of lethal force available.

The police in Britain can, and occasionally do, beat people to death with their "night-sticks" (we call them truncheons ; whatever) ; but it is much much rarer than for the small number of armed officers to kill someone accidentally or without justification. Actually, just as a for-instance, only a week or so ago a coroner's court jury threw a case back at the public prosecutors where a police officer hit a man with truncheon, who subsequently died ; the prosecutors didn't want to prosecute him, but the jurors threw the case back in terms that the prosecutors now have the very unwelcome (to them) prospect of being forced to charge the officer with murder.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[azalin]

Long term or short term? Because the short term (ie decades) results of the french (or the russian) revolution where not that good. Revolutions tend to eat their children and it is not uncommon that people are even more oppressed afterwards. I takes a long time for things to settle down again and improve.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Kjella]

Yet, generally, the societies that offer the fewest social services to their citizenry are often the ones with the highest corruption, while social democratic governments in Europe seem to have a lot less of this kind of thing.

There's no real meaningful correlation here, except that if you don't provide a service at all it obviously can't be corrupt. The Soviet Union was almost all government and massively corrupt. Transparency, accountability, clear rules and standards, functioning watchdogs both inside and outside the government and many other factors come to play. The difference is that with public services the public can demand oversight, while private companies generally don't talk about their internal business practices and certainly not take directions.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[drinkypoo]

And meanwhile it has been ruled that they can reject your application to be a cop because you are too smart. Citations are easy to find. Do well on an IQ test? We don't want you. We only want idiot bully-boys who will push the status quo. Think for yourself? We make you a detective or frame you for something, depending on if we need detectives.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[geirlk]

You Sir, are in the wrong!

Look to Norway

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

crazy paranoid explanations (Code Pink? Really?)

I guess you conveniently ignored the link to the SF Examiner story I provided (there are many, many other mainstream news services/papers reporting the same thing)?

Nice ad-hominem spew. Attacking the messenger assures me you've got nothing to say worth reading to refute me.

Your Liberal-fu is weak. All your base are belong to us.

You set *yourself* up the bomb.

Strat

Re:See with that Apple patent

[iserlohn]

The GPs point is that the repression that these societies endured was a direct result of the rich enslaving the poor in various capacities and through various apparatuses. When this changes by revolution, the immediate aftermath is often bloody and grim.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[martyros]

But then why would anyone bother to become a cop?

You've put your finger on the source of the inevitable problem. Given the job, you're guaranteed to get this kind of person showing up at least occasionally; just like you get BOfH sysadmins, Wall Street attracts get-rich-quick schemers, the lawsuits attract ambulance-chasers.

The critical question isn't whether these things happen; they will. The critical question is how they organization responds. What will happen to these police, and the department that they work for? Will they be fired and never allowed to work in law enforcement again? Will there be a review of the attitudes of the police department to see if there are other systematic violations of rights, or a failure to provide adequate training or incentives to uphold the law (rather than abuse it for personal gain)? Or will they be given a slap on the wrist, and business continue as usual?

If there are consequences, then it won't be as attractive to this kind of person; or, this kind of person will control themselves because they know there will be consequences. If there aren't consequences, you're going to attract a whole lot more of this kind of person.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[iserlohn]

Government is an apparatus that is mainly used to keep people in line. Now think who would have a use for such an apparatus?

The reason why we have representative democracy is to ensure that the policy and execution of government is accountable to the people. As you can see in this day and age, powerful interests have found an easy solution to this by controlling the media and changing the "narrative". That's why you watch FOX news.

If you lack the capacity to the see that the government is controlled by the rich and powerful, then honestly, you are beyond saving.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[bstender]

You started out with just another throwaway simplistic political analysis, but then jumped into something quite humorous with notions of the "Western leftist planned and funded Arab Spring anti-Israel worldwide chaos conspiracy theory".

Re:See with that Apple patent

[turbidostato]

"Apparently you are *not* a student of history, or else you'd know that every single one of the revolutions/uprisings you listed (with some exception for the "Arab Spring") was caused directly or indirectly by a too-large and powerful government that took too many resources away from the citizens"

Apparently it is **you** (see? double asterisks, that's even more remarking that your single asterisks) the one that it is not a student of History, or else you'd know the difference between "government" and "ruling class". Government by the time of both the French and Russian revolutions were almost bankrupted and at the mercy of a rich ruling class which was the one taking away resources from the peasants.

"they had grown powerful enough to not care what the citizens wanted/needed."

It's only that, no, sorry, that was not the case. Government by the days of both the French and Russian revolutions was basically a post-feudalist structure. The king and court were not really so powerful and indeed were basically at the mercy of high nobility ('primus inter pares', you know) and banking resources.

"Gee, just like the times we find ourselves in now"

Yes, more or less the same: a government that does govern no more but it is a puppet at the mercy of a rich and powerful ruling class clearly obfuscated at sustaining the current 'statu quo'.

"wish for worldwide chaos as an opportunity for them to gain power and overthrow Western Capitalism."

What's "Western Capitalims" nowadays? For all that it seems, it looks like puppet governments at the mercy of a powerful ruling class made out of transnational corporations and financial entities, aka fascism.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, the homosexual activists want to finish what the Nazis started. Right. You are so sick that you'll repeat any insanity so long as you think it could hurt the people who scare you.

Please post more crazy so we can see that the modern Republican Party is the beacon for America's hopelessly insane. You're the one who's asleep: your American Dream is a nightmare.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Doc Ruby]

They're a Republican. And they're typical of Republicans.

FWIW, it's not a matter of what they "believe". No one can ever be sure what another person truly believes. Republicans are so absorbed lying about what they believe to insist on what others must do or don't that their actual beliefs are too hidden, perverted and inconsistent to bother with.

Because what counts is only what people do. Republicans vote for politicians, donate to politicians, who do such lying and harm, in direct contradiction of what they say they believe, that it's clear what the Republican beliefs are in effect.

Which is the only reason to care about their beliefs: their actual effect. Their beliefs are their own business. Their terrible effect on others (and themselves, then they drag us down with them) is abundantly clear.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[mjtaylor24601]

Strawman and false dichotomy. I never said that

You may not have said that that there was no police corruption in the 1950s/1900s but you did kind of suggest that this type of behavior was directly related to government growth

It's what happens when government grows too big and powerful. It's happened every single time throughout the history of national governments whenever they grow too big.

Is anyone willing to *personally* take a good working-over by government thugs in exchange for another social program?

Or am I misunderstanding you in some way?

Additionally, having a smaller government doesn't mean everybody gets a lobotomy and immediately starts swilling moonshine, ruining perfectly good sheets, and burning crosses.

Similarly shrinking the government doesn't necessarily mean everyone suddenly becomes reasonable and cooperative. Today a sociopath that wants to go on a power trip maybe becomes a cop. Shrink the government, and you think that person will suddenly become kindhearted and caring?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[MagusSlurpy]

But then why would anyone bother to become a cop?

Really, this shit gets +5 insightful?

Clearly slashdotters have not always had the best experiences with the boys in blue.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[phantomfive]

lol that's the New England spirit, don't waste money training someone who won't stick around. "Waste not, Want not" and all that. Bunch of stingy blockheads.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[shipofgold]

Also, on your list:

• Haiti -- 16.4%
• Cambodia -- 13.3%
• Bangeladesh -- 12.8%

I totally miss your point about why you would rather live in Taiwan than the UK or Sweden. Are you assuming you will have the same income in all three places and will live better in Taiwan? I think if you are a Janitor, you may prefer to live in Sweden....its all about income and where you fall in the social hierarchy and how the society treats people at each one of the rankings. Somebody has to be the janitor in every society, and I think that the society will be better off and more stable if those guys don't think they are getting screwed everytime they turn around.

I would choose to live in Haiti given enough cash...I could probably get myself a nice tropical beach house, maids, drivers, and cooks (and a few security guys).

Re:See with that Apple patent

[paxcoder]

Or if you want to preserve the data, distribute it. I'm thinking torrents.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Hal_Porter]

I totally miss your point about why you would rather live in Taiwan than the UK or Sweden. Are you assuming you will have the same income in all three places and will live better in Taiwan?

Well in Taiwan I can run my own company. There's much less chance of doing that in Sweden or the UK. Also Taiwanese people rock and the Swedes have been made rather ... unimaginative ... by the crushing socialist system.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Lord Kano]

I love how this was modded insightful.

So do I. Apparently we have enough people here who have seen the face that the police show when they think there are no cameras on them.

LK

Re:See with that Apple patent

[AmiMoJo]

See the French Revolution. Things improved for most citizens in the aftermath. I dare say that things in the Arab nations will also improve, not least because about 10 seconds after they become a democracy foreign investors will be lining up to "help" them monetise all that oil more efficiently.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[khallow]

It's not the social programs that empower the goon squads.

The same power that enables those social goodies empowers the goon squads. There's not two governments, one that does good things for society and one which harms.

Further, social programs have a habit of creating tragedy of the commons situations. To fix such situations, you either remove the common good, the social program, or you provide the government with regulatory and law enforcement power to prosecute abuse of common goods. Punitive social programs, such as large excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco or the banning of most recreational drugs, are particularly difficult to enforce and require considerable expansion of government power.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[khallow]

You may not have said that that there was no police corruption in the 1950s/1900s but you did kind of suggest that this type of behavior was directly related to government growth

The federal government isn't the only government in the US. Any government which decides certain people should ride in the back of the bus or similar acts of segregation has grown too big for its britches, whether it be a federal, state, or local government.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[schnell]

If you're going to bother replying, at least try to make some kind of coherent argument.

Nothing personal my friend, and certainly not intended as an attack. As far as trying to make a coherent - or say logical - argument, I think there were some overly broad and unqualified statements in your post that I was subjecting to reductio ad absurdum. It was certainly nothing ad hominem.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

bred-up a society that is so wedded to the gun

Maybe if arrogant, elitist British like you hadn't banned guns, you would have gotten rid of your monarchy long ago and joined modern Western civilization, instead of being stuck with a government out of the Middle Ages.

Britain came about during the age of the sword, the catapult, and the bow. Britain had civilization for many centuries prior to the discovery of the New World. Few large predators. No primitive native population for many centuries. Heck, there's only one native poisonous snake, and it's generally not aggressive.

America was carved out of a dangerous & deadly wilderness with the flintlock, the blunderbuss, and the cannon. It won it's independence from tyranny with the same tools.

Given all that, it's not surprising the two cultures view and deal with the issue of arms in civilian hands quite differently.

So, if guns bother you, the solution is simple: Don't come to America. *I* certainly have no wish to visit Britain.

Strat

Re:See with that Apple patent

[hondo77]

Awfully touchy for someone who couldn't be bothered to provide any references (fact-based, preferably) for your paranoid allegations, eh?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Aphoxema]

A big government can make big things happen.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[complete loony]

At The Serval Project, among our other phone / adhoc mesh networking projects, we are working on a GPL solution for live streaming video from android phones. We've recently made some progress and the source should be available at some point in the near future if anyone is interested in helping or using it for other projects.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[MaDeR]

"checking any facts or do any digging on your own"
You mean conspiracy sites, argumentum ad YouTubium and similiar crap on internez?

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

Most (70-75%) Jews are Democrats, and liberals.

Self-hatred has long been a recognized phenomenon among the US Liberal/Progressive Jewish population. There were large numbers of Jews during WW2 that willingly helped the Nazis as well. Does that mean that the Holocaust was OK?

Besides, this modern incarnation of Arab/Muslim hatred for the Jews is a direct follow-on from the alliance of hatred and genocide that WW2 Germany had with the Grand Mufti Muhammed Amin al-Husseini and what has become the Muslim Brotherhood. Even the name "Iran" means "Aryan". That should be a clue.

If you can't see any moral difference, then you'd have been okie-dokie with the Final Solution and the Holocaust. At least you aren't alone. There are a lot of "skinheads" that believe just as you and the Palestinians do.

I will simply do everything possible to make sure that such bigotry and unreasoning hatred is wiped from the planet along with those who espouse such vileness.

"A man is known by the [ideological] company he keeps."

Strat

Re:See with that Apple patent

[RockDoctor]

So, if guns bother you,

Guns bother me much less than dangerous fuckwits with guns and ammunition. without the ammunition, a gun is just an inefficient club.

the solution is simple: Don't come to America. *I* certainly have no wish to visit Britain.

Now what the fuck would make you think I'd want to visit that shithole of a country again?

By the way, don't think you'd be welcome if you did learn how to sign your name, had someone read you the passport application form, and tried to find your way out of your back yard.

Fucking septics. Think they own the world.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Omestes]

If you can't see any moral difference, then you'd have been okie-dokie with the Final Solution and the Holocaust. At least you aren't alone. There are a lot of "skinheads" that believe just as you and the Palestinians do.

Quite a strawman there... I don't agree with irrational, baseless, violence from anyone, for any reason. Nazis and the Holocaust were atocities and tragedies. Skinheads are bigoted morons. Jews can be biggotted morons, as well as Arabs. I don't care how sypathetic you are, if you start performing violence against innocents, no matter how nice sounding your rational, your no longer in the right.

Furthermore, I find Zionism to be about as patently ridiculous as Manifest Destiny was in America, or whatever any ethnic group finds as a nice term to sum up the repression of any other ethnic group. I also find the sects of Palestinians who want to exterminate the Jews, or deny Israel completely to be absurd and abhorent. All of these groups hold a mere ideology above people, and all of these groups made up pretty rhetoric to cover banal intolerance and xenophobia.

Again, and I'm sure this point will still be missed completely by you, I don't hold much sympathy for the violent fringes of the various Palestinian movements. I hold the same amount of sympathy for them as I do the extreme sects of Zionist Isrealis. None. Defending yourself is fine, and as such Israel has some right to violence (as would the Palestinians), but once this right crosses over to harm caused to civilians... You lose moral high ground.

How is raising apartment blocks full of innocents to kill possibly one "terrorist", or killing kids for throwing rocks different than Palestinains firing on Jewish settlements, or morons strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up innocents at clubs and stores? Both are outside the realm that any civilized society should accept.

But then again, you have proven that there is no arguing with you... Since I disagree with you I must be a crypto-nazi, who is a closeted skinhead. This is obvious, since you hold the only opinion worth considering, and everyone else loves Hitler.

Someday people will be able to have a rational, and constructive, discussion on the affairs of the Middle East. But that day is not yet here.

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

Since I disagree with you I must be a crypto-nazi, who is a closeted skinhead. This is obvious, since you hold the only opinion worth considering, and everyone else loves Hitler.

If you support those who also support evil, you are evil. Maybe you simply have been mislead by taking what others say as fact without doing any of your own research. To ignore, excuse, or say nothing in the face of evil (such as making committing genocide against an entire culture, religion, and people a central, non-negotiable goal) is to be evil. There is no middle ground between good and evil. There *is* both good and evil in this world that has no shades nor gray areas.

Anti-Jewish/Israeli bigotry & hatred has been around for centuries. The current anti-Jewish hatred & bigotry in the Middle East is the very same hatred & bigotry, revived, that drove the horrors of Germany in WW2 and others before and since.

Many current Islamic clerics speak openly and with great enthusiasm and nostalgia for Hitler and the days of the Holocaust, and wish the job finished. They carry clerics spewing such screeds regularly on Al-Jazeera. Just because Hitler and Germany were defeated doesn't mean that the anti-Semitic hatred went away, particularly in the Arab/Islamic world.

Whenever Israel suffers a rocket attack, another suicide bomber, or a family including infants and children brutally murdered in their beds, the Palestinians dance, sing, and hand out treats in the streets all across the Territories. Where are the widespread celebrations on the streets of Tel Aviv when a Palestinian civilian/child/infant is killed? Does it make a difference to you that a majority of Palestinians think Hitler was a great guy and had the right idea?

If one fails to recognize evil and speak out against it, then you share the guilt equally with evil when evil triumphs, horrors become commonplace, and people suffer.

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -Disputed, often attributed to Edmund Burke

Strat

Re:See with that Apple patent

[Omestes]

If you support those who also support evil, you are evil. Maybe you simply have been mislead by taking what others say as fact without doing any of your own research... To ignore, excuse, or say nothing in the face of evil (such as making committing genocide against an entire culture, religion, and people a central, non-negotiable goal) is to be evil.

I don't support ANY evil, regardless of who is committing it. It is very hard to "research evil", since the term itself is vague, and often misused as a mere pejorative against any idea, culture, or person who we do not like, or whose values conflict with our own. Often time when we bandy the term about, we ignore the fact that we, too, can commit evil. We are blinded by our own proximity to it. Take the U.S. for example, we LOVE to use that term on our enemies, but we ignore the fact that we have been very capable of it ourselves (since we ourselves are obviously right and virtuous to a fault, we must be at the price of severe cognitive dissonance), this is equally true of many vocal Islamist governments and militant groups, screaming that the U.S. is evil, while blowing up civilians and innocents (which would be "evil" in my dictionary). (some of) Israel isn't immune from evil either, no matter how evil (some of) their enemy is, it doesn't clear them. Evil isn't negated by other evils. If you have a "big evil" fighting a "little evil", the actions of both remain evil.

As you stated, there is no middle ground.

Anti-Jewish/Israeli bigotry & hatred has been around for centuries. The current anti-Jewish hatred & bigotry in the Middle East is the very same hatred & bigotry, revived, that drove the horrors of Germany in WW2 and others before and since.

No argument there. Antisemitism is harmful, and somewhat scary. Any form of xenophobia, bigotry, or mass hatred is likewise scary, frightful, and act as fuel for atrocities and evil. I'm not arguing that "Jews are evil", or that "Israel is evil". I have nothing against Jews or most Israelis, so painting me as antisemitic, or a skinhead, is ridiculous, and, to be honest, somewhat idiotic. I have nothing against the religion (in fact I have more respect for it than its other monotheistic siblings), ethnic group, or even the country. I just question some of the countries actions. To me this is legitimate, I also question my own countries actions, but don't hate the people that are contained within that country, nor even the country itself.

Many current Islamic clerics speak openly and with great enthusiasm and nostalgia for Hitler and the days of the Holocaust, and wish the job finished. They carry clerics spewing such screeds regularly on Al-Jazeera. Just because Hitler and Germany were defeated doesn't mean that the anti-Semitic hatred went away, particularly in the Arab/Islamic world.

This IS frightful and abhorrent.

Whenever Israel suffers a rocket attack, another suicide bomber, or a family including infants and children brutally murdered in their beds, the Palestinians dance, sing, and hand out treats in the streets all across the Territories. Where are the widespread celebrations on the streets of Tel Aviv when a Palestinian civilian/child/infant is killed? Does it make a difference to you that a majority of Palestinians think Hitler was a great guy and had the right idea?

Some of them do. And some Israelis are very happy when Israel kills civilians as well, I'm sure. So happy that they give their government free rein to attack and target civilians, and to oppress the "Israeli Palestinians" internally, they refuse to do their part to END the goddamn circus, so are perpetuating it as well. Failure to condemn evil actions are like the actions themselves. Celebrating ANYONE'S death is disgusting, no matter how you feel about them. Killing innocents and civilians is disgusting universally, no matter how much we agree with the greater "cause

Re:See with that Apple patent

[BlueStrat]

Maybe you simply have been mislead by taking what others say as fact without doing any of your own research..

It is very hard to "research evil", since the term itself is vague

I can't tell if you're being obtuse here or not. I'm talking about digging into history, researching, and actually listening to what has been and is being said by those involved in and surrounding the trouble in the Middle East, since that was the context of this discussion.

Whenever Israel suffers a rocket attack, another suicide bomber, or a family including infants and children brutally murdered in their beds, the Palestinians dance, sing, and hand out treats in the streets all across the Territories. Where are the widespread celebrations on the streets of Tel Aviv when a Palestinian civilian/child/infant is killed?

Some of them do.

Citation? If there was any significant numbers or percentage of Israelis celebrating a Palestinian woman or child being killed by dancing in the streets, the enemies of Israel would have the video playing on a loop 24/7 on Al-Jazeera while decrying Jewish atrocity.

Are there a few Israeli extremists who might celebrate? I'm certain there are. That's not the same as the widespread celebration filling the streets in the Territories whenever a Jewish family and children are brutally murdered

There is no equivalency there.

Further, during the Holocaust, Germany (the state) was being evil. Many Germans were being evil. But not all Germans were evil. This is my point. Most Palestinians aren't, and most Israelis aren't, but both of the groups have shown a remarkable urge towards evil actions.

Most Palestinians *do* favor committing atrocities against the Jews. They freely elected Hamas as leadership. Their hatred is widespread and runs deep. They refuse to acknowledge that Israel even has a right to exist or Jews a right to live. How can Israel even begin to negotiate anything with people who believe their God says they should wipe out Israel and kill every single Jew and will not negotiate their stance?

When a Palestinian is spotted, for example, launching mortar rounds at an Israeli pre-school and he runs and hides with his family who backs and even encourages his actions, and then Israel accidentally kills some or all that family when they return fire, that is NOT equivalent to the Palestinians' actions. Israel doesn't intentionally target children or unarmed civilians. Maybe if the Palestinians stopped relentlessly attacking innocent Israeli civilians and children, lives on both sides would be saved.

Both sides have striven to make the other suffer

No. This is utterly wrong. Israel and the Jews strive to not be utterly wiped out. Does that mean that sometimes bad things happen? Sure. It does in every single conflict or war that has ever, or will ever, be between men.

Israel's goal is to survive. Palestinians' and other Islamists' goal is to kill every Jew everywhere and wipe out Israel totally. To say that Israel is equally evil because some innocents die in their fight for survival, in the face of such hatred and violence, is simply ignoring the facts to make oneself more comfortable with, and disavow any responsibility to speak out against, bigotry and hatred. Doing that makes one just as responsible for that bigotry and hatred as those who espouse & practice it.

Playing the moral equivalency game in the face of such blatant evil is itself evil. It may make you feel better about not saying or doing anything about it, but it will assure that the evil will eventually end up at your own door, and by then there will be nobody left to stand with you against it.

Strat

Ahhh crime.

[Qatz]

Theft, destruction of private property, destruction of evidence, assault, and I'm probably missing a few.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Soilworker]

Is the US trying a new way of social reinsertion by giving policemen jobs to prisoners with clear psychopath behavior ?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[jra]

I'm fairly certain this gent has a 42USC1983 claim against all of the individual officers involved, and I *certainly* hope he's taking advice on that point.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[hduff]

Theft, destruction of private property, destruction of evidence, assault, and I'm probably missing a few.

It's OK because it's the police, so you have nothing to fear, citizen, unless . . . you have something to hide.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to continue until people start shooting assholes, regardless if they're cops or not.

I mean really, how long are thugs allowed to continue their... thuggery, until they get shot?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[danbuter]

None of which will be used against the cops. Unfortunately.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Alex Belits]

Umm... murder? Or at very least manslaughter? The video was of shooting a bystander.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Alex Belits]

(to be precisely, likely a bystander -- but their evidence of it being anything else, doesn't seem too convincing).

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, think before you go castrating the public's protective services just because you want to be a dick to a cop and not get punched.

Videotaping cops or anyone else in a public place is not "being a dick." It's not even illegal in a two-party state like Florida unless there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The cops should not be disempowered from performing their duties, but they should always be mindful that there are serious consequences for breaking the laws they're supposed to be enforcing.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[NatasRevol]

New?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Man On Pink Corner]

If you're a US citizen, one estimate I've seen is that you're subject to 40,000+ pages of Federal, state, and local laws. You may absolutely rest assured that you have broken more than one of them today, probably before you even got out of bed this morning. As have I.

Now, who has "something to hide," and who doesn't?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[mvdwege]

So, filming a public servant in public doing his job is 'being a dick to a cop' and deserves a punching.

Good to know that the Gestapo would have had a nice informant in you.

Mart

Re:Ahhh crime.

[bmo]

That's OK. I will be sure not to record your beating or shooting when it comes to you.

Fair enough?

--
BMO

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Lehk228]

ok fine, but make the penalty for ANY crime by a police officer against a citizen life in prison if non-violent and death if violent

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Dahamma]

You can't make it more against the law such that they won't do it.

You absolutely can. "Against the law" has nothing to do with convictions and punishment. We entrust (and pay) these police officers to enforce the law, and yet when they clearly break the law it's a LOT harder to get anyone to prosecute, let alone convict them. They'll probably get suspended WITH pay, and at best fired, more likely fined. The chances of them getting convicted of an actual crime are pretty low...

Make destruction of potential evidence of negligence or abuse by a police officer a felony with mandatory jail time (ie. worse than the original crime) and you will make them think twice. In fact, make felony crimes by police officers equivalent to laws that double sentences for crimes committed with a gun. They have a gun, and if they committed and are convicted of a crime, what's the difference?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the guy who filmed Rodney King receiving a kicking was being a dick? Well, glad to know where you stand on the matter, Officer.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[russotto]

Seriously, think before you go castrating the public's protective services just because you want to be a dick to a cop and not get punched. Because if you actually make it impossible for him to punch you, you also make it really easy for the crook he's unable to chase to punch you.

In my adult life, I've never been robbed or punched by anyone without a police badge.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[cgenman]

Does anyone know of an iphone or android app that automatically uploads video to a remote server while it is being taken? Therefore things like smashing a phone would be useless, as it would already be publicly available.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[PyroMosh]

I had trouble Googling the incident myself until I added "Raymond Herisse" (the name of the man who died) to my searches.

It turns out he's been IDed as the suspect in an armed robbery attempt from earlier in the weekend and police tried to pull him over (no idea if it's because of the robbery or another reason), but rather than stop, he rammed a police cruiser and tried to run over at least one officer on foot.

So considering him a threat? Sure. I buy that. If what they say is true he demonstrated that he was a threat.

But from the video I saw, it seems that they shot at him on a crowded street. The car stops, and cops approach it. Then a few seconds later the 6 or so officers I could see all appear to not just fire, but unload their guns into the car.

Did the suspect draw a weapon? That would explain that kind of action, but the video I saw doesn't show that.

I can imagine a scenario where the cops do everything right and bystanders get hit when shots are fired. I can perhaps even forgive them for unloading their weapons. Adrenalin, and all that. I've never been there. Still, all the stars have to be aligned perfectly for me to believe that 4 bystanders got hit and it happened with the cops doing everything right.

Nothing however explains the confiscation of cameras and assaulting of bystanders. There *is* no reason I can dream up that is anything other than a criminal act on the part of the police.

The ACLU is investigating apparently, and rightly they should.

Even more troubling, is I can find no evidence that any officers have even been suspended. Though apparently there were officers from multiple departments involved.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making it too complicated. Any crime by a police officer should be death. On duty or off.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. Next time someone does something I don't like (even if perfectly legal), I'll punch him out.

Then I can just tell the judge "he was being a dick, your honor. And we all know there's a law against that."

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Swampash]

And yet people who could currently leave if they put their minds to it continue to live in the USA.

An image of a frog in warming water comes to mind.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like there is no more separation between executive and judicial powers.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[dr2chase]

Fascist. Often enough, someone is just filming, and then the cop starts "doing his job". Like this guy.

Here, some "dick" mounted a camera on a building.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[CrazyDuke]

I'm willing to consider moving. But, could you kindly point me in the direction of an English speaking country that is, well, not going in this direction or already there? Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand all seem to be in varying states of going down the loo. I know broken bits of French, Spanish, German, and Japanese. But, nothing I can get by on.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Ariven]

Yes, http://qik.com/ Qik supports android and iPhone.. it worked well on my 3g and works fine on my android.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[aplusjimages]

On Android phones you have YouTube that will stream your video as well as UStream.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[MarkvW]

Actually, it's robbery not theft.
Maybe witness intimidation too.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Surt]

There's nowhere better to go, unfortunately.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[mysidia]

flash memory is rather small and can be durable. what are the chances that even smashing it that they didn't do much other than break the screen? i didn't read the article, but the video could possibly still be recoverable.

The phone is a nice crash shell for the flash memory. There is a good chance, the data could be recovered off the phone, but specialized expertise might be required --- electronics the flash memory is attached to may be damaged.

If you want to make sure you destroy any memory on the phone, you need to use something like a Blender to you know, blend the phone. Noone's going to re-assemble a totally shattered flash memory card, even though many of the individual cells may be intact, you effectively then cannot read them, at least not inexpensively

Re:Ahhh crime.

[HungryHobo]

"Arresting someone if you aren't a police officer would be kidnapping. If a speeder simply could escape by driving 10 mph over the speed limit and the cop never being able to catch up then it would be all but impossible to enforce speed limit laws."

which would be a fine argument if they weren't explicitly allowed to do those things.
Police are granted a great deal of additional rights and powers to enforce the law.
It's only sensible that they should be punished more severely if they abuse that power.

this isn't "whoops, I lost control of the police car during a high speed chase and hurt someone" or "damn, I aimed at the bad guy but missed and hit some poor sod"

this is explicitly attacking someone and trying to destroy evidence.
That isn't a little mistake.
That isn't something that just happens when you're trying to enforce the law.

You can give your witness report 10 minutes later somewhere private, on the other hand if a cop was beating the shit out of you for the crime of being black then you'd probably welcome the guy with the video camera.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

Officers like this need to be made examples of. If not by judges, then by citizens.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Lord Kano]

Seriously, think before you go castrating the public's protective services just because you want to be a dick to a cop and not get punched

Fantastic idea. Castrate all cops!

LK

Re:Ahhh crime.

[JWSmythe]

Actually, the way Florida law reads (and probably in other states), anyone injured during the commission of a crime will be found at fault for that injury.

    This is the way it was explained to me in law enforcement school.

    If Suspect A were robbing a bank. The police show up, secure the area around it, and the situation escalates. Suspect A realizes he doesn't have a chance, and comes out of the bank, gun held above his head in a submission manner. SWAT is going to be in full battle gear (body armor, assault weapons, etc).

    IB 1 (Innocent Bystander 1), a 90 year old gentleman, see the commotion, realizes what's happening and has a heart attack and dies. Not a shot has been fired yet.

