Slashdot Mirror
LulzSec Document Dump Shows Cops' Fear of iPhones
jfruhlinger writes "People are starting to comb through the details of the law enforcement documents made public by LulzSec. Blogger Kevin Fogarty noticed one interesting trend: The cops seem very anxious about iPhones, particularly apps that would allow encounters with police officers to be recorded. Ironically, the cops seem extremely concerned with protecting their own privacy, but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have."
Funny how they're so concerned about protecting their own privacy while violating that of others.
none, especially not for public servants in public, what part of "public" dont they understand? they are public servants out in public serving the public, no chance of privacy, the sooner they get this trough their head the better behaved the police will be and the less chance of law abiding citizens being brutalized...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Of course cell phones aren't covered by the 4th amendment. Only Post-it notes would be.
...to record which apps and what data was recently accessed.
Read my short stories - You won't regret it.
First off, according the article, they're not encouraged to search iPhones whenever interacting with the public, but rather when they arrest somebody. Secondly, it's pretty bad that they posted the home addresses of a bunch of cops. Mind you, I'm all for outing all this BS, but not all cops are bad (although there's certainly a lot that abuse their authority). And of course, shouldn't the cops want to be recorded if they're not doing anything wrong? On TV, people being arrested often claim bogus police brutality or some such nonsense. In real life, having a bystander recording the situation could help them. Of course, in real life, if they actually are abusing their authority then they do have something to hide. Seems to me any cop that doesn't want themselves to be recorded while performing PUBLIC duties in PUBLIC places isn't confident that they're not going to get in trouble for doing something wrong.
There is no trust anymore, which in my opinion is killing the fabric of the country. Cops don't trust us; we don't trust them. The government doesn't trust us and we don't trust them. The government looks at us like a vast field of something to be harvested from rather than a collection of individuals, families, and businesses that rely on them to create conditions of security, prosperity, and liberty. Instead we get "you little people", "don't bother me", and "Don't you know who I am?" attitudes among other things. I don't know how to take things back, but it take a paradigm shift I fear.
Because fuck you, that's why.
49 to go :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they?
They have complete control over those videos (included if and when they get "lost"). They don't have control over phone cameras.
I say the next killer app is one that streams what you're recording to offsite storage so that it can't be confiscated by smashing your phone/camera. If there's not enough bandwidth it can scale down to sending keyframes and low quality audio and pad out the rest of the video when you stop recording.
You are awash in a sea of fiercely stated opinions. Obvious exits are: 'File->Quit', 'Reply', and 'Page Down'.
...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?
The only value I can imagine in preventing their being recorded would be to cover up misdeeds.
Now, if we're talking about a police officer who is undercover, I could imagine circumstances that could preclude recording, but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?
Loading...
I don't see how that could be the case considering that you can get officer's names from incident reports, arrest sheets, et cetera.
Loading...
Is there an iPhone app that will send recorded video directly to the network? This will be an important feature when recording the police.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Many police cars in US has vehicle front cams, don't they? What they're afraid of I guess is retaliation against their families by gangs
Really, what they're afraid of is evidence of their wrongdoing being used against them.
Think the Rodney King incident. The police were acquitted, though it seems to most that they should have been convicted.
Having their actions recorded by citizens takes some of the power away from the police and puts it in the hands of the citizens -- and police don't like giving up power. THAT is what they're afraid of.
They might claim that they're afraid of retaliation by gangs or something else, but that's not the real reason they don't like being recorded. They don't like being recorded because nobody likes being recorded when these recordings might be used against them later.
...is the document specifically instructing officers, that when they take an iPhone, for any reason, to stick it into a Faraday bag.
The document specifically mentions the "Where's My iPhone" app, which can not only locate the phone, but remotely wipe the phone.
Thereby making it useless for any kind of investigation. And because everything is backed up to iTunes, the owner can just re-sync their phone as soon as they get it back.
Here's an excerpt from the faraday-bags.com website, emphasis mine...
So even if it's inside the bag, they'll be able to slurp it without you or your friends/family being able to wipe it.
[End Of Line]
If you are in public where you have a right to be, then whoever else is there with you has no privacy. You can video tape cops if you want to goto the trouble. If they're complaining about it, then they need to find a new job or do theirs right.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
ITFS(in the freaking subject)
A better example is the Robert Dziekaski Taser incident, where the cops tasered someone repeatidly for no reason and killed him. Lied about it. Confiscated the evidence to protect themselves. Only that video going public is what finally caused something to be done, because it so enraged the public that the government had no choice but to call an inquiry.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
The sooner they can get you talking, the sooner you might divulge something they can use. Even if they can't use it, they can ask you the same question again later and if your answer is not exactly the same then your story changed. Once your version can be called into question because
you are changing your story (lying), they win.
Wow, I never thought of it. Trying the reverse! Amazing. All dogs are mammals. True, I think... Let's try the reverse. All mammals are dogs. No, that's not right. Guess the first one was wrong as well. My God you've opened my eyes, thank you so much.
before you become excitedly aware of the stupidity in arizona realize first that arizona is the home of...
... and of cultural significance, no ports of entry via sea
open carry gun laws, for any of the numerous allowable gun types including assault rifles
recently, no more permits to conceal a weapon (careful when you google this, you will probably find outdated info)
legalized fully-automatic assault rifles for weapons made before 1986 (at least you have to register these!)
driver licenses that don't expire for 36 years, after which a mail-in renewal (read: no new testing) will have you looking 16 again at 52 yrs young
renegade sheriff Arpaio who feels like he is immune to federal investigation
average summer heat waves of 110 F (think what this does to your brain and your car, and both at the same time)
highest rate of methamphetamine use in the country
hopefully, knowing what is par for the arizona course helps put the article's issue into perspective.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
If those examining it have any special tools and you haven't taken extraordinary measures, you should assume all of it has been.
The public doesn't have the power the cops have. The public doesn't have a given duty to strip others of their rights - which, incidentally, is largely done when people without said authority do so. So, the public is supposed to be leaving everyone else to their own business, but an on duty cop is supposed to be keeping a small segment of the public from interfering with the lives of the other, larger portion of the public.
There is no right to privacy at work. Even for private businesses. Well, in MD anyway.
Why? Because every armchair quarterback with 20/20 hind-site will be on you like a pack of flies. Sure we all want to bust the Rodney King beaters, but who can justify every working moment at their jobs when the whole world gets to critique? it degenerates to "OMG! He just sat 4 8 hrs radaring speeders....go catch some real crims!!"
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
That and to protect the children.
Context, I've seen a million and one videos of a cops beating on some guy, but I very rarely see videos that shows the precursor.
I don't think too many people would find the "armchair quarterback" argument to be a legitimate reason, but that's just me...
Plus, I don't think police recordings would be of much interest to people unless something improper was happening. I certainly don't think people would be recording a copy an officer spending hours catching speeders for the sake of exposing "cop radars speeders" to the world.
Loading...
OMG. I never thought of it. Your amazing argument has illuminated all the possible aspects of conversation that could have occurred! Of course!! Mammals are dogs! Why didn't I think of this before!?
You should be ashamed of your comment, it adds nothing to the discussion.
The argument should be that all public locations are free to be recorded. Cops should be allowed to record, businesses should be allowed to record, and the public should be allowed to record. Equal rights to public space for all.
I assume your logic goes like this
"He deserved the shit kicked out of him. Look at what he did to the cops!!"
My answer - Someone killed a cop, does that give the cop the right to kill them?
If so, then just roll up judges and juries, do away with