    SWAT1, a member of the SWAT team determines that the submissive manner isn't submissive, but aggressive, and fires. Because of the shot, every officer on the scene starts firing. we'll assume for this argument, that none of the officers shots hit their target due to the distance from the police line, and the inaccuracy of their weapon.

    Random shots ricochet and hit IB 2 through IB 10, people who were standing at another police line (on the other side of the street, or an intersecting street, it doesn't really matter).

    The shooting stops, ambulances come and collect the injured. Here's the summary.

    Injured: Suspect A
    Fatality: IB 1, IB 2 - IB 4 (3 dead from gunfire injuries, one from heart attack)

    Who did it?
    SWAT1 injured Suspect A.
    Other officers injured IB 5 - IB 10
    Other officers killed IB 2 - IB 4

    So when the charges come down, who gets charged?

    SWAT 1 - no charges.
    Officers - no charges.
    Suspect A - 4 homicides, 6 attempted homicides, all without firing a single shot.

    The logic goes like this. If Suspect A had never been robbing the bank, the police would not have responded. The scenario would have never happened, and therefore it's all Suspect A's fault.

    The same applies to the real case in question. The blame *WILL* be laid on the driver who is now dead. The IA investigation regarding the shooting will likely find that it was a good shooting. There may be some misconduct charges for the threats to bystanders and destruction of private property. That'll result in a nasty note in their file, and maybe a few days of paid vacation.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Opportunist]

The problem is: Where to go?

That's also the reason why you're still free to go wherever you want. There's nowhere to run. Back when the Soviet Union still existed, the US had to keep up the facade of a liberal, free country where you may be what and how you want to be, where your privacy and your rights are protected by the government and not trampled on. Which of course meant that whoever could rub two brain cells together in the East wanted out, towards the free West. That way, as odd as it may sound, the Soviet Union protected us from our own government. Because the very last thing any country could want is that its best and brightest have nothing in their mind than plotting how to leave.

What we need today is a US for us. Some place to go to.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Opportunist]

I'd already be happy if there was a chance that this would get him some punishment at all. What sickens me is that the word of a policeman is still worth many times that of a normal subject when it goes to court. Not to mention that suddenly every cop within 10 miles was there and will testify gladly that everything transpired exactly as he said, and all of them are very credible, unlike your three buddies that dragged your carcass to the hospital which are clearly lying for you.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[c6gunner]

That's OK. I will be sure not to record your beating or shooting when it comes to you. Fair enough?

Sure. I have no problem with such a deal, because:

1. I generally try not to break the law.
2. When I do break the law, I generally don't get caught.
3. When I do get caught, I cooperate with the cops.

If you follow those three steps, I guarantee you won't have a problem. I've met a few dick-cops in my times, but by following step 3, the worst I've ever had was them yelling at me, and arresting me after I already l willingly laid down on the ground. Never gotten a bruise out of those confrontations, let alone any serious damage. So yeah, I'd prefer it if you didn't film me, because I can take care of myself, and I'd rather not see my next arrest on youtube, where future bosses can look it up.

Thanks!

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Opportunist]

Huh? You grab a guy, beat the shit out of him, destroy his cellphone, humiliate him and as a punishment you get a few days of paid vacation?

Are they hiring? Sounds like a fun job.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Travelsonic]

Well, when members of the public protective service fucks up, who else do we castrate, the DAIRY COW DOWN THE ROAD?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Dr Max]

The penalty is hardly the problem (they have quite serious penalties) its getting a conviction. Not only will the police destroy or lose any evidence against them (its a miracle that this guy got the sd card away). No police officer will ever corroborate with the public against another officer for fear of losing their job as they now know it (being given all the crappy shifts, no promotion, other cops hatting them and maybe even hurting or framing them). Throw in the fact that cops have extreme powers to find anything this guy did wrong (or trump up / frame) and the public have nothing. Not only that most the victims are poor and don't even have the resources to afford a proper defense. So then all you have is 3 cops saying this guy is guilty and one civilian saying he beat me up and i hadn't even done anything. Personally i think the answer is every cop should have a (or multiple) continues personal video feeds, backed up on the cloud at the crime and misconduct commission. These guys sign up to uphold the law its seriously disappointing thinking they can't practice what they preach; besides don't they keep saying only the guilty have anything to hide (should apply to them too).

Re:Ahhh crime.

[thegarbz]

Does your phone have an MicroSD Card slot? I'm sure if my phone went splat or even went underwater the MicroSD would survive. In many cases a crafty electrical engineer should even be able to get the data off a motherboard mounted flash memory.

Those chips are actually very resilient so much so that I've heard of cases of cameras being dropped while skydiving and despite the camera turning into a complete wreak the memory cards were quite readable.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Khyber]

Sadly there's this "Constitution Free Zone" within 100 miles of borders, and the beachline (up to 13 nautical miles out) is considered part of that.

So I'll be willing to bet this case DIES. We've had our rights bought out, there's no further defending them..

Comply or die, citizen. Those are your only choices - Comply with the new powers or die fighting them.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[IonOtter]

Don't worry, it will happen.

Very soon now, some mayor or police commissioner is going to get their claws on an ADS Truck, and they're going to use it. Probably at the G8 or G20 protests at some point.

The Agent Provocateurs will be out in force on Friday night, smashing windows and setting fire to police cars in the downtown area. Innit funny how all those "ruffians" seem to be wearing expensive combat boots from Bates and Rocky? Then on Saturday, the families will come out to have their protests. And because of all the "damage" and "wanton destruction" from the night before, the police will be "authorized" to use physical force.

And when you have a brand new toy, you just KNOW they're gonna use it.

All of the test videos for the ADS system show a group of 10-15 guys who look like they work out and run 10 miles a day. And they're in a 20-acre open field. It's going to be real interesting to see what happens when the ADS is used against a crowd of out-of-shape civilians that include children and women with baby carriages. In crowded city streets, with curbs, lamp posts, garbage cans and cars.

Oh, and I bet the officers at the controls aren't going to show the same restraint as the highly-bribed scientists from the test videos. They're gonna crank that dial all the way up to 11.

I imagine seeing a few dozen people crushed to death by the panicked mob, and then a hospital full of people with 1st and 2nd degree radiation burns will be alllll we need to start a war.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[shutdown -p now]

Sadly there's this "Constitution Free Zone" within 100 miles of borders, and the beachline (up to 13 nautical miles out) is considered part of that.

The 100 mile no-rights zone only applies to Customs & Border Protection, not to cops.

So I'll be willing to bet this case DIES.

Quite likely, but this would have nothing to do with the aforementioned zone. The way it'll happen is that they set up an investigation which finds out that cops did nothing wrong - same as usual.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[shutdown -p now]

Theft, destruction of private property, destruction of evidence, assault, and I'm probably missing a few.

You're missing the most important one - abuse of authority.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Back when the Soviet Union still existed, the US had to keep up the facade of a liberal, free country where you may be what and how you want to be, where your privacy and your rights are protected by the government and not trampled on

To be fair, though, this was also the era of Hoover's FBI and the Red Scare. We had no business claiming to be any better than the Soviets as long as we had institutions with names like the "House Unamerican Activities Committee."

There's plenty of stupid fascist bullshit going on today in America and I'm never reluctant to bitch about it on Slashdot... but honestly, I suspect things were even worse for most of the country's modern history. Don't let a misplaced sense of nostalgia obscure the progress that has been made over the last several decades.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[IonOtter]

2. When I do break the law, I generally don't get caught.

I'd say "We can fix that for you," but I pretty much think you did it yourself, dude. You get +1 Darwin Award.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[rueger]

"It turns out he's been IDed as the suspect in an armed robbery attempt from earlier in the weekend and police tried to pull him over (no idea if it's because of the robbery or another reason)"

Call me a liberal pinko leftie Communist, but let's remember that even in the US of A there's a presumption of innocence. I would have preferred a trial before the guy was found guilty.

"but rather than stop, he rammed a police cruiser and tried to run over at least one officer on foot"

And I'm kind of assuming that part of the story came from the cops after the fact. And there are those who have a serious belief - and not just criminals - that it's in your best interest to avoid dealing with police these days. There just seems to be too many cowboys who shoot or taser first and ask questions later.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[gblfxt]

oh man, that would not be good, drunken shenanigans would not be the same.....

Re:Ahhh crime.

[joekool]

qik video---uploads live.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[operator_error]

Yes, photos exist from memory cards that survived the Twin Towers collapse and bridge explosions, for example. In the case of the former, these were the last photos of an amazing photographer that himself perished.

I'm too tired now to cite these actual references, but in the case of the bridge explosion two cameras were setup one behind the other. Too much explosive was used and both cameras were destroyed, although the 2nd camera managed to capture the first, in front of it, actually beginning its destruction. The SD card on at least the 2nd camera was readable.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[swillden]

Actually, it's robbery not theft.

That's a good point. Robbery is a much more serious crime than mere theft.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[KingAlanI]

alternately, abusing police power could be attractive to someone with that kind of personality even if that specific person hasn't already gone out and caused criminal mayhem.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[KingAlanI]

summing up http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html, that's about how you can sue those who violated your rights under color of law.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[bennomatic]

Well, even smashing the phone, unless you do a real bang-up job, isn't going to kill the content that's stored on a flash card. I remember after the tsunami a couple of years back, there was a flurry of sites where people were posting images from cameras that they had found in the wreckage. One heartbreaking set was apparently from a couple on their 50th anniversary in Bali. Lots of pictures of them being happy on vacation, and the last few pics were of the wall of water approaching their hotel. Their bodies were never found, but thrashed around, submerged in saltwater, the camera and the flash card survived.

Some idiot boot-heeling your screen isn't going to be worse than a tsunami.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[JWSmythe]

    I'm sure they'll wrap it in a better sounding decision, but essentially, yes.

    The job itself isn't really all that fun. You're dealing with people from the beginning of your shift, to the end of your shift, who all hate you. Everyone from traffic cops writing tickets, to special crime units, their job is to enforce the law, which means someone you encounter is going to get the shit end of the stick.

    I have never heard anyone sincerely say "Well thank you for stopping me officer. I wasn't aware that I was going 5 miles per hour over the speed limit. I really appreciate it that you have given me this $150 reminder to slow down. Have a beautiful day." Nope, it's more like (either verbalized or in your mind) "Fuck you, I wasn't speeding, if I wasn't running late already, I'd back my car over you, but I don't want to have to stop again to wash the blood off."

    And that's the easy shift.

    Try showing up to do a preliminary interview on a murder suspect.

    If they're innocent of the murder, they may cooperate. They may say "fuck you, call my lawyer", or shoot you, because you might find the 100 kilos of heroin in the spare bedroom being sorted and bagged by illegal aliens you had smuggled into the country for just that purpose. But the crime doesn't always resemble the reaction. They may just shoot because there's an outstanding speeding ticket that wasn't ever paid. And, that's just the innocent people.

    If they're guilty, that changes the playing field, sort of. Some think they can talk their way out of anything. Some don't. And when they realize that the conversation is going towards "you have the right to remain silent", out comes Uncle Glock to finish the conversation.

    I, by no means, am implying that any of it is right. Law enforcement, rent a cops, and ... well, whatever the TSA is suppose to be (we are not law enforcement, but we are the government, and you surrendered your rights the moment you thought about buying a plane ticket, you terrorist scum). They all pick and choose the laws the enforce. And frequently enough to make the news every day if you look for it, they just plain make up the laws. Yes, you are allowed to film on a public street. You need model releases if it's for commercial purposes. And no, anyone at any level (outlined at the beginning of this paragraph) cannot just decide "Fuck you, you can't do that. I'm going to smash your shit and arrest you for whatever I feel like, after I get done kicking you and your girlfriend a few dozen times. That'll teach you to talk back to me." Ok, they may not say all those words, but by about the 5th swift kick into your ribs, or trying to kick your head like a soccer ball, the implication is there.

    And no, nothing that we can say or whine about is going to make a bit of difference. There's one route that will change it, and that is significant change. But I am not advocating the change that can be implied, because those who start it will not survive to see the end of it.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[t2t10]

Oh, knowing some people from behind the Iron Curtain, believe me, the US was a lot better, even with Hoover and McCarthy and all that.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[canadian_right]

The people videoing the cops were not breaking any laws. The cops broke the law when they tried to confiscate the video at gun point and broke the phone. I don't know if the shooting that was videoed was justified or not, but either way f the cops want the video they should ask or get a court order, not put their guns in the face of innocent bystanders.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Bing Tsher E]

Innit funny how all those "ruffians" seem to be wearing expensive combat boots from Bates and Rocky?

They're trustafarians.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Sabriel]

Living in Australia, one of the bigger differences here is that (so far) we still have a political system where the smaller parties, independents, etcetera, actually matter.

The US has two utterly dominant and remarkably similar parties, and a "first past the post" system to help ensure it stays that way.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[im_thatoneguy]

I wasn't in any way responding to the specifics of this case. And I very clearly stated that videoing law enforcement was an important supervision. You're completely misrepresenting my statements.

n fact, make felony crimes by police officers equivalent to laws that double sentences for crimes committed with a gun. They have a gun, and if they committed and are convicted of a crime, what's the difference?

If you make every crime a police officer a felony with a weapon you're neglecting the fact that police officers are required to carry a weapon as part of their duties. I want armed police officers. And we call on Police officers to carry out borderline unethical behavior on a daily basis.

It's important to hold law enforcement accountable and I think video is a good first step. But I also think it's important to point out that law enforcement is by design in a precarious position legally and we have to make allowances (such as carrying a weapon at all times and authorized to use it) in order for them to perform the job we've demanded of them as citizens.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[PyroMosh]

I mostly agree that the cops acted inappropriately (unless some extraordinary evidence surfaces). Which pains me to have to defend this part, but your remarks seems so clueless I feel compelled to.

"It turns out he's been IDed as the suspect in an armed robbery attempt from earlier in the weekend and police tried to pull him over (no idea if it's because of the robbery or another reason)"

Call me a liberal pinko leftie Communist, but let's remember that even in the US of A there's a presumption of innocence. I would have preferred a trial before the guy was found guilty.

You're right. He shouldn't be found guilty before a trial. But if he did try to run over a cop, or if they have reasonable cause to believe that he did (it's unclear if the police even knew about the robbery or not) then they do have the right to treat him as a greater threat.

If a police officer runs your license number for speeding and doing 12 over, they'll approach your car with due caution, but they'll be more or less relaxed.

If that same officer pulls someone else over, and the plate comes back as belonging to an armed robbery suspect, their reaction will be entirely different. The person still wasn't tried or convicted. But we've decided that it's pragmatic and appropriate.

The question in this case is the details. Why did they unload their clips into the car? Did he do something, or were they using unrestrained force? These are important questions.

"but rather than stop, he rammed a police cruiser and tried to run over at least one officer on foot"

And I'm kind of assuming that part of the story came from the cops after the fact. And there are those who have a serious belief - and not just criminals - that it's in your best interest to avoid dealing with police these days. There just seems to be too many cowboys who shoot or taser first and ask questions later.

If you believe that running form the police is a valid strategy in any case ever, you're either stupid, or just as much of a problem as bad cops.

I am not defending bad cops. I am not even saying that there aren't a lot of bad cops. But police serve a necessary function. And there are good cops. And I can't even imagine a scenario where it would be preferable to run from the police rather than to cooperate. What are you going to do? Run into the Atlantic and swim to international waters? Do you expect treatment would be better by running than by not under any circumstances? Do you expect you could ever get away? These are not rational arguments.

Bad cops or not, if the guy ran he was in the wrong too. Not just in the wrong, but stupid or crazy.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[houghi]

Why not try to repair what is broken? Otherwise it sounds like :First they came for ...

The result then will be that every country will be fucked in the end.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Hognoxious]

1 Filming isn't against the law, but even if it was it shouldn't be.
2. Wrong, by your own admission
3. You're a pathetic little coward, and that's an insult to pathetic little cowards everywhere.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[grikdog]

You're probably too young to remember when cops were pigs? Still are. They never got reeducated because the communes were owned by hippies instead of Commies. Good old Charlie Manson gave cops such a good name by comparison.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[TheRaven64]

No, they need to be made examples of by police forces. The police can only function effectively with the trust and support of a large proportion of the population. This trust is destroyed by incidents like this, making life more dangerous for all of the rest of the police. Any public perception that the police are closing ranks to protect the guilty does even more harm.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[JWSmythe]

    You know, it's not exactly that easy to explain away. It doesn't always go that well. Ask any officer about showing up to a domestic dispute, and who they can trust. They'll tell you "neither one".

    The same goes for a burglary call. When they arrive, they don't know if it's the burglars turned kidnappers, or the victim. Or, when they come in to make sure there's no intruders, they find something illegal, you're in trouble. And yes, if you let the police come in to look around, anything in plain sight is fair game. A bong and scale on the coffee table turn a simple call to check out the house into a drug bust. And if there's a quantity in the house, you can be pretty sure that there are a few small arms laying around to defend the stash. And the difference between shooting a cop and hauling ass, or losing a substantial stash, lots of people will chose the wrong choice. Well, I guess if they lose their stash, their upstream dealer may not be very entertained either.

    So, which calls were you implying were safe?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[AmiMoJo]

Scotland is looking to become independent in the next few years. Once they break away from the rest of the Scotland might be a viable option if you can stand the climate.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[JWSmythe]

You may remember it, and I may remember it, but the courts will side with the law enforcement officers, especially when it's law enforcement that will be investigating it.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[AmiMoJo]

So you are saying you are fine with the idea that if a cop says "jump" you have to respond "how high?" or they might decide to beat you up and then explain away your injuries by adding a "resisting arrest" charge? You can't see how that gives cops the power to do anything they want, or more to the point force you to do anything they want by pointing a gun at your head?

I sincerely hope that the next time you encounter a cop he decides to make you kneel down and open your mouth so he can shove his diseased cock in there. Just co-operate and nothing bad will happen to you.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[AmiMoJo]

You speak the truth. PC Simon Harwood nearly got away with the murder of Ian Tomlinson, and it was only due to video evidence that the police could not lie about the incident. Well, they tried to lie but the video contradicted them. Hopefully this thug in uniform will got to jail for a long time.

Unfortunately people see joining the police as a license to brutalise the public whenever they feel like it. They join specifically to do that. Before the protests at which Tomlinson was murdered (he was not part of the protest, just happened to be in the area) they said they were "up for it", meaning they were hoping for trouble as an excuse to start fights. Although they don't carry guns they do have metal truncheons, and one of those was the murder weapon used by Simon Harwood.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[ShakaUVM]

>>We had no business claiming to be any better than the Soviets as long as we had institutions with names like the "House Unamerican Activities Committee."

Are you pretending the USSR didn't infiltrate the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona), or that the Community Party of America was anything but an arm of COMINTERN (with an attached espionage wing- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#The_Third_Period_.281928.E2.80.931935.29)?

We were absolutely better (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) than the USSR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Yezhov#Arrest_and_death) during this time period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Bukharin.27s_confession) and during any other time period.

Not that America is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but your statement putting us on moral parity with the communists is just painfully naive.

It's hard to say if America is more dictatorial today than in the past... you could make arguments either way, as in some areas we're much more free (the internet has seen to that) and in others less so (papers please).

Re:Ahhh crime.

[ShakaUVM]

>>It's important to hold law enforcement accountable and I think video is a good first step.

Video is a good first step, but there is NO second step.

My family was friends with Sam Knott before he died, and he devoted his life to reforming corrupt practices and stopping cops that abuse their power (http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/media/San-Diego-Magazine/February-2004/The-Killer-Cop/), but it didn't make much of a difference in the end.

Basically, cops are above the law. It shouldn't be that way, but that's how it is.

A cop went speeding around my neighborhood at 55MPH (in a 25 zone) and ran over a guy, killing him. Not chasing anyone, just driving fast. Court gave him a slap on the wrist, and nothing else happened to him. Anyone else would have been tried with involuntary manslaughter.

Other friends have been abused by cops in various ways, and have fun dealing with the police complaints bureau (it's the one that suspiciously looks like a trash can next to the phone). At least there is one now - Sam found that there had been numerous complaints about the CHP officer that killed his daughter, but the police simply ignored them. At least they pretend to care now.

Most cops are good, but there's also some bad, and some ugly ones.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[myspys]

Perhaps http://www.bambuser.com/ ?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[thejynxed]

Actually, it does apply to regular cops. I guess you missed the NYPD setting up the "Constitution Free Zones" and "Free Speech Zones" under direction of the DHS during the Republican National Convention a few years back.

Very showy at the time, with hundreds being arrested, put in Riker's Island until after the convention was over, not being charged, and then released. Anywhere from 8-14 days after the end of the convention was the average.

There was even articles in Newsweek, Time, etc about it.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[slabberman]

Qik does just that: stream your video to its site in real time as fast as your mobile connection allows you to. However, it uses a proprietary recording app to accomplish that. You can also set the movies to private/shared from within that interface, chat with your viewers, etc.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Scutter]

You can delete Qik videos directly from the phone. That makes it useless for secure uploading since the cop could just delete the video before smashing the phone.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[c6gunner]

I sincerely hope that the next time you encounter a cop he decides to make you kneel down and open your mouth so he can shove his diseased cock in there.

Sounds good. I'll bite, and then sue for $20 mil.

See the difference between me and you? I can turn any situation to my advantage, whereas all you know how to do is whine about being a victim. There's a reason people like me don't have a problem with cops, while idiots like you are constantly having issues with them.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[c6gunner]

I agree with you completely. However, none of that has anything to do with what I said.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[rasjani]

Qik & Bambuser are bound to be available for Android & Iphone .. both available for symbian & maemo atleast..

Re:Ahhh crime.

[dmtaub]

also works for n900

Re:Ahhh crime.

[CrazyDuke]

Trying this, even in a constructive, non-combative manner on a small scale, results in upsetting both the people who want to live in their delusion and the people who are terrified and want to let sleeping wolves lie: Both of which will gladly stab you in the back. Even if what is attempted ultimately improves the situation for all parties, it is still insufferable as any opportunists in the leadership structure want both the credit and to strip it of any benefit to anyone else, except maybe their "friends."

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Elbereth]

If every asshole gets shot, it's inevitable that you or I will be shot, as well.

In my case, I'm somewhat surprised I haven't been beated up in years. Decades, even. I probably deserve it.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[cavebison]

.. I added "Raymond Herisse" (the name of the man who died) to my searches. It turns out he's been IDed as the suspect..

For a second there I thought Apple had patented being dead.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Svartalf]

I'd be aiming for that and trying to get the FBI to pursue an investigation of violations of 18 USC 242 (Deprevation of Rights Under Color of Law).

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Danse]

1. I generally try not to break the law.

The people filming the cops were breaking no laws. Didn't help them. Their only offense was the fact that they had evidence that might incriminate a cop. Seems like it's the cops that broke the law and assaulted people who were doing no wrong, in an attempt to cover their own mistakes.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Jedi Alec]

But I am not advocating the change that can be implied, because those who start it will not survive to see the end of it.

The kind of change that would be required for this sort of thing to stop would be for the American public to give a flying fuck and elect the kind of folks to represent them that do not stand for this kind of crap.

So yeah, brutally murdering 90% of the population of the US of A would probably not go down well.

Oh wait, you were probably talking about some sort of armed revolt against that very government your countrymen keep electing...because, that's like, going to sort the root of the problem: that people in general are apathetic selfish animals that don't give a fuck unless it happens to them or someone close to them.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Danse]

The same goes for a burglary call. When they arrive, they don't know if it's the burglars turned kidnappers, or the victim. Or, when they come in to make sure there's no intruders, they find something illegal, you're in trouble. And yes, if you let the police come in to look around, anything in plain sight is fair game. A bong and scale on the coffee table turn a simple call to check out the house into a drug bust. And if there's a quantity in the house, you can be pretty sure that there are a few small arms laying around to defend the stash. And the difference between shooting a cop and hauling ass, or losing a substantial stash, lots of people will chose the wrong choice. Well, I guess if they lose their stash, their upstream dealer may not be very entertained either.

Look, nobody is saying that the job is easy. But then nobody forced any of them to become cops either. If I am incapable of doing my job within the law, then I'd get fired and/or arrested. I don't see why it should be any different for them. They are entrusted with rights and powers over and above what any regular citizen has. With those come the responsibilities to use them well in accordance with their mission, and not for their own personal gain or satisfaction.

The cops in this case quite obviously were abusing their power by assaulting people who were doing nothing more than recording the actions of their government. Such recording is exactly the kind of thing we need in a democratic society to keep us informed and to allow for changes to be made when necessary. If they are allowed to destroy evidence or otherwise prevent it from coming to light, then we are denied the information that we need. We are stuck taking people's word for it, and I don't think any of us can really trust our government that much, and I don't believe that we were ever intended to.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[zzsmirkzz]

not everyone hates the cops. the person who called the cops in the first place is often rather happy to see them show up.

That's not always true. My friend was jumped in front of my old apartment (next to a bar) by a group of about 5-6 guys - me and a couple of my other friends try to help him out. One guy who works at the bar runs over to the cop car sitting in the dunks parking lot (just watching) and gets them to do something about the fight. One of my friends gets arrested, one of the other guys gets arrested, the guy who called the cops gets arrested - all for disturbing the peace or whatever law. Yes, the guy who called the cops was arrested, for calling the cops - he did nothing else.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[russotto]

But in defense of law enforcement they are exposed to an unprecedented level of douche bagery by scum bags on a daily basis. And not people speeding I mean real anti-social dicks who deserve to serve life sentences themselves for the betterment of society.

Yeah, and that's just during roll-call.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[betterunixthanunix]

4. When you cooperate with the cops, you go to jail.

I would not do anything except ask for my lawyer and tell the cops that I am exercising my right to remain silent if I were arrested. You cannot be prosecuted for exercising your rights (and if we ever degenerate to such a state of government, then cooperation still will not help you), and nothing you say to the police will be used in your defense. What, do you think that by telling the police where you got your marijuana from you will somehow help get yourself out of your prison sentence?

Your rights were not codified for the benefit of criminals. You have the right to remain silent as a protection against the government, and we certainly need that sort of protection in this day and age. I would not say anything to a police officer, even if I were not being arrested, except perhaps a polite "Good afternoon, officer." There are just too many ways to break the law, and too many ways that a friendly conversation with a cop could result in the admission of a crime.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[amxcoder]

They make memory cards that can do this with still photo's. They are used in the higher end D-SLR's, so photo professionals pics get uploaded as soon as their taken. I assume it's either for convienence, or for guaranteeing that a journalist's photo's can't be confiscated?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[knutkracker]

Bambuser is one. Not sure if you can set it to prevent deletion of the cloud recordings from the phone, which you would need in order to make it totally cop-proof

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Thing 1]

Do you really want to give people incentive to kill you after they've stolen from you? That's what happened in old England when they made laws punishing pickpockets with death, and it will likely be the end result of your suggestion as well.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[c6gunner]

And if they hadn't been filming, they wouldn't have had an issue, which is what the discussion was about. I'm not trying to defend the behavior of these cops in handling the guy who was filming the incident - I was merely telling numbnuts not to bother filming my arrest. I'd much rather not have the cops further aggravated by some guy playing paparazzi. I have a very simple approach to these things: don't piss off the guys with the guns, and deal with any problems through the legal system, afterwards.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[c6gunner]

I don't think you understand how the legal system works. Which is pretty much status-quo for most people in these discussions, but it's still rather sad.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[onepoint]

I can only think that the counter defense to ADS is a Faraday cage, but I'm not even sure you can make one that would be portable in this type of crowd situation.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[NetNed]

Wait, what kind of officer that isn't the biggest idiot in the world would question a suspect in a crime without a pat down? You know, S.O.P.??? If one didn't pat them down and got shot, it's his own dam fault for being stupid and not following his training.

And if you are wasting time writing 5mph over tickets that cost $150+ and can't figure out why people hate you then I can see why you wouldn't think to pat down a suspect before questioning. 5mph tickets anywhere except in subdivisions and school zone are nothing but money grabs by local PD's to suck the public dry. Around here the police would be run out of town if they trying pulling that scam.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[HornWumpus]

if you can stand the climate.

And the Scots.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Are you pretending the USSR didn't infiltrate the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona), or that the Community Party of America was anything but an arm of COMINTERN (with an attached espionage wing- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#The_Third_Period_.281928.E2.80.931935.29)?

No, I'm not pretending, I'm indifferent. Who cares? They can 'infiltrate' us all they want. It should not be illegal for Communists, Nazis, or other 'undesirables' to seek and hold public office in the US. That was the whole idea. Spies from behind the Iron Curtain should have been ferreted out mercilessly, sent welcome baskets, and asked if there was anything we could do to make their stay more comfortable.

Not that America is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but your statement putting us on moral parity with the communists is just painfully naive.

Ironically I'm usually the one levelling that accusation at people on Slashdot, and for the same reason. Moral parity between the actions of the US and those of the Soviet regime is indeed a ridiculous thing to suggest. There were clearly bad guys and good guys on the playing field, and yes, we were unequivocally the good guys, all snarkiness aside. However, the fact remains that we damned near shredded the Constitution in order to save it... an art which is only now being perfected. If anything, we should be more vigilant now against our own government than we were against the Soviets.

The true test of a nation's character is how it responds to ideological threats. If our ways of life are genuinely better than those espoused by the Soviets and the Red Chinese, we should not have had anything to fear, and shouldn't have reacted to them to the way we did. We could have showed the Communists that "Let a hundred flowers bloom" isn't just a trap for dissidents, but the right way to run things.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite, and then sue for $20 mil.

How's a dead man supposed to sue?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Danse]

You said that you don't have to worry about this kind of stuff because you generally don't break the law, etc. I'm merely pointing out that that is not a protection at all when cops are willing to assault you even when you're not breaking any law or doing anything even remotely threatening.

I have a very simple approach to these things: don't piss off the guys with the guns, and deal with any problems through the legal system, afterwards.

Right. Deal with the legal system afterwards, with no evidence to back up your story because you're too concerned with enabling such abuse by "not pissing them off". Unless people are willing to hold those in power accountable, we're all just powerless peasants to them.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[c6gunner]

You said that you don't have to worry about this kind of stuff because you generally don't break the law, etc. I'm merely pointing out that that is not a protection at all when cops are willing to assault you even when you're not breaking any law or doing anything even remotely threatening.

No shit? You mean there's nothing that will 100% for sure protect you from someone who really really wants to kick your ass? Wow. You learn something new every day.

People will assault you whenever they feel like it. It doesn't matter whether they're wearing a uniform or not - if they really feel like kicking your ass, they will. If you're unhappy with that ... too bad. Welcome to Earth.

Right. Deal with the legal system afterwards, with no evidence to back up your story because you're too concerned with enabling such abuse by "not pissing them off".

There's always evidence. But hey, don't let me stop you. If you prefer to end up beat to a pulp or dead, you go right ahead. We'll have the enjoyment of reading about you in the news, and you might even get a Darwin Award out of it!

Unless people are willing to hold those in power accountable, we're all just powerless peasants to them.

Which would be fine and dandy if the cops were "in power" but, seeing as they're just a tool of the state, you're aiming at the wrong target. You're trying to bite the finger that keeps poking you in the eye, instead of punching the fucker in the head.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[JWSmythe]

I'm guessing you don't follow American politics very well.

There are two main parties that will hold the majority of the political offices. Both parties, regardless of what they say publicly, are owned by corporations. There is no "hidden agenda", as a lot of people like to say. It's in plain sight. Another party has found a new strong backing. They claim to be totally different, but if you look hard enough (which isn't very hard), you will find that they are backed by the same corporations that back the other two.

The representatives that the voting public can vote for are owned by the same corporations, and have the same agenda.

There *ARE* candidates from other parties, or no party affiliation. It is extremely rare.

Lets look at the US Congress. For those unclear on how this works, there are two parts, the "House of Representatives" and the "Senate".

In the House, there are 193 democrats, and 242 republicans.

In the Senate, there are 51 democrats, 47 republicans, and 2 independents.

So, out of 533 belong to the two major parties, and 2 don't. 0.37% are not members of those two parties.

And when I say an open armed revolution will result in a lot of deaths, I am not stating 90%. The *FIRST* waves will be horribly bloody.

We did an analysis on this a few years ago, and the basics of it have no changed.

First, you won't have 90% of the population show up to the same place at the same time, for anything at all. That is not only due to apathy. Say 90% of Americans showed up in Washington DC. DC has 61.4 square miles of land. There are 310,300,000 people in the United States. That puts 279,270,000 people there, or a population density of 4,547,372 people per square mile, or 6.13 square feet per person.

That does not account for pesky issues like buildings and other structures, or even parking space. The average parking space is 160 sq/ft, so if people showed up in an average of 4 people per vehicle. Actually, that kind of ruins it right there, since just their cars would take up 400 square miles. People arriving late wouldn't want to walk from New York. :)

So I think we can agree, you can't put that many people in one place.

The most likely circumstances would be that groups across the country would revolt independently. So groups ranging from a dozen to hundreds. When under orders the President can order US troops to neutralize the threat. That isn't really necessary though, as local law enforcement can and will do it. Referencing the article, a guy who may have been guilty of DUI, and was suspected of other crimes, was executed in a barrage of gunfire.

So the first wave will end up dead, or the survivors will be in prison. I wouldn't see anything more than a trivial win, followed by a bloody loss, on the part of those revolting.

Such an action would likely drive others to do the same. Repeated actions like this would force the President to order troops in to neutralize the threat.

Being that law enforcement and military soldiers are humans, they will at some point, question if they are doing the right thing. The more killing they see of Americans exercise their rights, the more will change sides away from government sponsored positions. In that, they'll most likely take their equipment with them. It isn't only the soldiers though. Military leaders will recognize that it is wrong to stand against the American people. So instead of one-off soldiers walking over to the citizens, you will see units of Brigade strength or larger defending the citizens rights. The general idea behind this is, despite any orders they may be given, they have family and friends all over the country. Would you defend your mother, siblings, and friends, or

Re:Ahhh crime.

[DavidTC]

While felony murder laws technically read like that, in actual case law they do not get applied that way. (Incidentally, I've never heard of felony 'assault' laws like you describe, although I guess they're possible. Usually, it requires a death.)

You can no more get charged with killing a bystander from shock because you're committing a crime than you can with killing someone from shock because you are wearing a flashing neon hat. (This is because having people die from shock is actually extremely unlikely.)

Despite what the law says, felony murder case law requires that in some way you have to be able to predict the harm, and the harm has to have something to do with the crime.

Now, that doesn't mean you have to 'cause' the death. For example, if you kidnap someone, and they leap out a window to escape and die, yeah, that's felony murder on your part. You should have been able to to predict they might try to escape and could get hurt doing so.

If, OTOH, you kidnap them than and the building you're keeping them in gets struck by a crashing airplane, and they get killed, that's not felony murder. Getting hit by an airplane is not a predictable result of kidnapping.

The courts say you can't be punished for sheer random chance, and the purpose of felony murder law is to encourage criminals to be careful of human life, and if it starts getting applied to any random death at all, it makes the law meaningless. Plus, crime requires intent, or at least negligence, and no one can be punished for things they couldn't possibly foresee.

Yes, the actual law says something different, the law says basically any death that can be even vaguely linked to a crime is felony murder, but the courts have generally held that there has to be some hypothetically-predictable causal connection between the death and the crime.

However, having the police attempt to stop a crime in progress is entirely causal and entirely predictable, so if innocent bystanders get hurt, yeah, it's the criminals fault in the sense they can be charged with murder. That does not, however, let the police off the hook if they acted carelessly. (As they clearly did here.)

Re:Ahhh crime.

[JWSmythe]

Look, nobody is saying that the job is easy.

    You didn't read the whole thread, now did you? Scroll up to

Opportunist (166417) on 23:02 Saturday 04 June 2011 (#36339860)

Huh? You grab a guy, beat the shit out of him, destroy his cellphone, humiliate him and as a punishment you get a few days of paid vacation?

Are they hiring? Sounds like a fun job.

That is what I was replying to.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[jimshatt]

I believe chain mail acts as a Faraday cage. So all protesters should just wear chain mail, which'd look uber-cool anyway...

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Danse]

There's always evidence. But hey, don't let me stop you. If you prefer to end up beat to a pulp or dead, you go right ahead. We'll have the enjoyment of reading about you in the news, and you might even get a Darwin Award out of it!

The only evidence they'll take over the word of a cop is hard evidence, meaning some sort of recording. Otherwise the cop can make up just about whatever he wants and he'll get off and you'll probably end up a felon.

Which would be fine and dandy if the cops were "in power" but, seeing as they're just a tool of the state, you're aiming at the wrong target. You're trying to bite the finger that keeps poking you in the eye, instead of punching the fucker in the head.

So, what does your metaphorical punch in the head equate to in real life? You have no hard evidence. You might have a couple of people willing to testify in your favor, but that won't be enough to win over the cop's word. You are apparently unwilling to exercise your right to protect yourself by recording what is happening in a public place. So, what is your solution? I don't see you offering anything but silly metaphors.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[ShakaUVM]

>>It should not be illegal for Communists, Nazis, or other 'undesirables' to seek and hold public office in the US

Oh, you funny. Inviting people who have sworn an oath to destroy our country into public office? Bad enough what Harry Dexter White did (provoke us into fighting Japan instead of potentially negotiating a peace) or Klaus Fuchs (passing nuclear secrets to the soviets), or any of the others.

>>Spies from behind the Iron Curtain should have been ferreted out mercilessly, sent welcome baskets, and asked if there was anything we could do to make their stay more comfortable.

Spies from the Iron Curtain should have been banned from public office, exiled, or imprisoned, depending on the severity of their deeds. Since the CPUSA was part of the espionage apparatus of COMINTERN, that's what the HUAC was all about. It was not about persecuting an innocent minority party or harmless worker's rights group. They literally had political and military espionage as part of their charter. They could have all been exiled or shot for treason.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[gknoy]

And is remarkably resilient versus batons.

Not so much versus bullets or tear gas or trampling, of course.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[coinreturn]

You can delete Qik videos directly from the phone. That makes it useless for secure uploading since the cop could just delete the video before smashing the phone.

Not much chance these muscleheads will know how.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[nickscalise]

Do we all know that qik was acquired by Skype, which is now being acquired by Microsoft?
Is this the company we want to trust our evidentiary videos to?

Re:Ahhh crime.

[afex]

the wavelength is ~3mm (95ghz)
that better be some SWEET chain mail to have that kind of coverage.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[blair1q]

ou're subject to 40,000+ pages of Federal, state, and local laws. You may absolutely rest assured that you have broken more than one of them today

It's blinding illogic like that that results in actual police states.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Klaus Fuchs (passing nuclear secrets to the soviets), or any of the others.

It's kind of interesting to contemplate what Fuchs did, with the benefit of hindsight. His treachery, and that of various other spies, led directly to MAD, by enabling the Warsaw Pact to match NATO's nuclear arsenal.

And it's possible that MAD prevented World War III.

So... perhaps what happened was actually the best way for the second half of the 20th century to unfold. Put it this way: if I ever invent a time machine, the Fuchs and Rosenbergs are not the first people I will try to hunt down and kill. I have no sympathy for their cause, but I'd be too afraid of unintended consequences.

Bad enough what Harry Dexter White did (provoke us into fighting Japan instead of potentially negotiating a peace)

Same argument, only even more defensible: the right thing happened for the wrong reasons. Defeat at the hands of the Allies was the best thing that happened to Japan since the dawn of recorded history. Besides, Japan's imperialists needed to be put down like dogs for their actions in China alone, never mind Pearl Harbor.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[ShakaUVM]

Giving nukes to the commies kept the Warsaw Pact intact, and led to the deaths of millions of people from communist persecution. The USSR wouldn't go to war with America if we had nukes and they didn't. And I'm sure the survivors of Pearl Harbor were happy that Harry Dexter White (responsible for the Morgenthau Memo) provoked Japan.

It's tough to do what-ifs with history, but the point is that it's suicide to allow known spies into your government, let alone your country. The CPUSA was part of COMINTERN, and the CPUSA was required by their charter to conduct espionage on their own country - this is the very definition of treason. By no means am I saying the HUAC investigations were perfect, but there was a valid reason for them - hunting down traitors in our government. There were quite a few. (Note that in modern times, historians tried their best to make the CPUSA out to be a happy hippie group that just wanted workers' rights, but Venona destroyed all that politically correct nonsense.)

Somehow equating the HUAC to Stalin slaughtering his own people is like comparing the local poison-pill town gossip with a mass murderer. Sure, they're both bad, but they're not equally bad.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Giving nukes to the commies kept the Warsaw Pact intact, and led to the deaths of millions of people from communist persecution.

I'm having trouble seeing your cause-effect argument here. Many of the worst purges (as documented by Solzhenitsyn and others) happened well before the 1950s. To the best of my knowledge there was little or no connection between the USSR's theft of nuclear technology and their millions of murdered citizens.

I suppose if they hadn't been so heavily armed with said nuclear technology, we could have invaded Russia and liberated the GULAGs, or something. :-P

By no means am I saying the HUAC investigations were perfect, but there was a valid reason for them - hunting down traitors in our government

Yeah, it's pretty clear that were were much safer after we ran Charlie Chaplin out of the country.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[ShakaUVM]

>>Then don't vote for them. Until they've been convicted of a crime, they have every right to run for office, same as you do.

Harry Dexter White was in an unelected position, and worked furiously (and without pay) at the behest of his masters in the USSR.

To put it in modern terms, it's like allowing someone who is an admitted member of Al Qaeda to work in the secret service.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[ShakaUVM]

>>I'm having trouble seeing your cause-effect argument here. Many of the worst purges (as documented by Solzhenitsyn and others) happened well before the 1950s

Yes, the worse purges. But millions of people were murdered behind the iron curtain during and after the 1950s, too. If we'd had nukes and they hadn't, it's possible we could have pressured them to allow the warsaw pact countries to hold fair and open elections (as the USSR had promised at the end of WWII).

>>Yeah, it's pretty clear that were were much safer after we ran Charlie Chaplin out of the country.

He never appeared before the HUAC. Hoover acted unilaterally in that case.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[Jedi Alec]

Apparently you didn't get my point.

You blame the evil gubmint. I blame the populace that is ignorant enough to keep electing it over and over and over again.

Despite the established dual powerblock, a third party should be able to gain a foothold, but in order to do so a significant portion of the electorate would have to wake up, grow a pair and stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Since this doesn't happen I place the blame squarely at the feet of the voters, not the voted. The people get the government they deserve. And hence the (rather final) solution to the original issue would be to exterminate the people, not the government. Wiping out the government would only result in it being replaced by something quite similar.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[MaDeR]

With sousveillance, police have nothing to hide before you! And no, it is not soviet russia, only "most free nation in the world"... excuse me, I must go puke.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[MaDeR]

Wow, aren't you Internet Tough Guy. Pathetic.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[MaDeR]

Oh, another police dog.

Re:Ahhh crime.

[pacinpm]

According to Wikipedia tinfoil is enough.

Any laywers here?

[Threni]

I mean, I'm not from the USA, but surely even that is illegal there?

Re:Any laywers here?

[hedwards]

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's illegal with a wink. The thin blue line is what separates those pigs from any repercussions. After all, we can't have another Rodney King situation.

Re:Any laywers here?

[oldhack]

This is another case of theory-vs.-practice.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Idbar]

Nah, in the USA recently, it all boils down to who has enough money

Re:Any laywers here?

[Idbar]

Ah.. for some reason my link didn't work on my previous comment, so here it's again: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/ct-met-levin-hit-and-run-2-20110603,0,7039906.story
Let's see if that works.

Re:Any laywers here?

[skywire]

Of course it is illegal. What difference does that make? Oh, you must be from a place that still has the rule of law.

Re:Any laywers here?

[skywire]

When pigs fly.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting the police have helicopters.

Re:Any laywers here?

[MechaShiva]

Quick! Destroy the police helicopter!! We can cram it in their back pocket afterwards and claim they fell on it.

Re:Any laywers here?

[NatasRevol]

Here, the law rules?

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

It's not legal.

The problem is that we have a fascist minority in the populace, and a fascist majority in government, who believe that government employees, police in particular, are above the law. For a shockingly high percentage of the population, the whole concept of law and order is absent or incomprehensible, and instant subservience and obedience to the uniform is substituted instead.

This belief is, unsurprisingly, strongest amongst the police themselves. So they break the law, what are you going to do? Call the police?

You cant even get a prosecutor to file charges against them with clear proof of the crime. I remember one prosecutor that did try to discharge her duties faithfully by prosecuting a cop, and found herself unable to function in her position at all because the entire damn police force made a point to louse up her cases and refuse to work with her. Every time someone says 'it's just a few bad apples' I have to think back to her. It seems closer to the truth, today, to say as Adam Kokesh recently did "it's a few bad apples that give the other 5% of cops a bad name."

Now to be fair, police pay is relatively low, and the ability to kill and/or abuse their fellow citizens with impunity is the only clearly exceptional perk they get. Given that, it shouldnt be a surprise that the bad-apples come to outnumber the good ones over time.

I've known some very good people who were cops - note the past tense. They had a very rough time of it. I also knew a guy that told everyone he was going to join the police so he could kill someone and get away with it when he was in high school. Last I saw him he was wearing a blue uniform and a big smile.

Getting rid of bad cops is probably going to continue to be an intractable problem until and unless we as a nation realise that police should, yes, be held to very high standards - but they should also be paid commensurately for their services. No, poor pay in no way justifies lawlessness in the uniform - but if the police were actually held to the law, most of them would be in prison in short order and the people that we really want to take their place will be somewhere else, making more money and dealing with less stress.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Luckyo]

Technically many people who work in government or organisations performing certain roles are exempt certain parts of the law. This is essentially a requirement for proper functioning.

For example, I used to work as a campus network admin in my local university. Under the privacy legislation, about half of what I had to do for maintenance would have been illegal for an average person to do. However, as an admin, I was exempt from these parts of the law, enabling me to perform necessary maintenance.

Police are allowed similar exemptions, but to a greater degree as they need certain freedoms to enforce the law. I'm not certain how this works in states (judging by comments in this thread, badly), but around here police even have a right to search your house without a warrant on reasonable suspicion of a crime that has a sentence of over 6 months in prison. This is mainly used for drug searches (guy gets caught with drugs, police raid his apartment pretty much immediately).

The reason this is allowed is because in most civilized countries there is an balance between police powers, police ethics, and finally a bond of trust between the police and general population. Around here police officers are generally considered ethical, respected by the general public, and in turn police officers generally respect the public and do not abuse their powers. This is clearly not the case in USA, which is probably the biggest source of the problems.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Stormwatch]

It's baffling to see Rodney King taken as an example of an innocent victim of police brutality. Look into it, get the full story. He was driving while drunk, refused to pull over (a DUI would violate his robbery parole), gave chase, resisted arrest, and tried to attack the policemen. Since then, he has been arrested for drunk driving and domestic violence.

It's ironic -- sure the LAPD was notoriously violent, but the case that gets everyone's attention is the one in which the use of force was justified!

Re:Any laywers here?

[St.Creed]

The amount of force wasn't justified. How many people beating up one guy on the ground? And while an arrest would not have been the issue, the beating they gave him certainly was an issue. And from there on it was a classic case of the loaded powderkeg meeting the proverbial spark.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

Here in the US we fought a very bloody and painful war which all the oddsmakers gave us absolutely 0 chance of winning to gain our independence, and one of the major reasons we did that was because of warrantless searches. We have a fourth amendment for a reason. If a law is impossible to enforce without warrantless searches (laws attempting to regulate peaceful private behaviour generally are) then it's a bad law and it shouldnt be enforced anyway.

Re:Any laywers here?

[MrHanky]

He's not taken as an example of an innocent victim, he's an example of a victim.

Re:Any laywers here?

[MightyMartian]

The issue wasn't whether King was guilty of anything or not, the issue was that four guys beat the guy have to death. Yes, restraining a perp will leave bruises and contusions, maybe even a broken bone or three, and the courts in general have recognized this. But what the courts don't allow anyone, not even a cop, is to, even after the suspect has been immobilized, to keep hitting him.

Re:Any laywers here?

[phantomfive]

Every time someone says 'it's just a few bad apples' I have to think back to her. It seems closer to the truth, today, to say as Adam Kokesh recently did "it's a few bad apples that give the other 5% of cops a bad name."

I'd be really interested if you had some statistics to back-up this anecdotal evidence. I've never had trouble with state police. City police are a mixed bag.

Re:Any laywers here?

[russotto]

Look into it, get the full story. He was driving while drunk, refused to pull over (a DUI would violate his robbery parole), gave chase, resisted arrest, and tried to attack the policemen.

That's what the police said. By the testimony of the police he was also doing 110-115mph in a 1988 Hyundai Excel (top speed 95mph). And was a superman high on PCP (drug tests were negative for PCP)

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

Reliable statistics would obviously be very difficult to generate, if you can find anything approximating such I would love to see it.

But just to be clear, I am not in any way implying that 95% of cops in this country are actively corrupt as in going out shooting people just because they can or the like. What I *am* saying seems to be true, is that 95% of cops WILL comply with the 'blue line' nonsense and refuse to do their duty and/or actively obstruct justice to defend the bad cops. I have seen how this is deeply encultured in our law enforcement officers, and even though I can understand and even sympathise with those officers, the fact is that it is THOSE officers - not the handful of hard-core bad apples, but the masses of 'thin blue line' believers who may do little or nothing wrong otherwise, that make the problem so intractible.

Think about the story behind this article. From reading both the links, it seems that it was mainly a single policeman who was the active culprit here, committing a number of crimes under color of law (assault, battery, destruction of property, evidence-tampering, just at a glance) and it might be tempting to jump out and claim he is just one bad apple and it doesnt reflect on the rest of the force. But there were a large number of police on the scene to witness his crime!

It was the large number who stood by and did nothing effective to stop the 'bad apple' - who in a true law and order state would have placed HIM under arrest on the spot, but who, in our world, will instead look the other way and claim afterwards not to have seen the incident - without those supposedly good cops to enable him, the bad cop wouldnt last long at all. That was what I was trying to point out.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Omnifarious]

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.

I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.

Re:Any laywers here?

[HungryHobo]

The wood carver was also partially deaf.
The officer in that case wasn't fired if I remember: he resigned.

Re:Any laywers here?

[uvajed_ekil]

It's baffling to see Rodney King taken as an example of an innocent victim of police brutality. Look into it, get the full story. He was driving while drunk, refused to pull over (a DUI would violate his robbery parole), gave chase, resisted arrest, and tried to attack the policemen.

It doesn't matter what the fuck he did, it is not okay for the cops to beat the shit out of a suspect and kick him while he is lying on the ground, ever. It is not the job of the police to pass judgement nor inflict punishment upon a suspect, ever. We have due process and courts for that, last time I checked.

Since then, he has been arrested for drunk driving and domestic violence.

So what? It appears as if you are saying that the dirty, racist LAPD cops involved were right to beat a man to within an inch of his life for something he was going to do in the future. What King did in later years, or even before the incident we all know, absolutely does not justify what was done to him by the law enforcement officers who were breaking the law more than enforcing it. I don't want to see that happen ever again, even to you, though it happens all too freuently. Fortunately it doesn't usually result in city-wide riots. Or maybe more civil dissent would keep that shit from occuring so much?

It's ironic -- sure the LAPD was notoriously violent, but the case that gets everyone's attention is the one in which the use of force was justified!

Force, yes, perhaps. Beating a man repeatedly while he pleads for mercy is not "force," or justifiable in ANY way. Those cops could have been charged with even more crimes than they were, and should have been found guilty of all of them, imprisoned, and found themselves jobless when they got out. What they did was far worse than anything Mr. King could have been charged with. I hope you are never subjected to such abuse. May you never be pulled over for not using a turn signal, yanked out of your car for laughing at the officer, then beaten and arrested for saying "WTF." It could happen, and does.

Also, since you defend the LAPD, ever heard of the Rampart scandal? Another incident (many, many inceidents really) of major, intentional wrong-doing by the LAPD, and a big effort to cover it up. But I suppose you think they were just trying too hard, or using unorthodox tactics, not breaking numerous laws on a regular basis.

I also feel compelled to say that I have the utmost respect for our police officers and thank them for doing a very difficult job, and doing so without proper pay and recognition. I hold degrees in criminal justice and law, and I think I know what I'm talking about. However, in respecting our law enforcement officers we must also hold them to the same standard as the people they are employed to protect and serve. We owe it to the good cops (the vast majority) to demand that bad cops (who are a small minority) be dismissed and prosecuted, when applicable.

Re:Any laywers here?

[dbIII]

and instant subservience and obedience to the uniform is substituted instead

It's a survival tactic. If society doesn't consider you important enough to put your death on the front page and there are no witnesses nearby that society cares about you just become a statistic instead of a martyr. That's what it looked like were I live when I when the government and a significant chunk of the police force was corrupt. If elements of law enforcement act like they want to run things as if it was the third world you need third world survival tactics - large groups and getting people society cares about involved.

Re:Any laywers here?

[lattyware]

Maybe next time the person the cops beat on the street will be you, your wife, your children. So think before making stupid statements. The police do not have the power to be judge, jury and executioner.

Re:Any laywers here?

[shaitand]

"It definitely is"

True

"the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior."

Citations? Even if this hits CNN the officers will face no real trial or charges, they will be suspended WITH pay until the press attention blows over. If it doesn't look that is going to happen they MIGHT get suspended without pay or fired. The police having to uphold the same standard they enforce? Never happen.

Re:Any laywers here?

[InsaneMosquito]

Search warrants aren't required any more. All the cops have to do is claim you were destroying evidence: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/16/supreme-court-upholds-warrantless-search-of-apartment-based-on-marijuana-smell/ 8-1 Supreme Court ruling. That should take 50-75 years to overturn, if we are lucky.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

Money doesnt solve the problem, no, I dont think I even implied that.

Money is part of the equation though.

The average salary for a patrol office is under $50k. Entry level attorneys routinely start at $80k+. The attorney spends more time in school (but if we really want good cops on the streets we need people with more education than we are getting,) but the cop has a much tougher job, he needs to have the smarts and knowledge of the lawyer combined with physical skills, and he deals with more danger on top of it.

My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.

Re:Any laywers here?

[jaypifer]

No, poor pay in no way justifies lawlessness in the uniform - but if the police were actually held to the law, most of them would be in prison in short order and the people that we really want to take their place will be somewhere else, making more money and dealing with less stress.

Poor pay?? I will never understand why this misconception cannot be stamped out. That concept was true decades ago, but not today. Many Miami Police Beach Patrol Officers make well over $100K.

Re:Any laywers here?

[ChrisMaple]

The mention of King's actions after the beating incident show that he remained a thoroughgoing scumbag. It's like a character witness: it doesn't overturn facts, but it isn't irrelevant, either.

Never mentioned in the standard boohoo about the police continuing to strike King after he was down was that King continued to attempt to get up. Also seldom mentioned is that the video that's commonly shown is severely edited to favor King and malign the police. Remember, the standard is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

That said, LA police and LA politics generally have been notoriously corrupt for over a century. But if you want to demonstrate inexcusable abuse, you'll have to find something clearer than the King case.

Re:Any laywers here?

[IonOtter]

That should take 50-75 years to overturn, if we are lucky.

No, just a few pitched gun-battles between a few police stations and a few hundred pissed-off and heavily-armed citizens.

That law'll get changed lickety-split.

Re:Any laywers here?

[ChrisMaple]

Please don't use the word "fascist" when it is inaccurate or irrelevant. It's hard enough to identify and cure the misbehavior of government without gratuitous insults. If you call a murderer "fascist" you allow him to spend his time proving he's not fascist, and evading the fact that he's a murderer. Furthermore, by misusing standard political terms, you make it more difficult for other people to understand politics.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

The US average for a patrolman is under $50k. Entry level attorneys make $80k+.

Of course it is all relative, and I am sure you can think of another profession which is even more underpaid, I certainly can. But a patrolman needs to know the law, and also needs a lot of physical skills and knowledge the lawyer doesnt need. He works harder, longer, and in a much more dangerous setting.

Simply raising the pay wont solve the problems, of course. You would just have the same thugs with bigger budgets. But combine higher pay (attracting more and better qualified applicants) with some serious law enforcement efforts to take down the thugs and replace them with people that will obey their oath, and you might start to see some progress.

Re:Any laywers here?

[MstrFool]

Well said. It's sad that they don't see this as the reason that risks for police are on the rise. If the police can't be trusted, then more people are willing to attack the police, which makes them more scared and so they do worse things and show they can't be trusted, and round and round it goes. Personally, I think the only things that is likely to put a dent in it, is for a large number of people to go 'always on' video streaming their surroundings. When the police can not stop proof from getting out, then they will behave better. I find it ironic that they sy they need cameras to watch us, and if we have nothing to hide, then we have nothing to fear. And then they act like this about cameras? Clearly they have much to hide, and much to fear, and it's time it's made public.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

I was using the word accurately and correctly. The substitution of submission to authority for actual rule of law is one of the hallmarks of fascism. (Government control via regulation of private business, rather than direct control, is another. We have more than enough of both in the USA today, thanks.)

Re:Any laywers here?

[houghi]

I understand the USofA is very proud of of their war to gain independence as you only had one that lasted only 7-8 years.
Perhaps it is time for a new one.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Ihmhi]

You're my hero.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Ihmhi]

Dashboard cameras have probably caught just as many officers doing illegal things as criminals.

Cameras and wireless transmitters are also far, far less expensive nowadays.

Police should be required to wear a shoulder and head camera that records to a black box in their vehicle or a secure server stored somewhere out of the police's purview. Tampering with or destroying the black box or camera results in dismissal.

Re:Any laywers here?

[dkleinsc]

For those curious about the shooting parent refers to, the woodcarver was John T Williams, and the police officer in question was Ian Burke of the Seattle Police Department. Here's the video of some of what happened, from Burke's car dashcam. And that's why I'm in favor of absolutely everything officer's do being filmed: in this case, Burke managed to (intentionally I'm guessing) walk off camera to commit his crime.

There are numerous news articles and videos about this one, mostly in the Seattle area.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Jager Dave]

When one steps upon the soap-box, one should know the distinction between "have" and "half".

Re:Any laywers here?

[JDevers]

Here is an incident where the state policeman was at fault when the local sheriff's deputies on the scene had the situation under control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_police_shooting_of_Joseph_Erin_Hamley

This does NOT back up his anecdotal evidence, I just thought I would illustrate a single data point which goes against the "never" you stated.

Re:Any laywers here?

[MightyMartian]

So what you're saying is the cops decided to play judge, jury and executioner. Worst of all, you think it's a good idea. You actually think the cops savagely beating a man that has already been subdued is a good thing.

I pity your family. I wonder if they know the kind of person they're living with.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Schadrach]

There was a rape case recently in NY that suggests pretty strongly that they don't.

Re:Any laywers here?

[lastchance_000]

I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.

Former police officer David Warren sentenced to 25 years in Henry Glover shooting

Re:Any laywers here?

[MightyMartian]

Thanks for the spelling flame. I won't keep you from critiquing your wife's vagina.

Re:Any laywers here?

[betterunixthanunix]

Or the army will be called in, and the "heavily armed citizens" will realize that their AKs and ARs are no match for the equipment our soldiers carry.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Patch86]

Worship of the uniformed services and allowing authority figures to be above the law are pretty much the key features of fascism, so this is probably a rare instance of the term being used correctly. About the only other key features are ultra-nationalism and the demonising of minority ethnic or cultural-groups.

Traditional fascist states (Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Japan, Franco's Spain, etc.) usually idealise the military rather than the police (note how many of the leaders of those countries wore military uniforms regardless of military experience), but the principal is much the same.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Riceballsan]

In most cases it isn't likely. In most courts (of course it varies based on the judge), but usually the word of 1 cop is equal to the word of 5 non-badge wearing citizens, (note citizens in groups IE husband/wife friends etc... only count as 1 view point), IE if 2 guys who know eachother witness 2 cops beating up a person being arrested, those 3 people testifying will have little chance of making a case compelling enough to outweigh the 2 cops story (assuming the 2 cops are at least smart enough to match their stories). The only way they would have a chance is with the video and if the video is destroyed, it's their word vs yours, and badge beats witness.

Re:Any laywers here?

[phantomfive]

It actually doesn't. I've still never had any problem with them.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Stone2065]

It's been said before on here... it's no use responding to AC... so I think I'll stick to that credo.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

When the Egyptian Army was ordered to turn their guns on their own people, they refused and the regime crumbled.

Do you really think the US military man is so inferior to the Egyptian?

Frankly I suspect one of the reasons our rulers are so eager to send them off to fight and die in senseless wars on the other side of the world is because they know better than that.

Re:Any laywers here?

[NetNed]

Not sure how it is by you, but police by me get paid DEARLY considering the low amounts of danger they face in suburbia. Inner city cops get lots less and face danger 100x more then any suburban police.

Even sadder is when the suburban cop retires and gets paid close to $100K or more in retirement benefits a year while we keep taking from teachers salaries because police and fire are such a "drain" on the system. Police is the biggest shock to a system considering they bring in revenue from tickets and fines, yet still ask for more and more and more tax dollars.

Re:Any laywers here?

[NetNed]

Yeah there are about as many cops that have the smarts of a lawyer as there are lawyers that are good mechanics.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Keeper]

The woodcarver was also shot in the back. And the DA refused to press charges. The police union also insisted that the shooting was justified and that officer followed proper procedures and training.

I think the number of people killed by police in the Seattle area is similar to the number of murders that have occured in the same time frame...

Re:Any laywers here?

[Pseudonym Authority]

Yeah bro, I hate niggers too.

Re:Any laywers here?

[niko9]

It definitely is and assuming that this is a somewhat accurate description of what happened, the police officers involved could easily find themselves behind bars for witness tampering, destruction of evidence amongst other things. And police officers do get sent to prison from time to time for this sort of behavior.

Every once in a great while when there is a massive public outcry and there are no other politically viable alternatives, yes, they do. This is far, far less often than it should happen. Of the instances of police overstepping their bounds I have heard of exactly one police officer being fired, and that was for a clear case of murder that was committed on camera and the victim was a homeless person who was well known and liked. The officer's excuse was that the man (who was known as 'the woodcarver' by locals) had a knife, and he did not put it down in the 2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired. The man made no threatening gesture with the knife.

I have never heard of a police officer going to jail.

You're either making stuff up or you clearly have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

First, some simple facts. Ian Birk, the police officer who shot the "wood carver", resigned after he learned that there would *no* criminal charges filed against him. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41632205/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/seattle-cop-who-fatally-shot-woodcarver-quits-force/]

Second, wood carver John T. Williams, the person who was shot bu Birk, had 2 knives on him when he was shot, one which was open a and visible to Birk when Williams walked past his police cruiser. Williams also has an extensive criminal record, a substance abuser and alcoholic. This article doesn't make him seem as dangerous and violent as these people can really be: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html I say this as a 14 year full-time paramedic who has worked (and still does) the street of the South Bronx, Alphabet City, Harlem and Spanics Harlem.

Third, the actual shooting was not recorded by video camera, only audio of the officer telling the suspect to put the knife down and then the gunshots. So, you didn't see what happened and *you* sure as hell were not there see it.

Lastly, the officer had a bit more than an excuse of not putting down a 3" blade in "2.5 seconds between the time the officer told him to and the time he fired." Here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013905500_inquest12m.html

Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.

What I just described above was the result of a officer named Dennis Tueller. He came up with what is now famously (among cops and people with pistol permits who take training) know as the Tueller drill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill You can read the article he wrote called "How Close Is Too Close: http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm Videos on YouTube demonstrating this: http://www.youtube.com/results

Re:Any laywers here?

[Luckyo]

They will most likely fall apart as other police officers will literally kick such police officers out of the force with a big notice on their personal record. We have a very good example of how NOT to do policing in USA. Most people forget that in many countries police are people who follow a calling to actually police - not bully, and as a result, the small amount of bullies that does get into the force gets ejected out of it very quickly.

Re:Any laywers here?

[gknoy]

The last time Americans tried to stage a serious revolution, more Americans died than in any other war besides World War II. Three times as many died as we lost in Vietnam. I don't think we're likely to have another one anytime soon.

Re:Any laywers here?

[CarbonShell]

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
        George Orwell

Is the system possibly broken? We constantly hear of such actions, so It makes me wonder if this is 'unofficially supported' by the system?
If you know you can get by with stuff, you would tend to be more likely to do things, even if they were illegal.

Your chances of getting a slap on the wrist (aka 'lack of training' BS) or worse getting fired is slim because it is often the word of a cop (authority) vs that of a 'trouble maker' (public eye).

Re:Any laywers here?

[Danse]

My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.

I don't think that attorneys working for the government start at that kind of salary.

My point was that the people that really have the combination of skills and knowledge that we ideally want to see in our cops have better options. Other jobs where they can get paid more and face a lot less stress and danger. Of course a handful may decide to become cops anyway - and we should be grateful for that - but not surprised that most of those people choose something else, and the ranks get filled with people that we dont really want wearing badges.

We hear the same about teachers too, but then you've got guys like governor Walker in Wisconsin that claim that they make too much money, while simultaneously claiming that he has to pay his staff very high salaries in order to attract the best people. Seems like we need leaders in government that aren't going to play games with this stuff before we'll be able to figure out how to get good people into these jobs.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Danse]

Bah... the first quote was supposed to be the third paragraph of your post.

Re:Any laywers here?

[russotto]

And what do you do when the bond is broken, and they're the ones left holding all the guns, all of the privilege, and all of the power?

There aren't enough of them, and they don't hold all the guns. Were the general population to turn against the police, the police would lose, so long as the military stayed on the sidelines.

This will never happen, of course. The general population is of the opinion that if a cop does something to you, you had it coming. This is true no matter how ridiculous the scenario; if they shoot your dog, break down your door, tear apart your house, and beat the crap out of you and your family and it turns out they had the wrong address, the general view will be you had it coming for living near criminals.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

Actually, attorneys for the government DO start around there, with some variation depending on the local cost of living index.

Teachers are horribly undervalued as well, no doubt about it. I was thinking of them when I wrote that it was easy to think of other undervalued professions. That doesnt mean that compulsory unions like the NEA dont add their own pound of poison to that particular mix as well of course. I think that governor may well be playing nothing but power politics himself, but some of his support has to come from people who are righteously pissed at the teachers union and just want to destroy it by any means necessary.

Getting leaders in government who wont play games, as hard as that is, would still only be a temporary fix. Bad ones will inevitably come at some point in the future, so the better long-term solution is a real separation of school and state.

Re:Any laywers here?

[idontgno]

When the Egyptian Army was ordered to turn their guns on their own people, they refused and the regime crumbled.
Do you really think the US military man is so inferior to the Egyptian?

I'm a U. S. veteran; I believe and hope you're right.

The standard Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment is enlightening in this regard. I hope if this particular push ever comes to shove, the troops will pay attention to the specific wording, and in particular the order of the clauses.

I, ${NAME}, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

(Emphasis mine.)

If the sequence of duties cited in the oath is indicative of priority, the first duty of a member of the U. S. Armed Forces is to the Constitution, and obedience to the President and the chain of command is secondary. Of course, in theory, they're not separable, but it takes very little imagination to see how they could be in conflict.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Arker]

In addition to the indication of word order, there is also obviously a reason that the phrase "or domestic" was included.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Omnifarious]

Now, if I told you that just about any person can close a distance of 21 feet in approximately 1.5 seconds would you be surprised? Would you be more surprised to learn that the typical police officer needs approximately 1.5 seconds to draw his pistol from his holster and bring the front sight to eye level? Now remember, most if not all cops have retention holsters, i.e., holsters that must me manipulated in a certain way to release the firearm. And, brining the front sight to eye even doesn't mean you have actually had time to put that sight to the center mass of the person you are about to shoot.

I would not be surprised that someone could do that. I have timed myself and how fast I can move at various times, and that doesn't strike me as being all that difficult, even from a standing start. It's also not too surprising that a police officer's weapon isn't drawn trivially easily. That makes it so that someone's surprise attempt to steal their weapon turns into a struggle instead of shots being fired.

Also, read the rest of Birk's testimony: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013905500_inquest12m.html [nwsource.com]

...

"Seattle Police Detective Jeffery Mudd also testified that he would have dropped a knife if ordered to do so at gunpoint by a police officer.

I have read that. And my opinion on his culpability drops from 2nd degree murder to manslaughter.

Ian Burke was a rookie cop who created a situation for himself that he couldn't handle appropriately. Detective Mudd's comment is completely irrelevant here. Almost anybody will do almost anything a police officer demands they do at gunpoint. Refusing to do so when you are not actually committing a crime (or, if for some weird reason, that is a crime, then some other crime), should not be considered grounds for shooting someone. And I don't think it should be considered a crime at all.

The officer created the situation by giving confronting the guy and giving the order in the first place. As far as I can tell from what I've read of the case, the guy was wandering along with a knife in his hand before Ian Burke decided that wasn't something he liked to see. Ian then decided to hop out of his car and do something about this scary looking (but, as far as he could ascertain) law abiding citizen. This citizen did not comply relatively quickly with a yelled order at gunpoint, and as far as Ian was concerned (since we only have his word on the topic) looked ever scarier than before he decided to confront him. So Ian shot him because he felt that he was now in danger.

If anybody but a police officer had done those things, they would be convicted of (at the very least) voluntary manslaughter. I'm willing to give Ian Burke the benefit of a doubt for being a frightened rookie cop who was out of his depth and say that's all he should be convicted of too.

Re:Any laywers here?

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Except in New Orleans, where the cops have been so notoriously corrupt (and the coroner corrupt AND incompetent) for years that they have trouble getting convictions because local juries automatically disbelieve cop testimony and assume the cops planted the evidence.

Bad cop, no donut

[russotto]

By the time our porcine "protectors" figure out that smashing up the instrument rarely destroys the recording, we'll all have real-time internet-connected video cameras.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Arancaytar]

to Youtube

If you can't trust the police, how can you trust the cloud? Back it up to your own computer, which should ideally create a torrent automatically...

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[russotto]

If you can't trust the police, how can you trust the cloud? Back it up to your own computer, which should ideally create a torrent automatically...

I think the cloud is safer, actually. In a case like this it doesn't matter, but if you're recording police misconduct occurring at your own home, they're likely to destroy and/or confiscate all your electronic equipment. They can't take extrajudicial action to get at information held by large multinational companies; this is the police we're talking about, not the NSA.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[s0litaire]

Already here!
QIK.com
Online realtime streaming and archiving from your cell/mobile phone.
Been around for years!
Had it on my old Nokia N95 worked a treat!!

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[sco08y]

By the time our porcine "protectors" figure out that smashing up the instrument rarely destroys the recording, we'll all have real-time internet-connected video cameras.

They'll get GSM jammers.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Firehawke]

Already exists. iPhone Justin.TV client can broadcast over 3G or wifi straight to the net.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Danieljury3]

Given how small a microSD card is in comparison to the rest of the phone, there is a decent chance that the microSD card will remain intact and functional so unless they actually remove the card or take the entire phone the recording will probably survive. Maybe the police should carry radio jammers for when the public pull out their internet-connected cammeras.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[bhtooefr]

Stream to a cloud company in the US, your own server, AND to a server located in a foreign country that does not respect US treaties.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[mysidia]

If you can't trust the police, how can you trust the cloud? Back it up to your own computer, which should ideally create a torrent automatically...

Back it up to multiple cloud-based systems that automatically distribute it to other read-only systems that are distributed worldwide and from which it cannot be withdrawn.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[mysidia]

I think the cloud is safer, actually. In a case like this it doesn't matter, but if you're recording police misconduct occurring at your own home, they're likely to destroy and/or confiscate all your electronic equipment.

Don't let them know you are recording it. The first they will hear about it is when you file a formal complaint about the officers.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Khyber]

I'm sorry, a simple bending of a MicroSD card will destroy it.

I've broken tons of them just putting them into a microSD-SD converter.

Find the right spot on the phone and apply pressure, it's all you need.

Disclaimer: I spend my life figuring out how to break and repair semiconductor-based equipment. The SMT jobs done on microSD cards is pure garbage, they could've used an extra microgram of solder to ensure proper flash-to-pcb connections.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[ebs16]

We're already there. Qik has had apps on multiple platforms (Android, iPhone, BlackBerry, etc) for quite some time. The app streams live video directly from your phone to the web and can tweet/post to Facebook when you start recording. Videos can be viewed and downloaded after recording, as well.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Arancaytar]

That's a good idea, but we will need more low-profile cameras for that. This guy probably didn't go out of his way to make his recording obvious...

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Geminii]

Until someone starts issuing them with radio jammers.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Maestro4k]

By the time our porcine "protectors" figure out that smashing up the instrument rarely destroys the recording, we'll all have real-time internet-connected video cameras.

Some have, then they try and charge citizens who videotape them with violating state wire-tapping laws. One recent link, from Carlos Miller's Photography is not a Crime blog (he covers this type of thing extensively, and the Slashdot article links to one of his posts) as well as the Anthony Graber case from last year that got a lot of attention. After all, if you can't stop the recording, you can always punish the citizen who dared to record you doing your job out in public. Oh, and if you only read one of those links, read the one from last year. That case is a standout example of the new kind of police harassment over videotaping them in public.

There are a lot, an awful lot judging by the news if you follow it, of police who have a major, MAJOR issue with being recorded. And most of the time it's for good reason, they were doing something wrong and don't want any record of it. Other police support them, and often the district attorney's office will back them up (unless it gets enough public outrage to suddenly become politically untenable, then they'll change their minds). In Anthony Graber's case it took a judge to put a stop to the shenanigans, ruling that police have no expectation of privacy in a public setting and throwing out the charges. But that was in September, 6 months after the police charged the guy, seized all his computers, etc. And I can't find any information about anything happening to the cop who pulled his gun on Graber (without identifying himself as police officer first, or even being in uniform and all over minor traffic violations), so the police still won in that case.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[mysidia]

This guy probably didn't go out of his way to make his recording obvious...

He was probably holding up a smartphone, which he had pointed at the officer.

From a sufficient distance, the smart phone is still visible but looks like a little black box, that could be confused for a gun. This must have been high enough profile to upset the officer, whose life is on the line.

What we really need are super-low-profile smart phone cameras that aren't visible or look benign, even at a few hundred feet away.

Pinhole cameras embedded in clothing or sunglasses, with a base station/DVR/cell phone uploading content in real time, in the pocket, seem like a good idea.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Patch86]

I thought we were talking about a handful of uniformed goons destroying a camera to hide their rule breaking, not a massive conspiracy. A handful of thugs can smash a camera phone easily enough, but I'd like to see them remove a video from YouTube or delete an email to yourself at Hotmail.

If anything your home computer is more vulnerable (since a sufficiently determined goon can smash that up as well). And I'm not sure automatically creating a torrent would help, seeing as it won't go anywhere unless somebody else actually downloads it from you (and how you're going to get them to do that without at least a little more manual leg-work I don't know).

If you're trying to make something public in the face of a single furious copper, emailing to yourself or uploading to a hosting site seem like the most effective options.

Re:Bad cop, no donut

[Kabuthunk]

I just came up with an interesting theory. It would be reasonably easy to 'hide' the microSD card in my phone with a bit of putty or JBWeld to make the edge of the card where it shows look like just more plastic, and have a fake card holder with a random microSD card in it just glued on somewhere significantly more visible just behind the battery or something. HOPEFULLY the cops would just take the 'obvious' microSD card, and leave the hidden one. I'd say there's at least a vaguely decent chance the real card would survive if the phone was stomped.

The only problem is that pretty much any cellphone nowadays doesn't have the 'spare' room to hide an extra microSD card.

UNacceptable

[markdavis]

Yet another example of a government agent stomping on the Constitution. What type of country has this become? One where the government can track, monitor, record, and harass citizens, yet citizens can't even record a public event without being treated as terrorists. Just disgusting.

Now they should sue and we can all pay for it with an ever increasing tax burden.

Re:UNacceptable

[markdavis]

>"Why does everyone have to bring up the Constitution in cases like this??"

Oh let's see:

Freedom of assembly
Freedom of press
Freedom from unreasonable search or seizure
Right to due process
Freedom from unusual punishment

Stuff like that seems to apply in such cases, even if it is also covered by other laws that protect from police brutality or destruction of private property. ALL our rights spring from the Constitution.

Re:UNacceptable

[DrVomact]

Why does everyone have to bring up the Constitution in cases like this?? Please show me where in the constitution is says anything about recording police behavior, let alone cell phone cameras.

Not that I don't agree that the whole thing is disgusting and I hope the police get everything they deserve (though I doubt it). But this is a case of assault, destruction of property, harrassment, wrongful arrest - and possibly excessive use of force on both the witnesses and the victim. But these are just common crimes committed by criminals (yes, cops can be criminals, too), not "Constitutional violations". When you overuse it like that, it starts to lose meaning...

The problem is that these crimes were committed by the police. Unless a local prosecutor indicts those uniformed hooligans, they will not face any punishment for their illegal actions. (They may be sued in civil courts, but this does not punish the perpetrators, but the local tax payers, who will pay the judgment.) It is unusual for a local authority to indict members of its own police force. In such a case, the U.S. Constitution can indeed provide an avenue for obtaining justice.

As originally written, the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government, it says nothing about limiting the powers of State governments—or of the Miami police. However, the U.S. Constitution has, in practice, been broadened so as to apply against State or local authorities who violate the civil rights of individual U.S. citizens. Supreme Court decisions have held that the guarantees provided in the Bill of Rights apply to all U.S. citizens, and protect them against excesses committed by local authorities. Regardless of how you view this "non literal" interpretation of the Constitution, a Federal prosecutor could indict the police in question for violating the civil rights of the victim. This may be the only way of making these "police officers" pay for what they did.

I'd prefer if invoking the Constituiton wasn't necessary, and the local citizenry reined in their own police. If I lived there, I'd sure be upset at how my police are behaving. But it might turn out to be the only way to get any justice at all.

Re:UNacceptable

[hjf]

When will you bring the law above all laws then?

Re:UNacceptable

[markdavis]

That is a good question. But even if they are better, that doesn't make anything like this less disgusting and wrong.

Re:UNacceptable

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

> The problem is that these crimes were committed by the police. Unless a local prosecutor indicts those uniformed hooligans, they will not face any punishment for their illegal actions. (They may be sued in civil courts, but this does not punish the perpetrators, but the local tax payers, who will pay the judgment.) It is unusual for a local authority to indict members of its own police force. In such a case, the U.S. Constitution can indeed provide an avenue for obtaining justice.

Actually, I think civil actions CAN reach the cops themselves, rather than just the government, if they're far enough out of line. Qualified immunity only extends officials in a search and seizure context, for example, when officers have "arguable probable cause." Most government officials are shielded up to a point, so that they won't be too "timid" in performing their duties out of a fear of litigation and liability (I doubt 5% of the prison guards in the country haven't been sued), but they aren't shielded infinitely. (Of course, their training and awareness of liability will vary.)

Re:UNacceptable

[monkyyy]

just cause its better doesnt mean its enough, and yes things have been getting better in most areas in life

Re:UNacceptable

[bhtooefr]

The 14th Amendment extends the Constitution to limit state and local powers, too.

Re:UNacceptable

[mysidia]

The police officer's actions are unlawful, and he should be prosecuted.

The 5th amendment is very clear: it is unlawful to take anyone's property without due process of law. Seizing by physical force and smashing is just as unlawful.

Re:UNacceptable

[burris]

The first amendment protects your right to use a video camera in public. It's protection doesn't end just because there is a cop in the frame.

It is an infringement on the victim's constitutional rights in addition to being a case of assault, destruction of property, wrongful arrest, etc...

Re:UNacceptable

[xihion]

Not the Constitution. Bill of Rights. Get your government documents right.

Re:UNacceptable

[i.r.id10t]

Including the right that defends all other rights...

Soap, ballot, jury, ammo ....

Re:UNacceptable

[markdavis]

LOL! Um, the Bill of Rights *is* part of the Constitution. It is the very first set of Amendments. Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Re:UNacceptable

[markdavis]

Another something to note- all States have a State Constitution. They also tend to also include their own versions of a bill of rights.

For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Virginia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights

Re:UNacceptable

[Dahamma]

The problem is the first Amendment is NOT A CRIMINAL STATUTE. That was my point. How the Constitution have anything to do with some asshole cop making a bad decision??

If a cop "violates the Constitution", but doesn't get prosecuted, what happens? Maybe some civil suit where the public ends up paying a bunch of money. Well, screw that. I don't want to pay a bunch of money because some cop did something wrong any more than I want to pay because some random person broke the law. Make the cop pay, or put him in prison - which is only possible if you convict him of a criminal statute.

Re:UNacceptable

[Doc Ruby]

Things are worse now than then for middle class White men. But since they live among everyone else being better off, they're also better now than they were then. It's so confusing being a middle class White man.

Re:UNacceptable

[Dahamma]

I think I mostly agree with you :)

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2212342&cid=36338840

My point was this is not really a Constitutional matter, it's a criminal matter. As you say, the main problem is police officers are just plain not prosecuted as much as they should be when they violate the law like anyone else. And I guess I also agree that the Constitution has more or less become the fall back to get justice in these cases when local prosecutors fail to do their job... just wish it didn't have to go that far...

Re:UNacceptable

[Khyber]

'Please show me where in the constitution is says anything about recording police behavior, let alone cell phone cameras."

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these).

This means that as long as the people seize the power to record public happenings (which several courts have ruled upon, up to the highest court, that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy [which is why police can immediately begin recording you with their dash cameras,]) they retain that power.

A simplified but quite accurate representation, because ultimately power must be seized, not voted upon. You see this already happening with the government's broadening brush.

Re:UNacceptable

[Khyber]

"You showed that the delusion that guns defend our rights should be retired except as a fairy tale for demented children."

Some of us have different guns of a totally different caliber.

Brains can outgun brawn any day if properly applied.

Re:UNacceptable

[Khyber]

"Unless a local prosecutor indicts those uniformed hooligans, they will not face any punishment for their illegal actions"

This is explicitly not true. In fact, the moment these officers are off-duty, they are fair game for the entire local populace to enforce a citizen's arrest and FORCE a trial upon them.

And in that moment, they are going to be FUCKED FOR LIFE, because this will truly be the people bringing action, not some favorite-playing IA department.

Re:UNacceptable

[Khyber]

"If a cop "violates the Constitution", but doesn't get prosecuted, what happens? Maybe some civil suit where the public ends up paying a bunch of money. Well, screw that. I don't want to pay a bunch of money because some cop did something wrong any more than I want to pay because some random person broke the law."

Well then you better quit sitting on your ass and perhaps start doing something about it, eh?

Re:UNacceptable

[Dahamma]

You already replied to another comment of mine (with nothing useful, unfortunately...) but I'll assume it's just because you are interested in the subject...

Anyway, still not sure how your comments are relevant to the Constitutional in what I see is a case of basic criminal activity by the police. You even mention that the Constitution is for "US govt powers" and the rest is up to the states - these were definitely not federal officers, so it's not *directly* a Constitutional issue.

But honestly, I don't disagree that in the end it may *have* to become a Constitutional issue (see several other discussions on this thread). The problem is really that it should be a local criminal issue, but no one wants to prosecute police officers no matter how blatant their crimes. So the only recourse is falling back to Constitutional law in a Federal civil suit. Completely not ideal, but I admit it's better than letting them get away with (sometimes literally) murder. Guess anything more is just wishful thinking on my part...

Re:UNacceptable

[panda]

This is exactly the type of abuse of power that the Second Amendment is meant to prevent. When any and all citizens could be armed, the government agents have to deal with them as equals or risk being killed. When all of the risk is on the unarmed populace, the thugs are free to act with impunity.

Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.

Re:UNacceptable

[Khyber]

"Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people"

If you fail to see the Constitutional aspect of what I've said then I think you need to go back to school, perhaps Junior High civic class refreshers might help out, as well as a few lessons in inference/critical thinking. No offense but apparently you simply weren't paying attention that day.

Re:UNacceptable

[corbettw]

Suing is all well and good, but unless these pigs pay the price they won't care. Those thugs need to lose their jobs and pensions and spend some time in prison. Maybe then their colleagues will show some respect for the rights of other people.

Re:UNacceptable

[rossz]

There are criminal statutes that cover violations:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html

There are more.

Re:UNacceptable

[umrguy76]

Yet another example of a government agent stomping on the Constitution. What type of country has this become? One where the government can track, monitor, record, and harass citizens, yet citizens can't even record a public event without being treated as terrorists. Just disgusting.

Now they should sue and we can all pay for it with an ever increasing tax burden.

What is disgusting is all the whining on here from people that safely live in peace because other people, police officers, are keeping the ugly at bay. Don't forget about the tens of thousands of decent men and women in police uniform who were NOT abusing their power while this one bozo was doing so.

Re:UNacceptable

[markdavis]

I don't think anyone (at least I certainly) is or was implying that all, most, or even many police officers act like that! But if we are not willing to jump all over this type of unacceptable behavior, and assert our rights, there would be a lot more tragedy like this. And it doesn't take a whole lot of bad apples to spoil the bunch.

There is a prevailing culture of demanding more and more safety at the expense of more and more freedom, and it has been growing steadily over the years. Although there would anarchy without those willing to enforce order and justice, there can be no freedom with the expectation of extreme safety. Generally, the two are diametrically opposed.

This is not a police state.

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. is much better than China. We are free.

Re:This is not a police state.

[jhoegl]

Right, and letting things like this go allow Police states to occur.

Re:This is not a police state.

[betterunixthanunix]

We are free, except for the millions of people who are behind bars; in fact, the US imprisons more people than any other country, including China, and the only countries to even imprison more people than the US were the USSR and Nazi Germany. As if that were not shameful enough, we also imprison a higher proportion of our black population than South Africa did during Apartheid.

Shameful.

Re:This is not a police state.

[Rufty]

+1 Funny

Re:This is not a police state.

[hjf]

Well, of course China has few prisoners. They just execute the "bad apples", even if they didn't actually commit the crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_China#Crimes_punishable_by_death

Re:This is not a police state.

[Trilkin]

Read his link. He was being sarcastic.

Re:This is not a police state.

[betterunixthanunix]

Except that they are talking about thousands of executions per year. The United States increased its prison population by hundreds of thousands in 2008 alone:

http://www.thedefendersonline.com/2009/02/03/america-on-lockdown-new-facts-about-america%E2%80%99s-prisons-prisoners/

Yes, China is the world leader in executions (but per capita, Iran is the leader), but we are talking about orders of magnitude difference in terms of how many people the United States imprisons. The United States does not arrest people who did not commit any crimes; the United States simply defines so many things to be crimes that it becomes difficult for people to live their lives without being criminals.

Re:This is not a police state.

[betterunixthanunix]

Sorry, misread that; s/hundreds of thousands/tens of thousands/. The point remains the same: the US adds more prisoners per year than China executes.

Re:This is not a police state.

[DrBoumBoum]

From the very interesting text:

The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear.

Re:This is not a police state.

[LordLimecat]

When you make sarcastic remarks implying that China is better off in terms of free speech and all the rest, you really only show your ignorance. If this were china, there WOULD be no local story on it; there WOULD be no blogging of it, and all mentions of "miami shooting" would be blocked on google.

Good job on taking a legitimate concern and putting just such a spin on it that it becomes a parody of itself.

Re:This is not a police state.

[RobertinXinyang]

Your list is a bit out of date. This article in China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2011-05/02/content_12429037.htm reports that the number of crimes that can receive the death penalty has been reduced. Further, all cases of capital punishment must be reviewed by China's Supreme Court. The simple facts are that China, unlike the US is moving away from Capital punishment.

Further, China, unlike the US is instituting measures that call for greater police openness and accountability, as seen in this article http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-05/06/content_12456521.htm . The facts bear out the truth that China is striving toward the Ideal society that America once claimed to be reaching toward at the same time as America has moved away from the pursuit of that same goal.

Re:This is not a police state.

[Khyber]

Protip: I've got a few China passport stamps. It's a requirement of my job.

You left the base path and started running towards the outfield. They're starting to figure out working communism.

Re:This is not a police state.

[ildon]

I wish I had mod points. When people make exaggerated statements like trying to state that China is more free or equally free to the U.S. or that the U.S. is like Nazi Germany, you only WEAKEN your complaint about the legitimate problems in the U.S.

Re:This is not a police state.

[lite99]

Thank you for the link. May I suggest ALL you /.ters read it. Think globally, act locally? Atleast think.

Re:This is not a police state.

[fadethepolice]

"The punishment for most crimes is a fine"' - Which if you have no means to pay you go to jail without access to a jury trial.

Re:This is not a police state.

[wisty]

That's not necessarily true. There would not be MSM coverage of it. But blogs would cover it. Don't believe me, go to chinasmack.com and see what blog stories are popular in China. Have a look at the translated comments too.

The central government hates corrupt / inept local enforcers giving them a bad name. So unless the cops were doing something that was nationally sanctioned, the internet censors (who work for authorities a long way up the food chain) have no reason to block comments.

Even if comments get blocked, Chinese bloggers can (and do) use puns (very easy in Chinese) to get past the censors.

Re:This is not a police state.

[BLKMGK]

I'll bet China adds more prisoners per year than they execute too.....

Re:This is not a police state.

[khallow]

We are free, except for the millions of people who are behind bars; in fact, the US imprisons more people than any other country, including China

Keep in mind the data sources. The US says it imprisons more people than China says it imprisons. The actual numbers could be (and IMHO probably are) very different.

Re:This is not a police state.

[demonlapin]

Never claimed they were perfect.

Re:This is not a police state.

[bar-agent]

"The punishment for most crimes is a fine"' - Which if you have no means to pay you go to jail without access to a jury trial.

I doubt this is true. I've never heard of the US having a debtor's prison. If you can't pay, you work out a payment plan with the court, or do community service instead.

Crooks chasing crooks...

[MaskedSlacker]

...and cops wonder why we hate them?

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[hduff]

...and cops wonder why we hate them?

They know.

They just don't care.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[MaskedSlacker]

You sure seem to have assumed a whole lot of shit about me based on nothing.

For all you know I'm an african-american lesbian. So fuck off.

Of course, I agree with you about supporting fundamental liberties for everyone. I'm just rather irked at your bullshit assumption that I somehow ever supported doing anything like this to anyone you prejudicial fuck. The only one in this thread ever talking about this having ever been ok is you. Don't go accusing me of what bigger assholes than you (surprising that such could exist) have said.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[chinakow]

Don't speak for me. I can make up my own mind about who to like or dislike or even hate.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[MaskedSlacker]

You misunderstood. He has multiple personalities.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[DesScorp]

...and cops wonder why we hate them?

The criticism and complaints against these officers is completely justified... they should face charges at a formal hearing for this... but a blanket statement about "we hate cops" makes you look silly and juvenile. Government... federal, state, and local... has become far too powerful. But they're not yet the Nazis you and other perpetually outraged Slashdotters make them out to be.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[chinakow]

OOOoooh, gotcha. Carry on then. Though, I'm afraid our friend is in need of some other uniformed men that s/he will likely also dislike.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they stick together and cover for the really bad ones, they are all bad. Unfortunately that's exactly what they ALL do.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[The Dawn Of Time]

I guess we should wait until they are the Nazis, huh?

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Lehk228]

just a neverending string of isolated incidents and coverups

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[malkavian]

People like who? And why aren't you including those of other skin colours (native Americans, Chinese etc)? Does it mean anything that people of all skin colours can be just as violent towards their own skin colour? Or are you so racist and skin colour blinkered that you only see a crime if someone of a particular skin colour does something to someone of another skin colour?

I'm all for fundamental liberties, I just expect people to live up to the honour of having those liberties.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[BoberFett]

When these incidents happen, how often do the pigs face real punishment? That doesn't mean desk duty, or leave with pay. I mean life in prison, the kind of thing the rest of us would do for blatantly murdering someone then trying to cover it up by assaulting and threatening witnesses.

The whole system is corrupt and needs to be flushed.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[phantomfive]

That's how it is, right? We have a never-ending string of robberies and murders, and the best solution we've found is to have a police force, which helps reduce the problem, but adds the problem of a neverending string of police abuse. So we make rules to restrict the police, but.......

There's really no good solution. Living with other people is hard. Overall in the US things aren't too bad, most people are neither a victim of theft/violence OR police abuse.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[russotto]

But they're not yet the Nazis you and other perpetually outraged Slashdotters make them out to be.

These cops are just as brutal as the Nazi on the street circa 1938. What they lack that the Nazis had is a Hitler to organize their brutality in pursuit of a single purpose. Without that, they just act like an out-of-control street gang.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[jamesh]

...and cops wonder why we hate them?

I sure hope their colleges take them out the back and beat the crap out of them (figuratively speaking ;) for letting the team down. I normally think the police are fairly reasonable but if their mates stick up for them after pulling a stunt like this then they are just as bad.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[evil_aaronm]

"Hivemind of hatred"? And just how should a rational, intelligent, decent person respond to a criminal act like destruction of evidence and tampering with witnesses - by the police? If it were a one-time thing, I could see cutting them some slack. Try googling for "police brutality" and follow the links - if you have time enough.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Anonymous Coward]

YES! That's exactly the point.

Jews: "Just a neverending string of money crimes"
Brown people with beards: "Just a neverending string of blowing themselves up."
Black people: "Just a neverending string of thievery."
White people: "Just a neverending string of oppression."

SOME of those groups are bad. Some of EVERY group are bad. In some groups, MORE are bad, than in other groups.
But that still doesn't justify lumping them all together.
(And "bad" is relative anyway.)

Even if 99 out of 100 people commit a crime, punishing that innocent last one with the 100, is STILL is a crime itself.

It's the difference between default generalization (or even prejudice), and "innocent until proven guilty" (which is law for a *very* good reason)

And to make things even worse, your argument is exactly the same, that that specific type of criminal people use. (TSA searches for example. Or Guantanamo.)

Which makes you in no way better.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Nefarious Wheel]

That's how it is, right? We have a never-ending string of robberies and murders, and the best solution we've found is to have a police force, which helps reduce the problem, but adds the problem of a neverending string of police abuse. So we make rules to restrict the police, but....... .

Thing is, we all want police. We want them to be good police. I would rather we didn't have enough than that we couldn't depend on the ones we have to uphold the law, evenly and without prejudice.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[phantomfive]

Thing is, we all want police. We want them to be good police. I would rather we didn't have enough than that we couldn't depend on the ones we have to uphold the law, evenly and without prejudice.

Sure, that's what we all want. We also want bankers who don't cheat. How exactly do you intend to get only good police? It's impossible.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[k8to]

Generally speaking, police culture is corrupt, and has been for generations. The question is just to what extent it's taken. Are they murderers for hire? or just take money to not report crimes? or do they just take free gives as effective bribes to cover some areas better than others?

Police corruption at all levels is a problem, low level corruption is a smaller problem than enormous misdeeds like what is seen here. But that the enitre culture has this diesease is a good reason to not trust police. It's not paranoia, and it's not based on nothing. It's a well documented phenomenon, and no amount of apologies for the institution will fix it.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[UriahZ]

They are ABSOLUTELY just as fascist and evil as we make them out to be. You can pooh-pooh it all you like, but you're just deluding yourself to excuse your inaction. And besides, we don't hate cops, we just hate the ones that trample our rights, like the ones that serve no-knock warrants for minor drug crimes, and the ones that don't bother with warrants, and the ones that taze you for a 'bad attitude', and the ones that shoot first and ask questions later, and the ones that threaten and harass citizen journalists, and the ones that beat protesters exercising their democratic rights, and the ones that kick people out of their homes when they get a letter from the bank, and the ones that target the poor for harassment, and the ones that dress up like SS officers for fun, and the ones that hate minorities, and the ones that escape corruption charges out of police solidarity, and the ones that tamper with evidence, and the ones that think they should not be held accountable for their actions. Really, it's just the 95% majority of cops that we hate. The rest are awesome, and bravo for standing up to a culture of pure, unmitigated evil.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[CamD]

How exactly do you intend to get only good police? It's impossible.

Firing the (proven) bad ones can't hurt.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[demonlapin]

Let me guess: you don't live in the US? I'm a moderately conservative middle-aged white guy with a professional job, and I HATE cops.

The only remarkable thing about this situation is that they were caught on video.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[ICLKennyG]

They should go to JAIL for assault, robbery, wrongful arrest and criminal intimidation. Police acting outside the scope of their authority are just normal citizens and should be punished as such.

Obviously, the problem lies in that no prosecutor wants to stand up to the police as it would 1) make their job much more difficult and 2) be political suicide. This is why the NYPD was so bad in the '70s and '80s (American Gangster Bad)

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[LordLimecat]

No, but calling them nazis, porcine donut eaters, and crooks (blanket statements all); comparing us to WW2 Germany and Communist China; and calling the majority of cops "psychopaths" (all of these, from this very thread) is certainly a bit much.

I have to say, all this foaming mouthed hyperbole really contributes to a reasoned discussion.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[blackraven14250]

I think we should be honest that they're not Nazis, and work to prevent them from becoming the SS.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[LordLimecat]

I can say with confidence that the majority of cops do not run around shooting folks, as has been implied here. A good number of them may be arrogant jerks, and they may not get disciplined as hard as they should (but then, who does, in governmental jobs?), but the solution is not to rant about how we're no better than authoritarian states like China and Nazi Germany.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Stargoat]

Exactly. A cop who does not report a crime that another cop commits should be charged with the identical crime. That would put a stop to these shanigans in a hurry.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Doc Ruby]

No, it's obvious from what you said, and the sensibilities that experienced people can tell are behind it, that you are no African-American lesbian. You're a middle class White man.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Doc Ruby]

Where did you go?

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[sjames]

It's not just the cops who did this. It is equally the cops who will rally around them ignoring exactly the sort of crime that should make them feel the most personally outraged just because it was their gang that did it. It's the "justice system" that will only act at all if dragged along by public outrage and that will most likely call administrative leave an adequate punishment.

As for "we hate cops", I wouldn't call that a universal sentiment, but it is most certainly far more common than in decades past. It is also seen as far more socially acceptable to express such a sentiment today, probably because respect for law enforcement and the law itself is well along a downward spiral, in part because of things like this.

Meanwhile, the Nazis weren't 'nazis' either, and then one day they were. Too bad that by then only a thorough defeat by outside forces could get rid of them. Shall we wait and hope France or Canada give us a hand later?

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[very1silent]

It depends on where they are. In some jurisdictions, they are regularly prosecuted for this kind of thing. Other places, such as San Jose California, have gone decades without ever prosecuting a cop, even when their own review boards recommend it. If you want to change this kind of thing, getting elected to city government is a good way to make that happen.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[blincoln]

While I'd like to believe that most police officers are decent people - the ones I've met certainly seem to be - it seems like virtually every police department in the country is willing to help protect their members from punishment for this sort of behaviour. You didn't see police officers in Seattle saying "hey, most of us don't stomp on handcuffed Mexicans while using racial slurs" or "most of us aren't actually one-man homeless-person slaughtering machines - we want that ex-officer to go to jail just like the rest of you", and I am convinced you won't see any in Miami decrying the actions of these thugs either.

Whenever there is public scrutiny of police behaviour, they will throw up the "blue wall of silence", regardless of how obviously in the wrong the officer(s) in question were.

By staying silent - or worse, actively supporting police union protection of obviously out-of-control cops, or participating in get-out-of-jail-free situations for family and friends of other cops - they are making themselves part of the problem instead of setting an example and inspiring confidence in what they're supposed to represent.

This happens so frequently now that I can't really blame anyone who picks up the "I hate cops" sentiment.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[kevinNCSU]

I'm a moderately conservative middle-aged white guy with a professional job, and I HATE cops.

A white middle/upper class professional hates a group of blue collar low income people who are put in a position of authority over him? I'm shocked I say, SHOCKED!

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[unitron]

...For all you know I'm an african-american lesbian...

With nothing better to do than hang out on Slashdot?

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[unitron]

I sure hope their colleges take them out the back...

Because obviously their high schools never did. And apparently, neither have their colleagues.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[oursland]

It isn't impossible, but it does mean holding those who cross the line accountable. I'm not talking about suspension with pay, but investigation, trial and imprisonment of those who break the law. Start doing that and then I think you'll find that the police will be far more palatable to the average citizen.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[phantomfive]

The average citizen gets upset at the police because they were speeding. No amount of accountability is going to change that.

In theory, we already hold those who cross the line accountable. There are laws against what the cop did in this situation, for example. Developing a mechanism for enforcing that is not easy, though. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, etc.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[krazytekn0]

cops know and most do care, unfortunately one bad cop makes the news and thousands of good ones don't. I knew an IT guy who turned out to be a pedophile, doesn't make all IT guys pedophiles though.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[TheRaven64]

The problem is that it's a negative feedback cycle. One police officer exceeds his authority. A few people see it, and tell their friends. Those people are then less likely to trust the police. The police in the area find the people that they are paid to protect less cooperative, or even overtly hostile to them. In reaction, they start to see all civilians as working against them, and therefore part of the problem. The then justify overstepping their authority, because without civilian cooperation they can't do their jobs properly. More people see this, and then trust the police less...

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Stone2065]

I hope you have a good ambulance chaser in your town so you can SUE THE FUCK out of that so called police force...

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[AP31R0N]

Wow. A level headed, rational response on the internet.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[bhtooefr]

Do what Kennesaw, Georgia does.

Make it so that you only need minimal police, because people are equipped to respond to their own incidents, and police just need to come in after the fact, without needing to constantly patrol or quickly respond to a scene to protect everyone.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[gbjbaanb]

oh, obviously I have struck a nerve there!

I meant, and I apologise for getting this wrong, that the 'you' didn't actually refer to you specifically. I meant 'you' in the wider sense, more in the 3rd person .. like this:

First they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[bsane]

...is certainly a bit much.

Is it? Where are the fine upstanding officers not willing to obstruct justice or be an accessory after the fact? You can use the BART shooting as a starting point if you want a clear example of murder- where the office was convicted _despite_ the effort of his fellow cops.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[bsane]

Sure, that's what we all want. We also want bankers who don't cheat. How exactly do you intend to get only good police? It's impossible.

I agree 100%, but that doesn't mean we should lay down when we see the abuse. Just because its impossible doesn't mean we should give up the goal.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[fractoid]

No, but calling them nazis, porcine donut eaters, and crooks (blanket statements all); comparing us to WW2 Germany and Communist China; and calling the majority of cops "psychopaths" (all of these, from this very thread) is certainly a bit much.

If the boot fits...

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[Kabuthunk]

Have every single cop wear a device that records what they do (headcam type thing, something like that) which also records sound, and have that uploaded to a remote server. If this recording is EVER turned off or blocked, anything anyone says against the police will be take with more weight than what the police say themselves.

This in itself invites problems, of someone trying to cover up said camera so that the cop's word doesn't count. Thus, the voice recorder should be separate, perhaps have one 'obvious' camera and one non-obvious one on the cop, and in general that means it's just one of the dangers of the job if the cop decides to stand still when someone's about to throw a bucket of paint on him while playing 'Thunderstruck' at 140 decibels to drown out the recorder.

But in general... have something on the cops to record what THEY do, and make it illegal for THAT to ever be tampered with. And make it publicly available instantly online, since y'know... we pay their bills and they're doing a public service so therefore everything they do should be visible by us.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[phantomfive]

I don't know how a cop would respond to that, but if my boss started requiring that indignity, I would quit and find another job.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[phantomfive]

hehe yeah, we should start a program against police corruption, give it a big budget and a catchy name.....something like, "The War against Police Corruption." That'll fix it.

Anyway, we do have checks in place to try to find bad policemen, and the policeman in this example was definitely breaking laws, so no one is giving up. The only thing of interest is if someone has an idea to make things better.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[phantomfive]

That's a really good solution in places where it works. A town where I grew up got rid of their police recently, mainly because they were too expensive and no one wanted to pay anymore, but there haven't been any real problems. In an emergency the county sheriff comes and checks things out.

In other places it just brings a worse problem of corrupt citizenry.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[LordLimecat]

Is it? Where are the fine upstanding officers not willing to obstruct justice or be an accessory after the fact

The term "vocal minority" seems to fit rather well here. There may be a problem, but the reason you dont hear about counter examples is because people dont typically go on their blogs to state "I got pulled over for a ticket I deserved today, and man that cop did his job satisfactorially; he didnt trample on my rights or anything".

If you really want to see what it looks like when the entirety of the police force has impunity to trample on your rights, travel to an authoritarian country with a truely corrupt police force. You might try Syria, or Libya, or Zimbabwe; and if you want to see what it looks like when the core government itself is perpetuating the rights violations, you could try China, or Sri Lanka, or any number of other Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

We have problems here, but no reasonable conversation will come about when people try to compare the US to those countries straight out of the gate.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[LordLimecat]

To sit at a computer in one of (top 10) the richest, freest, safest, and most stable countries in the world and complain about how bad your police force is a sign that you arent really prepared to discuss the problems our country faces. If you arent able to soberly and competently assess the situation we face, why should anyone take seriously your opinions on the matter?

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[demonlapin]

And yet you'd be surprised how many people think cops deserve respect.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[sixsixtysix]

bad cops exist mostly because the good ones let them

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[fractoid]

I see what you're saying, but I would contend that the difference isn't in the caliber of the law enforcement officials, but rather in the political and social structure surrounding it. It's like the Standford Prison Experiment in reverse; we get more humane results due to the structure of our society, not due to the majority of police officers being "better people" compared with the examples you held up. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that education and freedom being what they are in first world countries, an individual's ability to pursue any chosen career is that much greater, and hence there's an even stronger self-selection towards police forces being filled with power-tripping assholes.

Re:Crooks chasing crooks...

[RobertM1968]

...and cops wonder why we hate them?

The criticism and complaints against these officers is completely justified... they should face charges at a formal hearing for this... but a blanket statement about "we hate cops" makes you look silly and juvenile. Government... federal, state, and local... has become far too powerful. But they're not yet the Nazis you and other perpetually outraged Slashdotters make them out to be.

My opinion is fuck the formal hearing. There's video evidence and witnesses. They should be arrested, processed, booked, arraigned, need to post bail, go to court... then back to jail when found guilty, then lose the civil suit they should also surely face.. There've been other cases of "charges" at formal "hearings" where nothing much happens without a lot of outside pressure. It's time bad apples like this face the same repercussions that the average citizen would (especially considering they are the ones who should properly know and be enforcing the law). In all else, I agree with you 100%.

police brutality....

[wired57]

sounds like those police need to be taught a lesson.

Re:police brutality....

[mysterios_asian]

sounds like those police need to be taught a lesson.

i agree. they even do shit to innocent people for no fucking reason

he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[YesIAmAScript]

The HTC EVO is a Sprint phone, it doesn't use SIM cards.

Also, video isn't stored on the SIM card.

Maybe he means the memory card?

Removing the memory card requires removing the battery first on an HTC EVO. It's somewhat unlikely he did that discreetly.

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[Briareos]

Depends on how smashed up the phone was - after a good police trampling I wouldn't be surprised if the battery was already missing and the sd card slot was bent...

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[Delarth799]

Well when a phone is smashed up Im sure it makes it a lot easier to do things like that.

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, they definitely meant the SD card. It's not commonplace enough yet for people to have the lingo down.

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[camg188]

He probably took out the memory card after they put the smashed phone back in his pocket.
But who knows? If the reporter screwed up facts like 'SIM cards don't store video', who knows what other facts they got wrong in this story.

Once again, news reporting appears to the be the most technically clueless profession. (and if this video actually exists, I guess the police would be the second).

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[blair1q]

and it's unnecessary. you have to get to the card and mangle it. stomping the phone probably didn't even scratch it.

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[camg188]

Oh, and the article also says this:

Benoit has not posted it on Youtube because he is asking to be compensated. But it sounds as if he won’t have much trouble getting compensated through a settlement with the police department.
However, he first must post the video for the world to see.

So, he can't post the video because he asking to be compensated, however he must post the video first to do that???
Contradict much? FN reporter should have been a writer for Monty Python.

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[s0litaire]

Think the reporter meant that:
The person who recorded it does not want to post it till he gets compensation
but morally the reporter feels the person should release it NOW for everyone to see...

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[guruevi]

There was a commercial/infomercial for SanDisk I believe that put those memory cards with camera near an explosive to capture it. It survived. Most cell phones will survive a decent stomping (maybe not the screen but you should be able to hook it up to your computer) and if not, the chips will survive and any data recovery company can get to it.

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[TheRaven64]

Publishing evidence before a trial can make it difficult to get a prosecution. If this goes to court, he will be the victim and the police officers can be acquitted if there is any evidence that the jury has prejudged them. Putting the videos online makes it very difficult to get a jury that has not seen the evidence before the trial. A competent attorney will have advised him not to make it public. After it's been entered as evidence in court, then it's a matter of public record, so everyone will see it.

Re:he says he kept the SIM card in his mouth?

[The Wild Norseman]

Publishing evidence before a trial can make it difficult to get a prosecution. If this goes to court, he will be the victim and the police officers can be acquitted if there is any evidence that the jury has prejudged them.

Close, but not quite. If, after the both sides' voir dire questioning and the jury empaneled, there may be some evidence that the jury has some remaining prejudices, it would be declared a mistrial and the prosecution could re-try the defendant; it would not be an acquittal.

Putting the videos online makes it very difficult to get a jury that has not seen the evidence before the trial. A competent attorney will have advised him not to make it public. After it's been entered as evidence in court, then it's a matter of public record, so everyone will see it.

That's what a change of venue would help solve, though with the particularities of the internet, it may be a vain hope for an impartial jury. Of course, I think it's an error to think that courts need juries who are completely impartial (though that's off topic).

Fucking pigs.

[Hatta]

Fucking pigs.

Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[sethstorm]

If there's enough of the phone to recover images, then the cops have made their situation worse. It looks like that's the case, but it's from an SD card, not a SIM card - given how Sprint's phones work.

Another point - how about apps that instantly stream to an offsite location? The cops would still be thwarted, and still have to pay.

Hopefully the cops end up paying tons of cash to replace the phones, along with whatever criminal penalties come from their actions.

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[hduff]

Another point - how about apps that instantly stream to an offsite location? The cops would still be thwarted, and still have to pay.

That's how the Camden police thugs got caught.

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[rainwalker]

You happen to know what apps do this? Googling for "recording streaming video" is kind of worthless...

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[log0n]

Check out ustream.

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[dririan]

SIM cards never store video. Ever. No matter what network you're on. The most they store are text messages and/or contacts. But in all fairness, that doesn't change the fact that Sprint doesn't have SIM cards...

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[snugge]

Images from a SIM card?

Good luck storing much data on a SIM card.... The largest I got is 64k

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[Phoobarnvaz]

Hopefully the cops end up paying tons of cash to replace the phones, along with whatever criminal penalties come from their actions.

Used to date a lady who worked in law enforcement in Oklahoma. She told me if a cop is convicted...he serves his time in Kentucky to keep them out of the hands of people he/she may have arrested. If this is the case...hopefully...they'll serve time in some place like Arizona where it's hot and their former reputation follows them. Arizona in summer is 120 degrees plus and they run private prisons facing federal scrutiny over civil rights and such violations.

Anyway...I don't care how bad of a bad a$$ you think you were/are...there are always bigger and badder bad a$$es who will change your mind. The difference...your gun and badge is gone and you're a former cop.

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[Stripe7]

I think I once read a science fiction novel about a character that basically walked around with his life uploaded to the internet. Given the advent of bloggers and low cost high bandwidth wireless communications devices this will be a reality in a few years. We may soon have people who wear internet enabled jewelry that constantly uploaded their lives up to the net. Big brother lives! Except this time instead of just the government monitoring the citizens you would also have citizens monitoring the government.

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[shutdown -p now]

http://qik.com/

Re:Phone's gone, followed by cops' innocence.

[AHuxley]

Something like http://cube.teradek.com/cube_family.html ?
'The Cube Encoder streams HD video over WiFi or wired Ethernet. The Cube Encoder creates its own wireless (ad hoc) network, and streams HD video directly to a Cube Decoder, a computer or laptop, a server, or a mobile device such as an iPad with no other networking equipment required."
Most of the other units will allow the sending of a video clip via wifi when recording is stopped iirc.

And this is why you livestream

[Zerth]

Record it online, not on your phone. Although I suppose it won't be long before cops carry cell jammers as a regular thing.

Re:And this is why you livestream

[sethstorm]

And if you happen to have access to a wi-fi link, it won't matter.

Re:And this is why you livestream

[dougmc]

Although I suppose it won't be long before cops carry cell jammers as a regular thing.

Cell phone jammers are illegal.

(Of course, the police may not care, but this is federal law, enforced by the FCC. If the FCC is given concrete proof of the police's actions, they'll send the police a sternly worded letter to cut that out.)

Re:And this is why you livestream

[cbiltcliffe]

It's also illegal to abuse a witness and smash their cellphone. What's your point?

Re:And this is why you livestream

[perryizgr8]

app called qik does just that. its available for symbian and android. dunno about iphone.

Re:And this is why you livestream

[geekmux]

...Although I suppose it won't be long before cops carry cell jammers as a regular thing.

Doubt that will happen unless law enforcement agencies get a ton more money in their budget. Most agencies don't issue cell phones, let alone special ones that would ride on a custom frequency immune to jamming. Besides, the irony of first responders causing a huge safety issue for anyone around them? Would be kind of hard to pick out that 911 call and allow it to ride the jammed frequency and nothing else.

As much as we want to demonize them(not that those involved here don't deserve it), they're human too, and want/need to be able to communicate/surf/text with their spouses/lovers/snitches in the exact same way that 99.9% of the rest of the world does.

Re:And this is why you livestream

[Entropius]

It's also illegal to punch people in the face and break their property. I imagine the difference is that your average cop wouldn't know how to make a cellphone jammer.

I wish there were a law

[dachshund]

What we need is a Federal law with two components:

1. Establish that it's perfectly legal to film the police doing their job in a public place.
2. Make it a crime, punishable with serious jail time, for a police officer to intimidate a photographer, confiscate their camera, or return the camera without the images.

This law should have no exception for "accidents" like phones being smashed or evidence being lost --- any more than we tolerate "accidents" involving children being lost or killed. Police should know that the minute they confiscate a private individual's camera they are putting their careers and their freedom in the balance should anything go wrong.

Of course none of this would be workable; if Congress actually passed any kind of law it would almost certainly protect the police and not the citizenry; and half of Slashdot would probably object to this being a Federal law rather than a state law or would propose that we adopt a technological/market solution instead.

Re:I wish there were a law

[Samantha Wright]

I don't think this kind of accountability law can be readily abused. The Slashdot poster archetype that hates regulation, the libertarian, does so primarily because it hates big/corrupt/Orwellian government. I think everyone here will agree that such a law is what should be.

The real problem is the SIGs that can lobby their way into blocking it. And when you're talking about agents of the law, they already have friends amongst the legal profession who've ascended to Congress. They don't even need to spend millions of dollars to buy off politicians.

Re:I wish there were a law

[White Flame]

There's nothing that should be specific to police officers. Any public servant is accountable to the public for their actions, and has no claim of privacy from the public eye. This needs to be cast in stone, no matter which role the servant is in.

Re:I wish there were a law

[brillow]

It should be a crime, punishable with jail time, for an officer to intimidate anyone who is not committing a crime.

Law enforcement should defer to the citizen, not the other way around. An officer should not use their power to impede a citizen without damn good reason, and they should beg the pardon of the citizen if they are mistaken.

I've never understood why law enforcement officials are given special deferment when they say accidentally kill someone. I would expect the opposite. I would expect that its ESPECIALLY bad when a trained person who holds and guards the public trust fails at their job and considered criminally egregious when this is the result of gross negligence or incompetence.

It seems that violent crime goes down every year, yet police budgets go up and up.

Re:I wish there were a law

[abe ferlman]

If you can figure out how to make this part of a real legislator's platform I will be amazed. There's not too many who want to make life harder for the police, civil liberties be damned. Maybe someone from Rodney King's district.

Re:I wish there were a law

[The Dawn Of Time]

What we really need is an amendment to the effect that any powers granted to any government representative are also granted to any citizen. That's true equality.

Re:I wish there were a law

[hey!]

We have such a law. It's called the 14th Amendment, without which the states would be free to do all kinds of things that infringe on Americans' rights. Here's the relevant bit:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now the police can arrest these folks. They can (in certain circumstances) even kick the crap out of them. But they can't kick the crap out of them with the intent of denying them liberty or due process. Suppose there were a law that forbade videotaping the cops. Even *if* that law were to pass 14th Amendment scrutiny, the cops can't act as judge, jury and executioner. They'd have to confiscate the video, then prove it is illegal in a court of law.

Re:I wish there were a law

[LordLimecat]

Establish that it's perfectly legal to film the police doing their job in a public place.

Laws generally restrict or take away freedoms, not grant them-- at least in a free country. I dont think you want to get into the habit of implying that rights must be granted.

Youll note that neither the Constitution or the Bill of Rights grant us any rights; they simply state which rights of ours may not be legislated over (or alternatively, they guard our rights).

Re:I wish there were a law

[Travelsonic]

No, we also need a provision where when a cop abuses his position in such a way where enough circumstantial evidence is present [like the witnesses in this case] the persons being abused have full right to restrain him, defend, etc as if he were a civilian.

This may be a controversial idea, but fuck it - this putting cops on such a high pedestal that they can't possibly do wrong is EXACTLY WHY we are in this fucking mess in the first place - conditioned so when bad cops act bad we don't have any ability - psychologically, or legally - to properly defend ourselves. So much so that people will now, probably, accuse me of wanting to support assaulting cops likle morons. No, I don't advocate that, but if somebody is abusing their badge - and physically abusing others, why the fuck should they mot be physically restrained, etc like anybody else?

Re:I wish there were a law

[geekmux]

There's nothing that should be specific to police officers. Any public servant is accountable to the public for their actions...

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I couldn't even finish reading your post I was laughing so hard thinking about Government, Congressmen, State Representatives, Enron, Bailouts, BP...

"accountable". I'm still laughing...that's a good one.

Re:I wish there were a law

[Entropius]

If the police respected people's rights then this sort of thing wouldn't make life harder for them.

Re:I wish there were a law

[Courageous]

I disagree. There should be laws specific to all public servants, that expressly give them less privacy and hold them to higher legal standards than the ordinary public. In particular, if a public servant willfully violates laws as pertaining to their work in public office, the punishment should be more, and not less, than if a citizen did a similar thing.

C//

Re:I wish there were a law

[ffejie]

and half of Slashdot would probably object to this being a Federal law rather than a state law or would propose that we adopt a technological/market solution instead.

Yes, I would object to a Federal Law to govern state workers or local workers. If a state needs this law, it's welcome to pass it, as it's probably a pretty good law. However, there's no reason to bring the Feds into it, unless we're talking about Federal employees.

Re:The bright side...

[Anonymous Coward]

It IS completely legal to video record police officers.

get Dexter to take care of thees bad cops

[Joe_Dragon]

get Dexter to take care of thees bad cops

Re:how how?

[jago25_98]

I thought this too. Looking into it though, how do we actually do it? The only way I can think of that's convenient on a Symbian phone is stickam, then viewing it on a computer already running somewhere... which isn't great. You want the whole thing to be as quick as pressing one button

I miss friendly NZ

[lu-darp]

Our cops don't carry guns.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[Stormthirst]

They don't (for the most part) carry them in the UK either where I grew up. I still feel a little nervous about the RCMP carrying. Would I feel any less nervous if I was allowed to carry? Not really. More guns just means more opportunity to get shot - accidentally or otherwise.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[lu-darp]

"Four innocent bystanders were shot during that shooting, most likely from police bullets." Bingo.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[Professr3]

Regular Joes who carry are actually on average much better shots than the cops. We're also statistically less likely to commit a crime than a police officer, and all the other firearm carriers I've met have a much better understanding of their state laws than the police (at least in the areas of law that have come up during conversations with police).

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[0123456]

Regular Joes who carry are actually on average much better shots than the cops. We're also statistically less likely to commit a crime than a police officer, and all the other firearm carriers I've met have a much better understanding of their state laws than the police (at least in the areas of law that have come up during conversations with police).

They're also statistically less likely to shoot innocent bystanders.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[lu-darp]

Scenario 1: Cops have guns to protect themselves. Bad guys have guns to protect themselves. Problem is: when they cross that adds a lotta incentive to be the first to shoot.

Scenario 2: Cops don't carry gun. Bad guys now don't have such a need to carry. When they cross, even bad guy with gun needn't panic and think he has to shoot first. (Or run down the cop with a car, etc.). On measure, cop is safer.

The vast majority of bad guys aren't murderous psychos and a life sentence for cop killing is an effective deterrent. (So if a cop is after a known murderer / similarly desperate person, THEN bring the guns.)

Anyway, I'm not so naive to think places like scenario 1 can simply change - I just know where I preferred living.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[Hazel Bergeron]

No-one who hasn't been propagandised into thinking that guns are as essential as air wants to carry a gun, including criminals. In a country where most cops don't carry guns and most law-abiding citizens don't carry guns, most criminals won't want to carry guns either. Once you shake off that primitive Wild West mentality you'll find that most people simply don't want to create a life-or-death situation for themselves or others, whatever their aim (unless their aim is to kill someone - but that's unsurprisingly rare).

Guns might have been a good protection against the tyranny of government gone bad... a couple of hundred years ago. The government has since so far outpaced the citizen in physical strength that much more sophisticated disobedience is required. Stop waving around your sidearms like yahoos, America, and engage in that sophistication. For your own sake. Please.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[Duradin]

Our crooks don't offer you a cup of tea while they rob your house.

The crook's gun isn't just for shooting cops. It's handy for convincing people to not put up a fight whilst relieving them of their worldly possessions. Criminals like things being easy. That's why they are criminals.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[publiclurker]

Because they are too busy crapping their pants when reality occurs around them and they realize that their manhood enhancement attempts do nothing to help anyone.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[Duradin]

I've got this nice bridge for sale. Only used by a little old lady to go to church on Sundays.

Unless your crooks schedule their robberies ahead of time, they have the advantage of the element of surprise which can be used to leverage a less-lethal-than-a-gun weapon into a as-lethal-as-a-gun weapon. Law abiding citizens should be able to legally have an equal footing as the criminal.

I may just be selfish, but I'd prefer not being robbed at all. This is selfish, but I really don't care what the robber's chance of dying is since they were the one to choose to take that chance. The robbee doesn't get to make that choice. The robbee doesn't know what level of force the robber intends to employ against them.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[sl149q]

Even without guns the RCMP can be deadly just using Tasers.... Fortunately (but not for Robert Dziekanski) a bystander videoed them tasering someone repeatedly until he was unconscious and then died. Several years later, lots of lies and improbable stories (before the video came out) and they (the four RCMP officers) may finally get their day in court for lieing about it. Certainly without the video that would never have happened. Their story (we, all four of us, where afraid for our lives when he (supposedly) attacked us with a stapler so we tasered him, repeatedly, four (five?) times.)

Once 4g arrives most cell phone video will go straight to the cloud and crap like this will be on YouTube before the cops finish their shift. Breaking a phone after the fact will get them nothing but lawsuits.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[statusbar]

Regarding Robert, the thing even more disturbing to me is that the original official story released, before the bystander video came out, was that in the airport all of the security cameras in that area were not working.

Either they Lied, which should be punishable, or the airport police should be punished for allowing such a major security system to fail in a very large area of an international airport in this post 9/11 era.

This is regardless of whatever happened to Robert.

--jeffk++

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[indeterminator]

In the US, the constitution grants everyone the right of getting shot.

According to some, it's not a right but a privilege.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[Duradin]

Sorry sir, can this not be a murder today? It'd be rather inconvenient with my schedule.

The robber has the choice to murder or not, that's not the victim's choice.

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[x6060]

You seem to think that criminals are just going to throw away all of their firearms if the citizenry does so. Several cities in American have enacted laws that frobid the ownership of firearms. In every case crime has gone up. If you look at the cities of the US and look at crime rates, it is those cities that have removed the right of citizens to own firearms that now have the worst problems with violent crime. The problems with violent crime anywhere in the world, not just America, are far more challenging than just saying "take away all the firearms and no one will hurt anyone else" Its also very insulting that you keep saying Americans are "primitive" and "unsophisticated". Labeling people with those words will usually get YOU label as an "Elitist Snob"

Re:I miss friendly NZ

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) No-one said "take away all the firearms and no one will hurt anyone else", but developed countries with fewer firearms have fewer murders. This doesn't mean taking away firearms in a small area from some people, it means restricting supply to everyone everywhere: the citizen, the police and the criminal;

(2) In average terms, Americans are unsophisticated (and it shows in your trigger-happy defensiveness - learn some English self-deprecation!). At least, in that lack of sophistication, there used to be an effective sense of principle. But all y'all have lost that too.

Anothe video of the incident...

[pongo000]

...can be found here. Rather chilling.

Re:Anothe video of the incident...

[GrBear]

This is one of those times I wished I had mod points. It sounded like a god damned firing squad rather than responsible policing. Seriously.. 3 cops and it sounds like each of them emptied their clips in a matter of 5 seconds or less.

Re:Anothe video of the incident...

[shutdown -p now]

Seriously.. 3 cops and it sounds like each of them emptied their clips in a matter of 5 seconds or less.

Cops (and, really, pretty much everyone with a gun) are trained that, once you reach the decision to fire - which is not supposed to be taken lightly - you keep firing until you're absolutely sure that the target is incapacitated. At that point, the safety of the target is simply no longer a concern. It's not like they shoot once and then check if the guy is not reaching for the gun anymore, and if he is, they shoot again and repeat. Nor do they shoot to wound.

In this case, if all three cops saw something done by the guy in the car that was clearly aggressive (e.g. he was raising a gun?), then it would make perfect sense for each one of them to start firing at the same time, and to fire several times.

Re:Anothe video of the incident...

[swalve]

I agree, it is chilling. However, common sense and the law states that you can only use a gun when you believe life is in danger. It is a binary, high threshold thing. If I don't start shooting, this person will kill someone. In that case, it makes sense to empty ones' clip. Bullets are cheap, life isn't. The fable of the cop balancing his S&W on his forearm and picking a guy off at 100 yards in one shot is mostly a TV trope.

The problem is, of course, how that decision gets made. If the decision turns into "is this a shooting I can get away with?", we have a problem.

Hmmm..

[RottenJ]

I wonder if those jerk-off cops know there is a good chance the video is recoverable.

Re:Hmmm..

[mysterios_asian]

there could be a chance that the video could be recover

Every phone should have a one-button option for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as every phone should have an easy way to summon emergency services without looking at the screen, every phone should also have an easy way to initiate a "live recording" option: record+immediate streaming upload

Meaningless

[heptapod]

Unless the video's already posted at YouTube or LiveLeak.

Not an iPhone

[afortaleza]

When it says he removed the SD card, you know it's not an iPhone.

Re:Not an iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the article says it was the SIM card (I know, makes no sense)

Re:Not an iPhone

[shutdown -p now]

Not sure what your point is. Nowhere in TFA it says he had an iPhone.

If it's a dig at iPhone not having SD card slot, plenty Android phones don't have one, either. Heck, the most open Android phone to date - Nexus S - doesn't have one.

Re:Not an iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Because yeah, this whole situation is about the world vs. iPhone. Get some fucking perspective you worthless piece of shit.

Re:Not an iPhone

[n2art2]

Maybe he/she only meant that had it been an iPhone it would have easily already been online broadcast live. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ustream-live-broadcaster/id319362690?mt=8

Re:Not an iPhone

[bennomatic]

Well, if the video had been shot using an iPhone, it's reality distortion field would have portrayed the situation as happy elves dancing around and spreading pixie dust among a crowd of unicorns.

Re:Not an iPhone

[Little_Professor]

How did this get modded Insightful??? If you read TFA you'd see the model of phone was mentioned (HTC Evo).

Re:Not an iPhone

[MarkGriz]

Also, since TFA says "The three-minute video captured on Narces Benoit’s HTC EVO phone"
that might be a clue as well.

What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[msobkow]

It's not illegal to film them, so you don't need a law explicitly making it legal. What you need is for these thugs to be charged with assault and more.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[brillow]

The problem is most prosecutors won't risk losing good will with a police dept by prosecuting cops in these matters.

How can the police be held to the law if the prosecutors have conflicts of interest? Shouldn't there be a standing special prosecutor to handle such claims?

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's not illegal to film them,

It is in at least the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

"It's not illegal to film them"

It is in some states that are two party consent states (it's not the video, it's the audio). Even in one party states people get charged with breaking wiretapping laws sometimes. An explicit law that permitted this would be a very good thing, but it won't happen especially with Republicans in charge of one house of Congress.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[russotto]

It is in at least the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

It's legal to film and record police in Maryland. The case mentioned in your link went to the Maryland Circuit Court for Harford County and was ruled not a violation of the law. "A law enforcement officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in encounters with citizens in public places"

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[CyprusBlue113]

So turn the law that Arizona made for the public to sue cops against the prosecutors that don't pursue.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[burris]

The laws you speak of do not apply to every conversation, only those where the participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. They don't apply to people, including police officers, speaking on a public street.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[reasterling]

the fact is that they are there to do a job of ensuring criminals are dealt the justice they deserve

NO THEY ARE NOT!!!

Justice is for the courts where do process can be served. The police must never be considered the ones who ensure that criminals get what they deserve. This is an alarming thing that cops can destroy evidence, threaten and intimidate eye-witnesses. If I were the family of the person who was killed I would want this to be all over the internet, on the news, in the news papers, and you could even put this on billboards. I would want the public to know what the men and wemon who we entrust to "protect and serve" have done with their authority.

if I see a situation whereby it's clear the police and/or other private citizens have the situation under control, then I will just walk on by

Did you even notice that the police killed the man. What exactly is your deffinition of "control"? You may not care about the lives of those around you. You may be to busy to worry about an insident that shows how the police act above the law. But you really shouldn't judge people who do care.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Theaetetus]

It's not illegal to film them, so you don't need a law explicitly making it legal. What you need is for these thugs to be charged with assault and more.

Depends on the jurisdictions. In many jurisdictions, if you're recording sound, then yes, it is illegal to film them.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[digitalchinky]

>>> the fact is that they are there to do a job of ensuring criminals are dealt the justice they deserve

This is where your entire argument falls apart. The police do not deal out justice as they see fit, you may want to talk to a judge about those ideas you have. If I'm pointing a camera in a public place, it's absolutely nobodies business why I might be doing that. You are welcome to disagree, that is your right, as is mine to film, even if you feel like I'm just rubbernecking for fame and fortune. Perhaps to agree with you somewhat, I have been at accidents where I've done CPR, wrapped bandages around people, held a hands for comfort, but, I've also pulled the camera out to document what happened - for myself primarily.

Explain this to me though, if the police are correct all the time as you imply: One particular accident I was nearly caught up in, a head on between two motorcycles just in front of me, one guy dead, 3 others severely injured. I shifted a motorbike off one guy because the exhaust was burning his legs - when I mentioned this to the police they said they were going to charge me for tampering with a crime scene - my response - "It's a fucking accident scene, what if that guy was your son?"

You try to help, you get told you are wrong, you take pictures, you're wrong, you walk away without helping, you're an asshole. People are sometimes idiotic, at least in a free country you can ignore that aspect and walk away. In a good country the police will also follow the same laws that govern society, and they get punished for doing otherwise.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[fadethepolice]

It is illegal in illinois, massachusetts, and maryland (explicitly) It is in fact illegal in many states as they will come up with something to nail you with, or just beat your ass bust your camera and arrest you for resisting arrest (how 'bout that for performing an anatomically impossible act?) http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[houghi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkHg3M6eUB8
You clearly see a cameraman removed from the place so it can't be filmed.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[brillow]

I'm not following, whats this law?

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[geekmux]

...State-of-Maryland-v-Anthony-John-Graber-III"ruled not a violation of the law. "A law enforcement officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in encounters with citizens in public places"

Oh, how I can practically smell the "except when it is a matter of 'National Security'" excuse as the convenient way of getting around damn near ANY Constitutionally-protected law these days.

If you thought "drop guns" were bad, just wait until they "drop terrorist" on a poor innocent person who happens to piss off the wrong cop by filming them. 72 hours later after you're interrogated by multiple three-letter agencies and placed on the no-fly list for life, you can have your (smashed) camera back, sans your Rights.

Think we would never go that far? Yeah, I did too, before the "Patriot" Act.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Rich0]

Well, it is also not illegal to speak your mind in public, but that didn't stop the framers from writing the 1st ammendment. There were many opposed to creating the Bill of Rights for the very reason you suggest - enumeration would possibly lead to a default-no situation.

This gets enough abuse that it is probably worth creating a law over. Of course, it will never happen.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

Did you even notice that the police killed the man. What exactly is your deffinition of "control"? You may not care about the lives of those around you. You may be to busy to worry about an insident that shows how the police act above the law. But you really shouldn't judge people who do care.

Whether the man lived or died is irrelevant in my argument. If the police were heavy-handed then that would presumably be subject to some kind of enquiry at a later stage.

Incidentally, it's precisely because I DO care about those around me that I have this opinion - I'm sorry, but, as I said earlier, if I see a situation in the street that looks to be in control with the right people doing their jobs for whoever is affected, my standing around gawking like an open-mouthed idiot adds no value to resolving the situation and can, actually, get in the way. Not to mention the fact that I respect the dignity of the individuals involved not to be gawked at.

Let's be honest here - if the police were overstepping the boundaries and they confiscated real evidence in a later prosecution, then more heads would roll then anyway.

I do NOT want to see people in public service do their jobs in such fear of later prosecution that they hesitate or have doubts about the split-second decisions they have to make. And, quite frankly, some half-wit filming it for his own YouTube notoriety would piss me off if I was one of those policemen.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

As I said in the previous reply, I hope that if and when I'm ever faced with a situation where I need to make a split-second decision, then I hope I've got the guts to straightaway and go do what I consider the right and proper thing to do, rather than stand there like a pillock, "umm-ing and arr-ing" about the possible ramifications afterwards.

And, no, I'm in the UK not the US - but your "nobody has any responsibility for anything they do" litigation system is already with us.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Unfortunately, being a thug is almost part of the job description. Who else could take the constant pressure, scrutiny, and hatred from all sides?

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

If I'm pointing a camera in a public place, it's absolutely nobodies business why I might be doing that.

Then likewise it's nobody's business if I rip the camera out of your hands, stamp on it and tell you to stop trying to further your gains by feeding off of someone else's misery.

Perhaps to agree with you somewhat, I have been at accidents where I've done CPR, wrapped bandages around people, held a hands for comfort, but, I've also pulled the camera out to document what happened - for myself primarily.

Well, if the first part is true then you have my sincere & deepest admiration - but then I would argue that you've become involved, made yourself a part of the situation (and had a positive benefit on it) and if you've decided that filming it has benefits later on, then I cannot argue with that - but that's not the same as someone outside the situation filming it and then becoming involved.

Likewise, I don't object to people filming stuff like that - there have, for example, been a number of, say, air crash investigations that have been solved more quickly because of eye-witness evidence and filming.

But my core point is that *IF* you make a decision to film something, then live with the consequence that you may be seen to be in the way by those who are there to do their jobs - so deal with the consequences.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Entropius]

There is a big difference between "callous and selfish" and "worthy of assault and destruction of property". If we as a society believe that things like this should not be posted on the internet, then pass a law saying so, and enforce this law against the uploader if it is uploaded.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

The one and only thing I do understand is that I have the power and capbility to do anything that I like in this world - but that because I live in a society where everyone else has the same power and capbility, then I also have to face the consequences of what those actions are on them.

I've learnt that in 40 plus years now, and a single line of abuse from a half-brained troll won't change that one bit.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If I'm pointing a camera in a public place, it's absolutely nobodies business why I might be doing that.

Then likewise it's nobody's business if I rip the camera out of your hands, stamp on it and tell you to stop trying to further your gains by feeding off of someone else's misery.

Holy, fucking, cow.

I suggest you move to North Korea where such things really are legally equivalent even if they will never be morally, because the US is clearly not the kind of country you want it to be.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

No, I don't believe it should be automatically banned from posting, far from it.

But what I do believe is that if you want to live in a society with other people, even if you want (and have every right) to isolate yourself from those people, you still have a responsibility to be empathetic towards them, because that's what decent people do. And that's precisely why we have laws against murder, bodily harm, robbery, etc., in order to ensure that there is a penalty for demonstration lack of empathy for others.

In this particular instance, the guy filming the situation was not a part of it and should have had enough empathy to stay out the way and let those doing their job get on with it - or else recognise that there are consequences to making yourself involved in a situation where you have no right poking your nose into, especially when, in all likelihood, the only reason to get involved is to further your own personal gains.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[scorp1us]

I contacted my representative on this issue.

It isn't a right, and that is a problem. We should have a right to film all public workers anywhere. The only thing he came back with is a bill allowing people to record their property tax hearing. We need a "right" which will over rule any building or agency policy.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

Have you not stopped to consider the merest possibility that the reason why you enjoy the society you do in the US and I do in the UK (no, I'm not American) is BECAUSE most people are decent, law-abiding citizens who accept personal responsibility and do their best to consider others before they make any decisions???

You can write as many fucking laws as you want and have as many heavily armed fucking policemen enforcing those laws as you want, but it will STILL all fall to bits if most people aren't decent and considerate people by their very nature.

And, incidentally, it was about that precise subject YOUR president spoke about in front of our Parliament a week or two ago and, quite frankly, made a very good job of - sometimes you have to do stuff just because it's the RIGHT AND HONOURABLE thing to do, whether or not constitutions or laws say you can or cannot do.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Entropius]

Perhaps this guy was filming because he thought there was a reasonable likelihood that he would be witnessing excessive use of force by the police, and his video would potentially be necessary evidence?

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You can write as many fucking laws as you want

You are making the standard rule of man over rule of law argument. Again, see North Korea for how that works out.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

I fail to see the point you are making - any society under any governmental type falls apart if most people in that society don't work towards maintaining that society.

So other than I know North Korea is a dictatorship, I have no other need to understand how their social system applies to my beliefs - besides which, you're the one who mentioned North Korea so why don't you explain it to me?

You strike me as the type of person who latches on to buzzword phrases without really knowing what they mean.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[cgenman]

There actually are several states where it is explicitly illegal to film police officers, as ruled by courts in those states.

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I fail to see the point you are making

I suspect you are constitutionally incapable of seeing the point.

any society under any governmental type falls apart if most people in that society don't work towards maintaining that society.

And the means by which that is most effectively accomplished is via law.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

And the means by which that is most effectively accomplished is via law.

And who makes the law? Magic pixies that transcribe law books while everyone else sleeps?

Let's make it clear because I'm getting bored with your endless substanceless but clever phraseology - you tell me how North Korea applies to my opinions, then we continue this discussion.

Otherwise, YAWN! and BYE!

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[nosferatu1001]

Unless you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Like, for example, on a public street

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And who makes the law? Magic pixies that transcribe law books while everyone else sleeps?

The consensus of the population make the law, not the individual people involved with each event no matter how good-willed they may be. Again rule law of vs ruie of man. You accuse me of not understanding "buzzwords" that I use. I see now that is an argument from ignorance on your part, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the basic principles under discussion.

you tell me how North Korea applies to my opinions, then we continue this discussion.

Its telling that you predicate your participation in the discussion on the explication of a standard trope used in context. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your previous objection was just hyperbole. A dictatorship is about as close to pure rule of man as it gets - the laws on the books don't matter, the outcome of conflict is decided by whichever party involved has the most political strength, deferring up the chain of leadership, and is generally couched in self-serving language about doing the right thing for the country.

What you call "clever phraseology" is simply someone speaking at a level of understanding of the issues above what you have reached. Somewhat like what Clarke said about technology appearing as magic. Don't have so much confidence in your ignorance.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Theaetetus]

Unless you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Like, for example, on a public street

Except that you're wrong. Look up wiretapping laws and two-party consent states.

I'm not saying this is how the law should be, I'm saying this is how it is.

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[pandrijeczko]

The consensus of the population make the law, not the individual people involved with each event no matter how good-willed they may be. Again rule law of vs ruie of man. You accuse me of not understanding "buzzwords" that I use. I see now that is an argument from ignorance on your part, you seem entirely unfamiliar with the basic principles under discussion.

If you're saying I'm ignorant because I don't know "rule of law vs. rule of man" then I agree - because I came to these conclusions based on my own opinions and experiences, not from something I read somewhere. I have no legal training, I'm a technical person, but if someone else has defined better what I myself have drawn conclusions to, then surely the fact that at least two of us came to those conclusions on different paths just strengthens my argument?

Its telling that you predicate your participation in the discussion on the explication of a standard trope used in context. Sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming your previous objection was just hyperbole. A dictatorship is about as close to pure rule of man as it gets - the laws on the books don't matter, the outcome of conflict is decided by whichever party involved has the most political strength, deferring up the chain of leadership, and is generally couched in self-serving language about doing the right thing for the country.

What you call "clever phraseology" is simply someone speaking at a level of understanding of the issues above what you have reached. Somewhat like what Clarke said about technology appearing as magic. Don't have so much confidence in your ignorance.

Okay, I take the above as a compliment as you're clearly now trying to resort to clever usage of words to obfuscate rather than explain - that tells me you think you're losing the argument.

No, wrong. A dictatorship is the enforcement of the rules and laws created by one man (or a small group of men) in a leadership position. Whether or not it results in doing the right thing for the country is irrelevant because that's nothing to do with what I am talking about. Therefore your analogy of my opinion to North Korea is a fail.

In fact, I can go a stage further with this one. Even in somewhere like North Korea, despite being oppressed by the governing powers, if you're a lowly citizen living there it is still possible to make the best of an oppressive situation by doing your best to get on with the community you live closest to - if anything, people bond more and are more law abiding because they recognise there's no point fighting each other because they are all in it together.

That's why your North Korea analogy doesn't work because being a citizen in a community where most people have respect for the others around them is not dependent on the type of government they are under. Go anywhere in the democratised and free Western world and you will find generally smaller rural communities where everyone knows everyone else and treats everyone else as a friend and neighbour. And as I said above, communities where everyone shares a common interest or isolated location are those where people are more likely to work more for the interests of the community rather than themselves.

Surely that's common sense isn't it?

Re:What we need are cops who aren't thugs

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

then surely the fact that at least two of us came to those conclusions on different paths just strengthens my argument?

You came to whacked out conclusions in isolation - that's why you utterly lack the domain vocabulary, As for why you think we have taken "different paths" to the same conclusions, I am pretty sure that your ability to rationally perceive the world is significantly impaired because that ain't even close to what's going on here.

Re:how how?

[rhook]

Qik does this quite well.

http://qik.com/

Re:Been there, done that?

[guybrush3pwood]

redneck alert?

Lawlessness

[hackus]

Since I was born in this country I have never seen so much lawlessness by financial institutions, politicians and law enforcement.

If this continues the USA will break up. If the USA becomes politically unstable we could see civil war.

There are already indications of this as state legislatures ignore their constituents and yield to the criminals in Washington.

We have states desperate to save the currency Washington is destroying, by declaring new issues of monetary and economic rules in their own states.

Meanwhile you have Federal powers trying to make it illegal to put anything other than Federal Reserve notes and arresting anyone who dares try.

A confrontation is coming between those who have looted and stole everything in this country and those who have been stolen from.

Be sure you pick the correct side when the crap hits the fan, because it is going to get very very ugly.

-Hack

Re:Lawlessness

[Kernel Krumpit]

A confrontation is coming between those who have looted and stole everything in this country and those who have been stolen from.

Be sure you pick the correct side when the crap hits the fan, because it is going to get very very ugly.

-Hack

That's right. The US is lagging a bit behind those near-east citizens rising up against those who stole everything in their countries. Fuck the Pignorami. I know which side I'm on.

Re:Lawlessness

[DogDude]

The gist of what you're saying is right, but the whole money conspiracy theory thing is just silly. Money needs to be organized and controlled by a single point. Gold fanatics and all of the wacky right wingers trying to invent their own money not only is silly, but is completely untenable, as well. Real change could happen if all of the crazy right wingers would wise up and turn their attention to actual problems... not conspiracy theories.

Re:Lawlessness

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I was born in this country I have never seen so much...

What did you see before you were born?

Re:Lawlessness

[0123456]

Money needs to be organized and controlled by a single point.

Why?

The value of the US dollar has fallen more than 99% since the Federal Reserve was set up as the 'single point' controlling the US money supply. Similar things have happened in other countries. Your position has clearly proven disastrous because it provides a single point of failure where the bad guys can loot the system.

Re:Lawlessness

[DogDude]

Why? Econ 101. Commerce comes to a grinding halt if I'm trying to pay you with chickens and you only accept widgets, and you need to pay somebody with gold. It doesn't work.

The value of the US dollar has always experienced mild inflation. The Federal Reserve has been around for almost 100 years, and in those 100 years, the US has had the most stable currency on the planet.

Again... more conspiracy theory nonsense.

Re:Lawlessness

[0123456]

Why? Econ 101. Commerce comes to a grinding halt if I'm trying to pay you with chickens and you only accept widgets, and you need to pay somebody with gold. It doesn't work.

Wow. It's amazing that the human race managed to conduct commerce for thousands of years before the Fed came about. Or that we can build products today with components from numerous countries using numerous different currencies.

The value of the US dollar has always experienced mild inflation.

Losing 99+% of your value in a hundred years is not 'mild inflation'. Sterling pretty much maintained its value for several centuries before central banking was imposed. Since then it's fared even worse than the dollar.

The Federal Reserve has been around for almost 100 years, and in those 100 years, the US has had the most stable currency on the planet.

It's a funny old world when losing 99% of its value in a hundred years is considered 'stable'. And I'm not aware of any competing currency which is not based on fiat money backed by a central bank.

Re:Lawlessness

[Hazel Bergeron]

99% of statistics, Internet, made up, etc.

In this case, the 99% figure so often quoted by Internet Libertarians is based on the cost of a fixed amount of gold over time.

Assuming that there's no other reason for gold to change in value.

Re:Lawlessness

[bipbop]

Well, sort of. There's a limit on how much money can be multiplied though. Although it's increased quite a lot past 10:1 thanks to various shady practices like sweeping, you still need money in the first place in order to multiply it via FRB, and the more of that you have, the more FRB has to work with.

Re:Lawlessness

[gehrehmee]

Let's do the math.

Assume 5% inflation per year.

Every year, the dollar is worth 95% of what it was worth the previous year. That's 0.95*(value of previous year).

After 100 years, the value of a dollar is equal to (original price)*0.95^100. 1*0.95^100 = 0.00592052922, or about 0.6% of what it was worth originally.

It's funny how exponential trends work, and how counterintuitive the results are. But inflation really is the opposite of the classic "double the amount of rice on every square of the chessboard" analogy. Yes, "mild" inflation CAN mean you lose over 99% of your value in 100 years.

Re:Lawlessness

[markass530]

very melodramatic, you idea's would make a good movie (and thats about all they're good for)

Re:Lawlessness

[kobaz]

Since I was born in this country I have never seen so much lawlessness by financial institutions, politicians and law enforcement.

If this continues the USA will break up. If the USA becomes politically unstable we could see civil war.

There are already indications of this as state legislatures ignore their constituents and yield to the criminals in Washington.

We have states desperate to save the currency Washington is destroying, by declaring new issues of monetary and economic rules in their own states.

Meanwhile you have Federal powers trying to make it illegal to put anything other than Federal Reserve notes and arresting anyone who dares try.

A confrontation is coming between those who have looted and stole everything in this country and those who have been stolen from.

Be sure you pick the correct side when the crap hits the fan, because it is going to get very very ugly.

-Hack

I believe some citations are in order.

Re:Lawlessness

[RazorSharp]

Exaggerate much?

Seriously, I'm disappointed about the state of the country and all as well, but that doesn't mean society's about to collapse. People aren't starving and those who have reason to revolt are too dumb to understand why and could never get organized anyway. It won't happen as long as there's food stamps and American Idol or whatever dumbass show it is that people are watching these days.

As long as money works people don't care. The dollar didn't fail us in 08/09, so I don't see why it wouldn't be safe long term. I'm not really sure what your argument is. Are you railing against the Federal Reserve?

"Meanwhile you have Federal powers trying to make it illegal to put anything other than Federal Reserve notes and arresting anyone who dares try."

I really don't get what this is supposed to mean. Mostly because it's grammatically incorrect nonsense. I think you're supporting individual currencies for individual states/private banks. But I don't see where you would get this idea (Ron Paul, maybe?). It didn't work in the 1800s and it won't work now, especially considering how many businesses are multinational these days. If Lehman Brother's had their own currency and I had millions of it buried in my backyard, it would be worthless to me today. If I had millions in pre-Depression U.S. Dollars buried in my backyard, the only thing detracting from their value would be inflation (they'd be worth less today than when I buried them). That's why the government monopolizes minting. If they didn't, there would be no guarantee that people had faith in the currency's value, and the currency's only real value is one's faith in it.

Re:Lawlessness

[ChrisMaple]

I can't give you links, but...

It's common knowledge that the US uses the threat of the removal of highway funds to push states into passing certain laws.

It's been less that two years since the owners of a small business minting gold coins were imprisoned and all their assets stolen by the federal government.

There is this link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/04/utah-house-passes-recognizing-gold-silver-legal-tender/

Re:Lawlessness

[ildon]

Is this a joke? Have you never read a history book or watched a movie in your life? You think the wealthy elite, cops, and politicians are corrupt NOW? Go watch Serpico, or basically any gangster movie from 1920-1945. Hell go watch fucking Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Read a fucking book.

And the hilarious part is that in every time, not only is there corruption, but there's some idiot like you claiming that it's "worse now than it's ever been".

Re:Lawlessness

[u38cg]

Yes, but ignorance of economic trends is just as bad. In nominal terms, a dollar might be worth a fraction of what it was a century ago (though the withdrawal of the gold standard complicates the picture), but productivity growth has vastly outpaced inflation, meaning that in absolute terms, even the poorest person today has buying power far in excess of what most people had a century ago.

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

I have something for you, I compiled for myself, and I'll use here as an example of why it is wrong to allow government to inflate money supply (print fiat without having any backing by something valuable, like gold or at least real production, and government has proven enough times that it does not calculate production correctly, so it has to be commodities or monetary metals)

sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%

Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%

Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%

Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%

Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%

Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%

Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%

Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%

Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%

Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%

Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%

Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%

Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%

Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25%

Pork Dec 2003: 48.68 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 92.06 cents/pound, price up by over 89%

Silver Dec 2003: 565.33 cents/Troy ounce, Apr 2011: 4,279.79 cents/Troy ounce, price up by over 657%

Alluminum Dec 2003: 1,557.78 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 2,667.44 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 71%

Uranium Dec 2003: 13.35 USD/pound, Apr 2011: 57.84 USD/pound, price up by over 333%

Iron Ore Dec 2003: 13.82 cents/dry Metric Ton, Apr 2011L: 179.26 cents/dry Metric Ton, price up by over 1197% (yeah, almost 1200%)

Gasoline Dec 2003: 0.89

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

Just a warning to those who feel like replying to this "roman_mir" gold-bug troll, he's a serial liar here on Slashdot:

  He lied about US purchasing power.

  He lied about 19th century US economics.

  He lied about taxation levels of the country you supposedly live in.

  He lied about 19th century depressions.

  He lied about the current level of inflation.

  He lied about the consumer price index.

He just posts his lies and if anyone actually points out the inconsistencies in his arguments he runs away into another thread :-)

In the above post he compiled a variation of those lies: pointing out commodities bubbles (which were mostly caused by physical shortages on a finite planet with growing population, well before "money printing" began after the 2008 crisis) while not pointing out deflationary forces that balance out price bubbles. You can see how real aggregate inflation looks like, in the links I provided above.

His motivation seems to be that he's all invested into the current gold bubble (no diversification? Yikes ...), and wants to see it continue. He will accept no rational arguments that point out the inconsistencies in his belief system.

JFYI.

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

Note that the real, effective multiplier is a lot lower than even the 10:1 Fed limit: only the liquidity that exits from the financial system into the real economy is actually inflationary. Monies banks owe to each other in their elaborate gambling schemes using derivatives redistribute their profits amongst each other (and act as a tax on the rest of society), but are not bona fide inflationary.

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

The obsession of bye (87770) with my comments can be explained by the fact that he is the missing link between a shill and an idiot.

 

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

This.

You annihilated all the gold-bug arguments in one simple paragraph.

Fact is that the average citizen can buy ten times more loaves of bread than 200 years ago, financed by one year's honest work. They can also buy infinitely more cars, computers - and get guaranteed health care as a citizen's right in most modern countries.

That the absolute numbers printed on the price sticker are increasing slightly every year does not matter much as long as the numbers coming in from your weekly pay-check have numbers increasing by at least as much .

If you check those two numbers over time, then you'll see that indeed the purchasing power of the average US citizen is increasing. (+9% over the last 8 years depicted by that graph - but the trend is very similar 50, 100 or 200 years back as well.)

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

Just as a side-note, he has (again) not replied to my criticism of the figures he gave:

In the above post he compiled a variation of those lies: pointing out commodities bubbles (which were mostly caused by physical shortages on a finite planet with growing population, well before "money printing" began after the 2008 crisis) while not pointing out deflationary forces that balance out price bubbles. You can see how real aggregate inflation looks like, in the links I provided above.

He clearly knows how to propagate Fox News anti-government propaganda, but sadly he does not know how to interpret and defend them.

Gold-bug trolls are not what they used to be! :-)

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

More idiotic stuff from bye (87770)

Fox New is anti government? On which planet? Fox News quite pro-government, as long as its their preferred government.

shortages of supply in commodities? On which planet? Not on this one, which is producing more and more of all those things, but with the government printing presses, the number of US dollars that are chasing even the increasing productive capacity grows much faster than those resources, since they don't even have to cut the trees down to add zeros to their Fed account on a computer.

Shills are not as smart as I expected them to be, they are proving to be quite idiotic.

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

Why? Econ 101. Commerce comes to a grinding halt if I'm trying to pay you with chickens and you only accept widgets, and you need to pay somebody with gold. It doesn't work.

It's amazing that the human race managed to conduct commerce for thousands of years before the Fed came about.

Have you ever wondered why it took such a long time for modern civilization to evolve, and why civilization basically exploded after the 18th century?

Centralized money, banks and easier access to credit was an important factor: money could be pooled and risk takers did not have to convince someone face to face to take up that risk personally - a pooled entity (banks, big investors) could serve that role more productively.

Before that, during the static gold standard, the lack of liquidity was stifling innovation big time, for thousands of years. Only the super-rich could afford large-scale risk-taking, and their number was low and highly concentrated. More money, more pooling of money and better (and faster) distribution of money activated incredible reserves of the human race.

Re:Lawlessness

[swalve]

If the financial institutions stole all this money, how come the shit hit the fan when people stopped paying their mortgages? They didn't steal money, they lent out too much.

Who did they steal it from, and where did it go?

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

[...] shortages of supply in commodities? On which planet?

On the third (blue) planet of the Solar System, Milky Way, liar.

It is clearly not the planet you are living on.

Oil shortages? Peak oil shortages in supply combined with unprecedented growth of oil demand from China.

Sugar shortages? Record bad weather in Brasil and a record typhoon in Australia hitting the biggest sugar production area (global warming, anyone?) hurting supplies combined with unprecedented sugar demand from India - the largest sugar consumer on the planet.

Wheat shortages? Unprecedented heat-wave in Russia (global warming, anyone?) and a wheat export ban by Russia - combined with weak wheat production elsewhere as well.

Do basic supply and demand pressures mean anything on the planet you live on? Do you know the concept of inflexible demand, where advanced countries will pay pretty much any price to get the wheat they want, even if it means that they starve poorer countries?

But you really need to address the lies of yours I've already exposed, before getting into new topics ...

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

More idiotic stuff from bye (87770), as the droughts and fires and floods, and hurricanes, etc., have always been a problem for production, the commodities have these fluctuations priced in, without having to hit any particular problem, the actual prices for all commodities have been steadily rising for decades only due to inflation.

The poor excuse for an idiot, the shill, who goes under the snick 'bye', can't understand that in the world where the legitimate demand is increasing, the supply is also increasing to meet the demand, because increase in demand literally means increase in amount of money chasing the supplies.

The idiot shill, under then nick of 'bye', doesn't seem a bit surprised, that the numbers are showing an increase of price for every commodity priced in USD, but in real money, the prices are holding steady enough, with slight variations, which actually do, reflect the legitimate changes in supply/demand, thus priced in gold, cotton did not move in real price since 2003, but priced in gold it is now over 4 times as expensive.

But shills have their agenda, and when they are idiots, they can't even make an argument that is difficult to rebut. Of-course they are not chasing arguments for the sake of truth, they are chasing arguments to create uncertainty in the message.

There is no uncertainty, here are the numbers once more.

sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%

Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%

Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%

Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%

Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%

Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%

Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%

Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%

Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%

Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%

Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%

Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%

Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%

Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25%

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

It's been less that two years since the owners of a small business minting gold coins were imprisoned and all their assets stolen by the federal government.

If you mean the "Liberty Dollar" case then it happened not two but four years ago, and the guy was recently found guilty by a jury on money laundering and other crimes.

He has not been sentenced yet and the forfeiture trial is still ongoing - i.e. his assets are still his, not "stolen".

Take a look at the coins, it's easy to mistake them for specially minted US dollars and complaints from customers about those 'fake dollars' is what brought him the federal charges. He should have made them look more clearly distinct ...

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

the droughts and fires and floods, and hurricanes, etc., have always been a problem for production,

Normal weather fluctuations are always part of normal prices, sure - but which part of " record bad weather causes record high prices" concept was difficult for you to understand, liar?

It's one more item added to the long, unanswered list of your lies.

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

More of the idiocy, by the shill, with the nick bye (87770), who is again, proving to be more idiotic than anticipated. The anticipation of idiocy needs to be pushed beyond normal boundaries.

Ukraine and Russia used to be 'bred baskets' of Europe, and then Communists came to power, USSR was created, and for the next 75 years, the production stalled, as the droughts and fires and floods and all sorts of cataclysmic events were blamed for this, while the reality was very simple - there was no incentive to produce, since the money was fake. They had 'record' droughts, 'record' fires and 'record' floods every time they had to justify yet another economic failure, but in the newspapers, such as 'Pravda' ('Truth'), they were always fighting the 'evil' capitalism and 'winning' those fights.

More shilling of pro-government propaganda and excuses by the idiot.

Re:Lawlessness

[ErikZ]

And it doesn't look illegal to me. The "Silver Rounds" business is doing fine.

Re:Lawlessness

[ErikZ]

Oh for fucks sake.

If either of you two wanted to make a point instead of arguing, you'd pick some commodities that weren't effected by fire, flood, drought, or unprecedented demand..

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

You are trying to change the subject once again - why are you talking about the days of communism and the Pravda?

I'm talking about the year of 2010 when a record heat wave hit Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe. You started with this bold-faced lie:

[...] shortages of supply in commodities? On which planet?

I gave you the link: here it is again ("Russian wheat export ban threatens higher inflation and food riots") . That article predicted food inflation before last year's big run-up in food commodity prices.

Here's more pictures from that record heat-wave ("Wildfire Pictures: Russia Burns, Moscow Chokes") , unprecedented in Russia's 200 years history of meteorological record keeping.

The year 2010 was also the hottest year on record, with record low Arctic ice early this year ("Arctic warmth: Sea ice at record low levels in January [2011]") .

Can you read, liar? Can you think? Do you really think that with major wheat production areas on fire or hit by record draught and with population growing ever faster wheat production is just business as usual and prices will stay super low?

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

Oh for fucks sake.

If either of you two wanted to make a point instead of arguing, you'd pick some commodities that weren't effected by fire, flood, drought, or unprecedented demand..

That's not easy (half of the commodities are weather affected, most of the others are under heavy demand), but there's such a commodity: iron ore - it is largely decoupled from the weather and from financial speculation.

Check the price of iron ore: it even dropped in price during much of the bad weather period during early and mid 2010 - when it started going up on higher Chinese industrial demand (and increasing Chinese stockpiling).

But yes, in the long run most commodities will gradually increase in price - would you expect anything else on a slowly warming planet with limited resources?

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

Yet another pointless drivel, written by the idiot shill under the nick of bye (87770).

There are always floods and droughts and fires and everything pests etc., and everything goes wrong, and yet the prices for commodities have these things included into the market prices, it is nothing new. You are the shill, thus you are pushing government agenda, that these are extraordinary circumstances, similar to what the Communists of USSR were pushing in their newspapers, such as Pravda.

You are the idiot, thus you can't understand this simple truth - the entire world is not flooded and it's not burning and it's not dying from pests, yet prices for all commodities are on average over 80% higher today, than they were in 2003, and this includes metals and this includes energy, and this includes cotton and wool and skins and food and paper and whatever you can come up with.

The wheat exporters in Russia have suffered from the idiocy of the Russian PM Putin, but this did not do much to the world prices of wheat, as Canadian and US and Chinese and European wheat producers have covered this "deficit".

So you are the stupid, idiotic, lying shill, who will keep pushing forward the government agenda regardless of these simple facts:

sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%
Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%
Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%
Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%
Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%
Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%
Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%
Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%
Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%
Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%
Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%
Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%
Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%
Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25%
Pork Dec 2003: 48.68 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 92.06 cents/pound, price up by over 89%

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

Apparently there's a fine distinction between minting 'silver rounds' and minting silver coins with "$20" on them.

Also, he was apparently found guilty of money laundering as well. Could it be that they took the other cornerstone of libertarian ideology too seriously, the "We do not owe civilization any stinkin' taxes for the infrastructure we used!" bit?

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

There are always floods and droughts and fires and everything pests etc., and everything goes wrong, and yet the prices for commodities have these things included into the market prices, it is nothing new.

So you finally admitted the obvious, that commodity prices go up in an unprecedented way when unprecedented weather hits key production areas, and when there's unprecedented demand for them? So having admitted that why are you still linking the price increases to 'money printing'? You have not proven the link - in fact you have just weakened that argument by admitting that a much stronger channel exists: old-fashioned supply & demand forces.

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

So here goes the idiot shill under the nick of bye (87770), once again, pretending not to understand what is written, but as we know, those, whose job/position/income depends on not understanding things will not understand them, but here we are also dealing with an unprecedented levels of stupidity, idiocy and outright lies, by a shill.

The fact that wheat has only increased by a mere 103% since 2003, while cocoa beans or silver or iron ore or coffee or sugar, etc.etc., have seen much stronger gains do nothing for this shill, who is pushing the agenda that money printing by the government is not causing the increased demand in dollars for the same goods, thus pushing prices in US dollars up, while the ratio between gold and those commodities has much less volatility, and can be in fact explained by fundamental reasons.

Again and again it is clear that the shill under the nick of bye (87770) will refuse to accepts simple facts - numbers, but regardless of his idiocy and stupidity and magnitude ignorance, here are the numbers that clearly show where the prices are going in USD, and since gold went up in USD from about 350 to about 1500, we can see that in real terms the prices are really FALLING in the recessionary environment, and really in the depression, so today in GOLD the prices for things that are increasing in dollar terms are falling terms of gold, or in silver prices, so for example a gallon of gas today costs only 10 cents US - but those 10 cents US must be the real SILVER coin, minted prior to 1965 in USA, and the price of that 10 cent coin is 4 USD today - inflation via money printing.

sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%
Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%
Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%
Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%
Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%
Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%
Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%
Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%
Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%
Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%
Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%
Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%
Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%

Re:Lawlessness

[bye]

FYI, your reply does not answer what I said, you need to try to stay on topic, liar.

For the record, here's your recent Slashdot history:

  You lied about commodity shortages.

  You lied about US purchasing power.

  You lied about 19th century US economics.

  You lied about taxation levels of the country you supposedly live in.

  You lied about 19th century depressions.

  You lied about the current level of inflation.

  You lied about the consumer price index.

You are not improving!

Re:Lawlessness

[roman_mir]

You are a government shill, under the nick of bye (87770), and not a one thing that I said is a lie, and I am clearly not interested in having a conversation on your terms, so don't bother.

Here are my terms, here are numbers and they speak for themselves about the levels of inflation of the USD and the prices that are going up due to it:

sugar Dec 2003: 20.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 36.97 cents/pound, price up by over 81%
Beef Dec 2003: 105.40 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 193.00 cents/pound, price up by over 83%
Barley Dec 2003: 100.77 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 208.70 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 107%
Rice Dec 2003: 197.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 500.57 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 154%
Cocoa Beans Dec 2003: 1,646.58 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 3,113.52 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 89%
Tea Dec 2003: 205.22 cents/KG, Apr 2011: 325.33 cents/KG, price up by over 58%
Rubber Dec 2003: 57.31cents/pound, Apr 2011: 265.49cents/pound, price up by over 363%
Corn Dec 2003: 111.98 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 318.45 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 184%
Bananas Dec 2003: 371.43 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 1,013.47 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 172%
Propane Dec 2003: 0.63 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 1.45 USD/Gallon, price up by over 130%
Wheat Dec 2003: 165.57 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 336.30 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 103%
Oranges Dec 2003: 583.00 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 881.00 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 51%
Salmon Dec 2003: 3.12 USD/Kg, Apr 2011: 7.86 USD/Kg, price up by over 151%
Chicken Dec 2003: 68.98 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 86.42 cents/pound, price up by over 25%
Pork Dec 2003: 48.68 cents/pound, Apr 2011: 92.06 cents/pound, price up by over 89%
Silver Dec 2003: 565.33 cents/Troy ounce, Apr 2011: 4,279.79 cents/Troy ounce, price up by over 657%
Alluminum Dec 2003: 1,557.78 USD/Metric Ton, Apr 2011: 2,667.44 USD/Metric Ton, price up by over 71%
Uranium Dec 2003: 13.35 USD/pound, Apr 2011: 57.84 USD/pound, price up by over 333%
Iron Ore Dec 2003: 13.82 cents/dry Metric Ton, Apr 2011L: 179.26 cents/dry Metric Ton, price up by over 1197% (yeah, almost 1200%)
Gasoline Dec 2003: 0.89 USD/Gallon, Apr 2011: 3.18 USD/Gallon, price up by over 257%

Re:how how?

[Soft Cosmic Rusk]

Dropbox?

Re:Been there, done that?

[JonJ]

Have you ever been in a high adrenaline situation that ended in you shooting and killing someone? Have you ever voluntarily ended someones life? Have you had someone film you whilst you do this? Unless the answer to all of the above is "yes", how about you keep your damning judgements to yourself.

If the police officer can't handle these situations, I highly suggest they go for an alternate career. Maybe as a garbageman or something that shouldn't involve weapons. Seriously, it might be an extremely stressfull situation when he's shooting at the alleged drug dealer, who allegedly shot back at them. But when this innocent bystander, only being guilty of having a camera, gets guns shoved up in his face, then you aren't fit to take care of justice. If your job as a public servant can't take the scrutiny of someone video taping you as you perform your job, then you have no business being in the line of duty. Please, let the people be able to weed out the bad cops. We need the good ones. So your arguments are basically not relevant, as criticism isn't dependant of having to be in the persons shoes.

Note to those cops:

[orkysoft]

Yes, stomping the phone will easily destroy the recording, which is stored on a very fragile medium. The act of giving the broken phone back, accompanied by some choice threats, really complements the boot-stomping nicely! There is absolutely no need to do difficult technical stuff in order to erase the recording, or to "confiscate" the phone. Breaking the screen of the phone is all it takes. Giving it back adds insult to injury so nicely! You deserve a sprinkle-encrusted donut for this brave and ironic act! Don't listen to those trolls talking about memory cards and other stuff, they're just trying to make you waste your precious time.

Re:Been there, done that?

[blair1q]

"serious news post"?

is this /. or nytimes.com?

Re:The bright side...

[MaskedSlacker]

Yeah, but pointing that out to them is the fast track to testicular tazerdom.

Re:The bright side...

[ATMAvatar]

Not in all states, it isn't. In fact, in several states, it's a felony to record police (or anyone) without prior consent.

Or to write it a neater way

[RobertLTux]

It is in all cases of Police Misconduct a matter of proving that the Officer is in fact Innocent Of All Charges (and furthermore any cameras under control of the state are EXCLUDED from use as evidence). So if you get accused as an officer your DashCam(TM) can not be used to settle things with IA and if nobody else can be found with video (or is otherwise a Witness) then you go down.

(this will also cut down on the need for everybody to have to risk filming an Officer)

Re:Or to write it a neater way

[camperdave]

I have no issue with police being held to a higher standard, but guilty until proven innocent lends itself to far much more abuse. All a malcontent has to do is accuse a cop of misconduct and the cop loses her job or gets sent to jail? No. Bad idea. Simply separate all Dashcam(TM), traffic cams, 9-1-1 recordings, etc from police control, and have Internal Affairs run by civilians.

Re:Or to write it a neater way

[RobertLTux]

the issue is one of credible evidence so if there is credible evidence of misconduct then the whole must prove innocence thing comes into play.

a "suspect" comes into be booked and has to stop by the hospital to get patched up first can it be proven that this was with-in protocol??

a "suspect" tries to claim misconduct but does not show any sings of damage: NO CASE (aka no blood no foul)

the whole intent is to make it not worth the time to destroy a civilians camera (since all it could do is help the officer)

Re:Or to write it a neater way

[camperdave]

How are you going to disprove stuff like "They held a gun to my head and told me to lick their boots", or "the officer groped me". Stuff like that leaves no evidence of misconduct (yet it would be misconduct if it happened). If the officer can't use the Dashcam as defense against such situations (which is why it's there in the first place), then how is she going to prove her innocence?

Re:herp

[rhook]

Police are officers of the state, i.e. they are government agents.

Well lets see about that

[RobertLTux]

1 DNF is coming out in a few days
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II
3 anything can be made to fly given enough force

How is that being a "dick"?

[khasim]

Seriously, think before you go castrating the public's protective services just because you want to be a dick to a cop and not get punched.

Strange, I don't see anyone being a dick to the cops in that story.

A guy RECORDING cops ON DUTY during an action ON A PUBLIC STREET ends up with a cop smashing his phone and pointing a gun at him.

Yeah, blame other people for being dicks to the cops. That makes a lot of sense.

Re:Been there, done that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand where you're coming from. None of us have been in that type of situation. There is something to be said for that. Closest I've come to combat is paintball or video games. I do not claim, in any way, to be an expert on police activity or combat in general.

However, I need not be a great artist to judge art, I need not be a great musician to judge music, and I need not be a police officer to judge a police action. Shooting someone, fine, I can understand that in many situations that is necessary and justified. Haven't seen the details on this particular shooting, so I won't judge that. But if your first reaction to noticing that someone has filmed you is "point a gun at them, smash their shit and try to destroy the evidence", I would say that's a sign of a guilty conscience. I can understand having a slightly guilty conscience after shooting someone, even if fully justified, but going so far about it seems to say that the officer knew (or at least felt) that he had done something seriously wrong.

And further, it is entirely my place to pass judgement. I pay my taxes, I vote. The police, in a very real sense, work for me. I may not understand the technical details about what they're doing, but it is fitting and just that I pass judgement upon them.

Being the good guy 99% of the time does not excuse you from the 1% when it is of this magnitude. If it were just being an asshole, yelling at some guy he's writing a ticket for or something, yeah, I can let that slide. But when your stress breakdown involves deliberate destruction of personal property and two ounts of obstruction of justice (even if the shooting was justified, destroying evidence of it is obstruction of justice; witness retaliation is also classified as felony obstruction of justice), I would hesitate to let it slide.

What is truly disappointing to me is that this even happened. Police shooting someone is common and expected. It's part of the job description - there's a certain class of criminals that need to be shot. But this incident, along with the countless others seen over the past few years, shows that there is a serious gap between the people and those chosen to defend the people. I do not think we are at the point that the US is a police state - the police themselves are not our enemy, and the police do not consider the civilians as a whole to be an enemy. However, there are worrying signs that we are headed that way. I fear that we may not heed those signs until too late.

Four days to find a pistol?

[John Hasler]

For all we know, [the gun the cops claim to have found] could have been locked away in the trunk of the car.

Or in the trunk of a police car. Get caught with a pistol and you just might be let off with a warning and confiscation. There's a reason for that.

Re:Four days to find a pistol?

[proverbialcow]

Aside from the obvious implication of planted evidence, how was the shooting officer threatened to the point of justified deadly force if the gun couldn't be found for four days? Did the dying suspect construct an elaborate hiding place for the gun and place it there only after brandishing it and getting shot?

Re:Four days to find a pistol?

[burris]

Sometimes the cops will seal up the car and have it towed to the forensics bay for a thorough examination. In that case it definitely could be days before a gun is found. Not just because the caseload may delay the start of the examination but it is also very time consuming and it could easily take weeks or months to complete.

before or after...

[josepha48]

.. he uploaded the video to his cloud storage? did they destroy the memory card too? smashing hte phone may not totally destroy the evidence and also it opens them up to a HUGE lawsuit unless they were violating the law. Is it against the law to video tape the police? I do not understand why it would be as most of them are allowed to video tape us????

It seems to me the US is moving to a 2 standards system. One that applies to the government and another that applies to it's people. That is soo not good!

Re:herp

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the police officers in question are appropriately punished, it's not the government but agents of the government acting contrary to their intended purpose. If the government does nothing, then the actions of their agents are condoned and the government becomes responsible. We can't expect our government to be perfect anymore than we can expect those that are a part of government to be perfect. We're all human, and the people in government are just as prone to misbehavior as those outside of government (more so, if you believe the "power corrupts..." theory.) What we can expect from our government is that it will hold those that do misbehave accountable for their actions. Until it fails in that duty, it isn't truly corrupt.

Note that the punishment may be no punishment at all as long as that is determined by a jury of civilians in a court of law.

I had to edit this entire post

[lexsird]

I didn't want the FBI knocking at my door with a warrant for trying incite violence against the government.

My only defense would be; "This pussy population incited to violence? Are you fucking kidding me?"

Re:Been there, done that?

[The Dawn Of Time]

I didn't ask them to protect me. They took it upon themselves. They coerce their keep from my paycheck. They can damn well be held to the highest standards of conduct in those circumstances.

Lol

[jayhawk88]

"It took police two-and-a-half days to find the gun in the Hyundai..."

Those damn guns, always getting lost in the seat cushions or under the floor mats.

Re:You live in a police state.

[lexsird]

What are your suggestions then? If there is a convoy of people heading there, with serious intent on violence, please fucking swing by and pick me up. There will not be, and these pigs are safe. They will get away with this and be patted on the head and given a cookie by their masters. We had better stfu and study our Chinese so that our new masters are pleased with us.

Re:Been there, done that?

[lexsird]

You sir, are a lemming traitor piece of shit. Its fuckheads like you that empower fuckheads like that.

Re:The bright side...

[Arker]

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed." - Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.

Re:No.

[MagusSlurpy]

I will be very impressed if you can elucidate the "privacy laws" he violated.

What is truth?

[carpefishus]

The vast majority of the posts seem to take the citizen at his word with no thought that his story has any imbellishments. That's the normal /. rush to judgement. Think folks. Now go ahead and mod down the truth.

Re:What is truth?

[shutdown -p now]

The people in question have shown their video to the reporter, and it does confirm their claims at least up to the point until they're dragged out of the car. In particular, it did capture the cop pointing a gun at them. From TFA:

Shortly after the gunfire ends, an officer points at Benoit and police can be heard yelling for him to turn off the camera. The voices are muffled at times. The 35-year-old car stereo technician drops his hand with the camera and hurries back to his Ford Expedition parked further east on 13th Street. The video shows Benoit get into the car, where his girlfriend, Ericka Davis, sat in the driver’s seat. He raises his camera and an officer is seen appearing on the driver’s side with his gun drawn, pointed at them. The video ends as more officers are heard yelling expletives, telling the couple to turn the video off and get out of the car.

Re:What is truth?

[pedrop357]

It does serve to balance out those who take the police at their word with no thought that the story has any embellishments.

Re:No.

[cbiltcliffe]

So I guess now, when some criminal shoots up an innocent bystander in the middle of the street, the cops aren't allowed to arrest him, because anything they saw is private?

WTF?

No expectation of privacy in a public street. Even at 4 AM.

Don't be a douche.

Illinois Law

[Nynaeve70]

In the state of Illinois it is illegal to photograph or video ANY policeman. It is a felony to do so. Just wanted to warn people what is coming.

tap tap.. is this thing on ?

[gearloos]

The police live in their own world and the scales of justice are very different there. They have no friends, other than those also in law enforcement, they trust no one but their circle of other law enforcement buddies. You are scum, beneath their high school educated badge. There is absolutely nothing you can do if they want to harass, assault, or even murder you. Think you get justice? wrong, what you get is justice depending on who called first, or if they "care" to respond. Thats life in the big city. I DO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE that backs up my points. Fuck cops.

Re:tap tap.. is this thing on ?

[c6gunner]

Pure bullshit. I'm know several cops. We go out and party on a regular basis. Our regular circle of friends includes DJs, artists, bartenders, programmers, security guards, airline personnel, graphic designers, mechanics, construction workers, and musicians. Your personal biases don't mean shit - the cops I know are amongst the best friends I've ever had.

Spring shows this phone doing it

[YesIAmAScript]

In their ads at least.

Supposedly The HTC EVO 4G can do it if you have a 4G or wi-fi connection.

There's Gandhicam...

[meldroc]

http://www.gandhicam.org/

Re:There's Gandhicam...

[24-bit Voxel]

Is there anything like this for the iPhone? Seems it's android only but man... I want this.

Re:No.

[dr2chase]

Don't think he was.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Fla. Stat. ch. 934.02. See also Stevenson v. State, 667 So.2d 410 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996); Paredes v. State, 760 So.2d 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000).

"Non-electronic", and on a public way.

From http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/florida.html.

Re:herp

[acoustix]

Affiliation =/= representation

Sure it is. You're always expected to act responsibly regardless of the organization that you're representing.

Qik

[Kral_Blbec]

Its events like this that are the reason I have Qik on my phone. I've never used it, but give me 15 seconds to get started and I'll be uploading live video to a remote server. Go ahead and take my phone. Its already in the cloud.

Re:Qik

[n2art2]

and that is why I have an iPhone (ok not really the reason why I have an iPhone, but hey simple and live broadcasting) http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ustream-live-broadcaster/id319362690?mt=8

Re:Qik

[gknoy]

Put it in your will, or tell your loved ones about it. If there's any violent death (or anything related), they are to check your video feeds. I imagine most anyone that knows you well enough to care about your death (family) would know that you were likely to record Risky Stuff, and were you to get killed in a questionable manner I'm pretty sure it'd occur to them to check such things, if they knew you made them.

I wonder if you can auto-tweet the postings of such videos. It might be posthumous, but it might help catch the people that killed you. (What a morbid thought!)

What experience?

[Sparx139]

Please, I'm genuinely interested

Re:What experience?

[swalve]

When the only people you interact with on a daily basis are scumbags and your fellow officers, you are going to start believing that the world only consists of scumbags and police officers. Especially when you are trained to "not get killed" on a constant basis, and your trainers, pals and cop-only internet message boards constantly publish real and phoney stories about any cop in the world that gets killed. When your pals, the media and the law reinforces the idea that your life is worth more than other people's.

Policing can be dangerous, but it isn't even in the top 10 of dangerous occupations. But, when a logger, truck driver, fisherman, etc., gets killed in the line of duty, you don't see every one of them in the city stuff themselves into their dress uniforms and engage in a mile long funeral procession. Nor do they get to blame scumbags for their loss.

It is easy to see how it happens.

Re:The bright side...

[bky1701]

Constitution > Local Yokel laws.

Chances are the video is still there.

[koan]

Chances are the video is still there.

Godwin call

[Nefarious Wheel]

Not reading any further.

Re:Godwin call

[Travelsonic]

Uh... Godwin merely is about the likelihood of naziism being referenced to increasing as a discussion. THAT'S IT. Nowhere does it say any analogies are invalid, or any of that other shit people who abuse Godwin usually bring up.

Re:Godwin call

[bhtooefr]

You know, saying "omg Nazis were mentioned, Godwin, your point is invalid" is just stupid.

Godwin's law actually says nothing about that. Godwin's law is merely an observation about the probability of Nazis or Hitler being compared in the discussion reaching 1 as the discussion continues.

It's only the corollaries that were made after that that say that mentioning Nazis ends the thread, or invalidates the point.

That said, given that we're talking about some things that Nazi Germany ACTUALLY DID on their way to power, blindly ignoring our world history because some blowhard on the internet made a corollary to a (scientific, not legislative) law saying that talking about Nazis is bad... that is downright fucking retarded.

meh

[hellop2]

Sounds just like every run-in I've ever had with police. I've even videotaped the cops beating the shit out of my friends. The only thing that ever amounted to was my friends not being convicted of Obstruction of Justice, Disobeying a Police Officer, Resisting Arrest, Interfering with an Investigation. And, maybe a couple cops quit the force.

It was funny when they played the video in court and the Judge looks over at the prosecutor and said, "Don't you hate when that happens? Case dismissed."

But the cops were never convicted of anything. Not even the local lawyers in my town want to take on the cops.

p.s. I remember the time a cop, with his foot stuck in my door over a noise complaint, grabbed my arm and said, "That's it, you're under arrest." I yanked my hand back and said, "Fuck you, get off my property, you're trespassing." Oh there was also the time that same cop just busted into my house (also a noise complaint) with his arm extended pointing a can of pepper spray at me... I ran into the kitchen where there was like 20 people. The cop eventually put away the pepper spray and walked away... knowing he would have sprayed everyone. Oh there's also the time a cop said I did a 360 on my motorcycle going 50mph, and when I stopped put my hands on my head, and sat down Indian-style, he beat me repeatedly with his baton.. so obviously I got a resisting arrest charge... dismissed, thankfully. Oh and a few months ago when I got a ticket for driving on a learner's permit with no licensed driver... though there was a licensed driver in the car, and I haven't had a learners permit for 15 years... I appealed that and.... inexplicably, lost. I could go on and on.

Re:meh

[Arker]

Yes, he probably stands out in some way. Skin colour, or wardrobe, or whatever.

Doesnt mean he is in any less human, or his rights are any less precious.

Re:meh

[TehZorroness]

Shit man. I have a lot of sympathy for you. I have paid a few thousand dollars in fines (all traffic violations) and surcharges and had my license suspended for almost a year just because these fucking pricks keep thinking they have some sort of right to pull me over for totally bogus reasons and try their damned hardest to find my nug. (yeah, you fuckers pick up that piece of napkin under my gas petal while I sit in the fucking winter cold in a t-shirt. It sure looks like a joint, right? oh shit, its only a bit of napkin.) I cannot begin to list all the bad karma these fucking pigs generate.

Re:meh

[hellop2]

Yeah, maybe I should quit wearing these "Life of Brian" togas all the time.

Re:meh

[hellop2]

Where do you live, Canada? In America police are not allowed to search your vehicle during a traffic stop without probable cause... well unless they just write in their police report, "I smelled drugs."

Re:meh

[ChrisMaple]

Innocent or not, if you want to live a long and happy life you need to restart your life in a new place with better friends.

Re:meh

[hellop2]

Thanks, ChrisMaple. You're probably right. I should get all new friends and family that aren't constantly getting fucked with by the law. I wish lived in your world of shopping at Sears instead of Walmart, and being able to afford a $150 ticket for driving 10 miles over the speed limit in a 25, where 3 dudes who run a stop sign with no license or insurance get a warning, like they do for the black chicks on that show Cops.

Re:meh

[bye]

Just wondering, you said in your first comment that a cop came in over a noise complaint, and you also said:

I ran into the kitchen where there was like 20 people.

So the kitchen had 20 people already - were you partying? How late was it?

What I'm trying to get at, was the noise complaint, by any chance, justified?

Even well intentioned cops will do a lot of weird shit if they think they are rightfully protecting others from you .

Re:meh

[bye]

[...] driving 10 miles over the speed limit in a 25 [...]

FYI, the energy your 2 tons car (or 0.2 tons motorcycle) carries at 35 mph is exactly twice the energy it carries at 25 mph.

This is non-intuitive but true, comes from "energy = mass*velocity*velocity". Our universe is weird.

So if you get involved in an accident driving "only" 10 mph more you can cause twice as grievous injuries to pedestrians and other drivers.

This is why speeding limits have to be enforced in a non-linear fashion.

Registration problems on the other hand are of purely administrative nature, they do not directly endanger other citizens.

Re:meh

[fafaforza]

C'mon, you don't get your license suspended and pay thousands in fines without doing something wrong. Just own up to it. They got you. It's over and move on.

Re:meh

[gknoy]

Perhaps if you didn't speed, you wouldn't have to worry as much about the enforcement of speeding tickets. I agree that if feels unfair that stop-sign runners got away -- very lame -- but you can't control them. You CAN control your actions. Being polite to police officers, rather than saying things like "Fuck you, you got nothing on me", is likely in many cases to help you avoid both attention and the bad results you seem to have accumulate.

Re:meh

[hellop2]

"Even well intentioned cops will do a lot of weird shit if they think they are rightfully protecting others from you ." Actually it was me protecting the others from the cops by standing at the door and telling them to fuck off. You can give me a $100 excessive noise ticket at 11PM on a Friday, but that doesn't give you the right to push your way in my house and harass people with pepper spray. You know... the Constitution `n stuff.

Re:The bright side...

[Iamthecheese]

So all I have to do is sacrifice hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of my life whilst exposing myself to harassment by my local police department and if I'm lucky and the supreme court decides to hear my case in some jurisdictions I'll get off scott free from the defacto crime of recording an officer in Maryland? Where do I sign up?

Youtube on Android

[manekineko2]

Just tried out the Youtube app on Android, and it does not seem to have any option to upload video via streaming, only after you've hit done.

Presumably by that point the cops have already smashed your phone.

SIM cards cannot hold video

[kriston]

The largest SIM cards today cannot hold even the smallest video. The authors of these articles surely meant an SD card or MicroSD card, but definitely *not* a SIM card.

Re:SIM cards cannot hold video

[perryizgr8]

evo (the phone the guy had) has a microsd. but there's no easy way to get it out quickly...

Re:SIM cards cannot hold video

[kriston]

Naturally, but it's most certainly not the SIM card. They don't have the capacity nor the ability to hold multimedia files.

Re:SIM cards cannot hold video

[vgerclover]

He could if the cell phone was smashed. I know that when mine hits the ground hard it explodes in all the possible pieces. It wouldn't be out of the question for the MicroSD to be exposed or even forced out of its socket under those circumstances.

Re:SIM cards cannot hold video

[xhrit]

>evo (the phone the guy had) has a microsd. but there's no easy way to get it out quickly...

Sure there is! All you have to do is smash the phone on the ground and pick the memory card out of the pile of chips that comes spilling out.

Re:No.

[cbiltcliffe]

I dunno. Karma whore, maybe?

Re:The bright side...

[KarrdeSW]

Nope, just a county circuit court is enough, and you probably wouldn't have as much difficulty now that there is a precedent.

Bringing the third world attitudes home

[dbIII]

Did the suspect draw a weapon?

He was driving one.
I'm not trying to justify anything, just pointing out why I think it might have made sense to shoot him after he tried to run people down.

As for the other bit which is quite depressing, journalists and photographers are frequently getting killed by military and law enforcement. It's not the sort of behaviour you expect in the USA but since in the past it was condoned from the very top it's not just going to happen in Iraq any more but also at home. There's the attitude throughout the community that a Reuters guy deserved death for being in a war zone (among dozens of other recent cases) and when you've got that in the head of a busy scared policeman in the middle of a firefight it's no surprise that he's going to point a gun at a bystander with a camera. He might just think the bystander deserves whatever they get for impeding a police operation, and if nothing else the images would complicate things and possibly threaten his job.

Re:Bringing the third world attitudes home

[PyroMosh]

No, you misunderstand.

Yes, he was driving a weapon. But you clearly misunderstand the narrative that makes this not make sense unless he drew a weapon or made some other overt threatening action.

Here is the video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef7_1306812064

The video sucks though, so let me explain what I see blow by blow. I may be wrong, about some of this as it's hard to see.

The video starts, and I can't even see the car.
At about 3 seconds shots ring out. The source of them is unclear, but there is on report of shots coming from anywhere other than the officers.

At about 5 seconds the car halts near the intersection on the right.

Men approach the car cautiously with guns drawn. Presumably they are the police.

The officers surround the car which is now stopped. There is no additional sign of activity. The car doesn't move any further.

Then at 1:13ish many, many shots ring out. Far more than the number of shots that rang out before. Definitely multiple officers discharging lots of rounds.

The question is why? What were they reacting to?

Reiterating what I said before: If what the suspect supposedly did is true, and the cops are telling the truth that he fled and tried to run them over and refused to stop one can make the argument that the shots at 0:03 could have been justified.

But no shots were fired again until 1:13, and then they unloaded. What changed? If he didn't draw a weapon or make an overt threat, there's no reason. He had been stopped. The shots at 0:03 either hit him, or scared him into stopping.

I have no idea what the first half of your second paragraph is talking about. Sadly, I suspect that there have been too many journalists killed in war zones recently to know which "Reuters guy" you are referring to.

That said, I suspect your analysis of why this happened may be pretty close to the mark. Something along the lines of:

Stressed cops from this big, hard to control event get confronted with a real threat: an officer is nearly run down in a motor vehicle stop. Everyone's on edge, and the suspect is trying to get away. A gunfight ensues. Everyone is keyed up. And bad calls get made.

Further evidence of this is that there was another shooting later in the same night. A female officer who claims a different suspect was trying to run her over too.

It's not an excuse, or a defense. But I think this didn't just happen. These cops were driven to an edge. They did what they thought they had to do, but then they took things too far. I suspect a lot of these things happen in similar ways.

Re:Bringing the third world attitudes home

[PMuse]

What the original suspect may have done is IRRELEVANT to whether destroying the recording / assaulting the recorder is OK. That stuff is never OK.

Either the recording shows cops doing their job right, in which case destroying it would be unproductive, or it shows cops doing wrong, in which case destroying it would be a cover up.

Destroying the recording is always wrong.

Re:Bringing the third world attitudes home

[PyroMosh]

What the original suspect may have done is IRRELEVANT to whether destroying the recording / assaulting the recorder is OK. That stuff is never OK.

And I said almost exactly that two posts up:

Nothing however explains the confiscation of cameras and assaulting of bystanders. There *is* no reason I can dream up that is anything other than a criminal act on the part of the police.

I think it's possible that the police were justified in using force (perhaps even deadly force) AND they took things too far / broke the law.

There are certainly a lot of questions to answer.

These ARE the good old days

[sjbe]

Since I was born in this country I have never seen so much lawlessness by financial institutions, politicians and law enforcement.

Or so much hyperbole apparently... Just like my grandparents declaring how wonderful things were in the good old days. Everything is always going to hell

Re:New "911" Technology Needed

[perryizgr8]

the technology already exists, what you want is a new implementation. if qik can upload live video to youtube, it can upload live video to anywhere else.

Lawlessness is a long way off

[dbIII]

If the USA becomes politically unstable we could see civil war

I doubt it. You'll just get the military government that Bush and Kerry pretended was a good thing when they campaigned on their military credentials. You can look at a few countries in Africa for examples, or Argentina a few decades back. I can't see it happening for a long long though because it requires just about everybody to lose any respect for central authority before as loyal a military as the US military decides they have to step in and take control to save the country.
I think things are going to get a lot worse no matter what is done by anybody from the sheer inertia of more than a decade of Enron style management in public and private spheres. But still it's a very long way down from there to civil war or military coup.

Which Gumbel Brother Was it?

[Culture20]

That's the important question. Gumbel 2 Gumbel: Beach Justice is my favorite TV show within a TV show right after Wormhole X-Treme.

Re:The bright side...

[rueger]

No, do what everyone else does - just whine about it.

o rly

[lolcutusofbong]

"Don't taze me, bro!" ring a bell?

Re:WAR ON DRUGS?

[meerling]

what if the cop is a total dope?

Re:No.

[meerling]

Activities by public employees in public areas or viewable from said areas while in the performance of their jobs can not be considered private.
IANAL, but several judges have made the above statements several times over the past decade.
(That is a paraphrase, not an exact quote.)

If you could say this in Latin, it would be cool..

[NotQuiteReal]

"Who will video the video makers?

the thin blue line

[KingAlanI]

the thin blue line - cops showing an immense loyalty to their fellow cops, which comes off as misguided loyalty when the "fellow cop" was involved in something like this.

subject

[Legion303]

"It took police two-and-a-half days to find the gun in the Hyundai but they still havenâ(TM)t determined if it was discharged that night.

For all we know, it could have been locked away in the trunk of the car."

Actually for all we know, the fucking pigs put it there after the fact.

Things like this are why I'm glad anytime someone shoots back.

Always Go Upstream

[dammy]

In a case like this, best solution would be to file a complaint directly with FL Dept of Law Enforcement. They punch a case number and there is no "losing" the complaint as FLDE will make sure the investigation is done properly and then move forward if any findings substantiate the complaint. It's one thing for Metro Dade to do it's on investigation and justify the out come with FDLE, it's another if FDLE is involved at the beginning if not conducting their own investigation.

Germany

[aepervius]

I have a lot of colleague (software engineer) which comes from the US, Australia and england (even one Irish) and many of them do not even speak *one* word of german and come by very well. The reason for that is that there is a close knit community of them which can help each other with administrative stuff, and the average german knows enough of english to come by. There are also itnernational school which etach kids in english (although I am not sure if they use the program from german school, or english/US schools).


THerefore you do not need to speak english and the few words you can say are likely enough.


That said, germany (or should I say EU?) has its fault too when it comes to certain stuff, like keeping record and logs for a long time. And if you like to carry your weapon you are likely to get disappointed as it is forbidden except for rare circumstance which are unlikely to apply to you.


A word of warning : their desert *sucks* , the stuff in the bakery is difficult to disgest and is heavy as hell in the stomach. I recommend french bakery if you really go to germany ;).

I never understood this

[Tooke]

'you want to be f****** paparazzi?'

What exactly is the point of replacing only part of the word with stars? We all know what the word is, and it pops into our heads when we read it (at least it does for me, anyway). If you don't like swearing, then either fill the whole word with stars, or replace it with '[expletive]', or something. Filling out most of the word might prevent a young child from adding the word to his vocabulary, but I doubt anyone that young will be reading slashdot anyway.

If there's a purpose for doing it this way, then please, somebody, enlighten me.

Re:I never understood this

[neilsnat]

Also, why do people say "BS" rather than "Bullshit" in speech. I personally find that more offensive!

Don't be obvious

[MichaelSmith]

Its easy enough these days to record video without making it obvious what you are doing. For example there are sun glasses with integrated cameras, and cameras in the form of a key fob. So if you want to record the cops don't do it by holding up your phone.

how many cops does it take to...

[dutchwhizzman]

Wow... they walk up to the car that already stopped, wait for quite a while and then they just all start shooting at it. They better have some video evidence the guy in the car started shooting at them, or they'll all be facing murder charges.

video on SIM card?

[mshenrick]

small correction: I think the first article meant he removed the micro SD card, not the SIM card

Re:The bright side...

[Stone2065]

*citation needed...really bad...*

criminals leave innocent bystanders alone

[cheekyboy]

Criminals at least have a brain, they wont attack innocents like this.

Only psychopath meth addicts with mental illness would should a random citizen.

If im no threat to a crim, he wouldnt waste his effort to harm me, or risk getting caught.

sounds nasty

[fireylord]

And I hope you went after the fascists for this. Police abusing powers no longer have a right to be called Police.

Re:obligitory music quote

[FudRucker]

when tyranny and fascism comes to america it will be holding a cross and wrapped in a flag

Cause vs effect

[mangu]

generally, the societies that offer the fewest social services to their citizenry are often the ones with the highest corruption, while social democratic governments in Europe seem to have a lot less of this kind of thing.

You are mixing cause and effect here.

The governments in Western Europe have generally low levels of corruption so they can afford to offer high levels of social services. This does not mean that a government that offers high levels of social protection automatically gets low levels of corruption.

Case in point: I live in Brazil, where a Scandinavian-like social protection system is mandated by the constitution. However the corruption in the government is so high that all these social services barely work. For instance, I have a private health care insurance, although the Brazilian constitution says government-provided health care is a basic right of every citizen.

Sure, it's not iillegal..... You will beat the rap

[scarbelly]

but you won't beat the ride.

Re:Been there, done that?

[Entropius]

I wish I had mod points for you. Well said, sir.

Re:Sure, it's not iillegal..... You will beat the

[russotto]

You will beat the rap but you won't beat the ride.

That's just another version of "might makes right". I'm not sure why it's considered acceptable for cops and their supporters to say stuff like that, when they'd be aghast if some cop-killer at sentencing were to laugh and say "Yeah, you got me, but that pig is still DEAD."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Damn

[The Living Fractal]

Having worked in a cop station before I can say that they were mostly good people there... and then there were the couple of serious assholes who ruined it for everyone else. We need better personality tests for police academy graduates or something.

Re:Damn

[darjen]

The supposedly good people are constantly covering up and defending those few bad ones. It really gives them all a bad name.

Re:Damn

[The Wild Norseman]

Having worked in a cop station before I can say that they were mostly good people there... and then there were the couple of serious assholes who ruined it for everyone else. We need better personality tests for police academy graduates or something.

Okay. And how are we, non-police citizenry, supposed to tell the difference? How can we tell the difference especially when all those good people don't do much/do anything to oust the assholes who abuse their authority?

The Photographer's Right (MUST READ)

[scorp1us]

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

The above link contains a PDF that explains your rights.

Basically it comes down to this: your images/video is your property, which is protected by the court system. Anyone wanting your property needs to file a case against you (be it criminal or civil) in order to compel you to release/destroy/stop sharing, etc. your images.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is what happened in Chicago in '68

[Ungrounded Lightning]

The real trick is to post everything directly to "The Cloud". ... Destroying the device doesn't destroy the data, and you also have a record of the destruction.

This is what happened at the Democratic Convention protests in Chicago in 1968.

Chicago was a machine-run city and the police were able to keep pictures of their misdeeds out of the newspapers by seizing and/or smashing the photographers' cameras. In preparation for the convention (and the pre-announced protests) the machine's unions had prevented the stringing of video cabling to likely protest sites.

But this was the first serious deployment of the "minicam" by the three networks' news operations. It was a massive shoulder-mounted camera, feeding a backpack full of electronics and batteries, radio-linked to a truck full of equipment within a block or two that relayed it to the studio. But it worked. And Chicago was a main switching/mixing/studio center for all three networks' transcontinental feeds.

So the police, with orders to keep things out of the media, did their standard smash-the-camera number (like they did when the local newsies got ouf-of-line and tried to report on them). And when the police batons smashed a camera lens the image, from the lens' viewpoint, was already out of the camera and into living rooms nationwide.

With the improvements in video camera technology - first the personal portable video camera, then the inclusion of cameras and video-record functionaltiy in most modern cellphones - the bulk of the population has been in a position to play Chicago News Cameraman. "Who watches the watchmen?" can now be answered "All of us!" Since the Rodney King incident the police have been hunting for ways to suppress this coverage. And this bunch seems to have settled on the pre-minicam Chicago Police approach. In this case the camara man managed to extract and protect the "film". But the real solution is the same as it was in '68: Real time upload to external archive and/or live publication. You hit it dead-on.

Fortunately the pieces of that are now available as stock products (minor assembly required). Smartphone plus applet for live streaming to archive and/or social-network/video publication. The readers' letters attached to TFA name at least two such applets: QIK (and QIK Plus) and Ustream.

Re:This is what happened in Chicago in '68

[MaDeR]

Sousveillance should be right of everyone. I think it will be only when ubiquitouness of recording devices will make completely impossible to enforce destroying devidence of power abuse anyway.

Re:herp

[Patch86]

If agents of the state (i.e., anyone doing things at the request of the government) do something wrong and are not punished in the same way you'd expect anyone else to be punished, that's wrong.

If I pointed a gun at someone, threatened him, stole his phone and destroyed it, I'd expect a little visit from the law and my due time sat in front of a judge (and beyond). These police officers should expect the same thing. If they don't, just because they're paid by the government, then that's a bad thing.

You need something like

[Gonoff]

the photoshop.com application. It can be set to upload pictures as you take them. I have been using the Android version for a while now. I understand there is an IOS version too.

By the time the criminals or police notice you, the pictures are online.

Alternatively, send it straight to Facebook or Twitter.

Re:WAR ON DRUGS?

[flyneye]

I suppose there will come a time when people see cops for what they are; fraternal to the point of being hoodlum. A closed society of outcasts eventually turning their prime directive inside out, being both the protector and predator. As Democracy runs amok like kudzu through our government, the corruption it brings will eventually strangle freedoms, God given individual freedoms will dissapear for the convenience of a socialist nanny government.
      I do not wonder at remarks like the AC parent, they are the mark of those frustrated at the interruption of freedom promised at least during their lifetime. I personally would not suppress it as trollish flames, but rather dig it out and discuss it for the fruit it will bear. It represents a sentiment growing in our society that marks the end of 9/11 hero worship and ushers in the National Security Gestapo Enabling Laws.
      What shall we do to repair,replace or rebuild local law enforcement? What we have is broken, doesn't work and is becoming dangerous allowed to proceed in its current form. Like a riding mower with no blade guard or gas cap it is problematic and counterproductive.
        If a cop points a gun at me in this day and age, myself knowing I have committed no wrong, it is not against the expectations of nature for my fight for survival, however unlikely to guide me in taking as many down with me as I could. I see cops getting bolder and bolder in recent years, taking their frustrations out on the flock they tend. Is it just more focus from the media recently or cop-crime on the rise?
Answers? Enlightenment? WTF have we got on our hands?

FOSS version of Qik / similar?

[tjonnyc999]

I wonder if there's a FOSS version of Qik or something similar. How many incidents will it take where someone records the cops doing something wrong - they take the phone & assault the user - get sued & video appears in court - cops get screwed - before the government figures out some way to step on Qik's toes?

If there was an open-source version, and it was all over the Github, then any threat against the company could be answered with "You want to shut us down? Go ahead. Ever heard of the Streisand Effect? Thousands of people will compile versions of Qik and mass-distribute it. And you'll have to put out 1,000 wildfires instead of 1. So yeah, go ahead, shut us down." or something along these lines.

Re:FOSS version of Qik / similar?

[darjen]

you're getting ahead of yourself. qik should do nicely for now. I have it on my phone, and if I ever see cops shooting someone, you better believe I will fire it up and stream everything online. they can smash my phone all they want, won't do them a damn bit of good.

Re:FOSS version of Qik / similar?

[Magada]

There's an easier way. All the SWAT pigs will get jammers. So nothing will be going out to the 'net and your fellow FOSS terrorists when they break down your door at 2.30 AM.

law enforcement officers go to jail sometimes

[jimnorcal]

They do on occasion but as stated earlier, it is rare. Not long ago I read of a story where five or more sheriff deputies tortured a guy in his home but before doing so, the deputies ordered his wife and toddler son out of the house. As the wife was leaving, she switched on a tape recorder that was hidden from the officers. The whole torture session was recorded and later used against the officers in court. All of them, I believe, were fired and a few of them were sentenced to five years in prison. The guy that was tortured was one short a six pack mentally and was a known drug dealer (supposedly). and the deputies illegally entered his home without warrant or orders from superiors and a few of yhem were off duty. They hooked electrodes up to the guys balls and shocked him over and over in hopes of coercing him into signing a confession that he was a drug dealer. He held out and never did sign the confession. Other than the officers being sent to prison, I do not know what, if any, civil action was taken against the officers and/or the county that employed them. When I read the story, I was actually surprised that the officer(s) that led the torture session only got five years. What would happen if I walked into some cops house, kicked out his wife and kid and started electrocuting his balls in order to make him sign a confession saying that he was a corrupt peace officer? I can imagine a little more than five years. That's one thing that eats me up is the unfairness of our judicial system and how it protects corrupt officials.

Re:No.

[jgagnon]

Schizophrenia.

Re:watch the damn video

[darjen]

Nowhere in the articles did it say anything about a stolen computer or girl being raped. In your pathetic attempt to defend the cops, you are just making shit up.

Re:Why emphasize servers you don't own?

[History's Coming To]

I specifically put it in quotes because you're absolutely right, as is AC above referring to 'posting it to the internet', that's pretty much all it means. Ideally posting it to multiple servers in multiple locations, backing up back and forth between them occasionally. If there is a difference between the Internet and the Cloud it's that - multiple redundancies - if people are going to start bandying a new term around we might as well make it mean something. I have folders on both my netbook and desktop synched via Ubuntu One, so not only do they synchronise with each other, but I can access the latest version via a web interface from any computer on the internet - that's something extra to "just posting it to the internet". Synchronised local and remote backups is the difference, if any.

SSDD I'm afriad for the MIA police dept.

[splatter]

Very very corrupt, with a strong tendency to violence with little or no reason.Lived in south beach for three years and let me just be the first to say stick with the criminals because the MIA cops are not there for you.

my post from another story (assault by door knob):

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1696818&cid=32677456

And you missie...

[publiclurker]

are a cowardly man wannabe who needs a hunk of steel to reinforce that spot where your spine belongs.

Re:RobertM you're as successful @ jailhouse lawyer

[RobertM1968]

as you are at computing: 20 yrs. and still only a techie? Please!

You're such a loser. And you still hide behind AC status even though I know who you are...

Re:Why? Because they're smarter than U are??

[Pseudonym Authority]

lol

LMAO!!!

[BlueStrat]

Ha!

I see the mod-bombing proceeds apace.

Great! Thanks! It means I've touched on truths you don't want anyone to see, and which totally destroys your agenda if it becomes common knowledge. Gotta stoke that hatred, class-warfare, & bigotry against those Jews and Western Capitalism, right?

It just proves everything I've stated, including the Left's penchant for suppressing any opposing viewpoints however they can.

Thanks again for proving everything I've said to be true.

Strat

Re:Pseudonym Authorities' "GREATEST HITS" (not)

[Pseudonym Authority]

Pokemon is a piece of shit, and I'm gonna take the time to explain why.

First of all, the graphics. There's fucking jaggies everywhere; it's like they told a 2 year old to take 5 seconds of his time to puke on a piece of paper, then they pixelated it and called it a 'sprite'. That's pretty much how every pokemon design has been conceived I'm sure, as there hasn't been a single one that hasn't made my eyes bleed. I'm no graphics whore, but this shit's ridiculous.

On the topic of 2 year olds, who the fuck is this game aimed at? It's too complex for children, too simple for adults; the only people who can find enjoyment in seem to be autistic manchildren. You fat fucks living with your mothers are the only reason Pokemon even exists. If it weren't for you, Nintendo would've stopped shitting out this crap, and the game industry would be in much better shape than it is now.

Which brings me to my next topic. The gaming industry is in shambles because of Nintendo and their fatass autistic fans. Nintendo shits out a Pokemon game, you idiots eat that shit up. They know this. Other companies know this. Other companies think it's a good idea to follow Nintendo's formula for success; releasing shitty rehashes every 6 months. Nobody buys their shit, Cliffy gets butthurt about 'pirates', and more DRM, DLC, and other bullshit is added to what could be decent games. That's why we never see new franchises. That's why we're stuck with so many mediocre sequels. Don't blame pirates, blame idiotic Nintendo fans.

Finally, I present to you the abomination of a 'competitive scene' the game has. Why does a children's game have 25 year old autists sweating 16 hours a day to play it competitively? Beats me. It's fucking disgusting. You faggots are also the reason e-sports is developing so slowly; everyone associates the image of e-sports with fatass ginger neckbeards with horrible acne. Nobody wants to participate in that. Fuck you.

Discuss.

Re:Pseudonym Authority: Take your medication pleas

[Pseudonym Authority]

i have to tell someone about this and i think doing it as anonymous is probably the best way. i've burned enough bridges already. last march i got a girl pregnant, first time i ever came in her i think. everyone was leaning on me to get married, including threats of statutory rape persecution (we were both 17 at the time), but she wanted it to be after the baby was born. last thursday was the big day and we all went to the hospital and i was in the delivery room with her parents for hours with her mom and dad giving me stern looks every time i peeked at her VAGINA (shit was so cash, i got a boner every time someone touched it). after forever the baby was born - dead, still born, but born dead. as i comprehended what just happened i got an instant feeling of freedom and strength flowing into me and before i knew what i was doing i yelled "YES!" and pumped my fist and did a little dance. my now ex-fiancee and her mom were both in tears and her dad's jaw literally dropped in astonishment. i got out of there so fucking fast and as i drove away i realized that i just made some very angry enemies. should i go to the funeral?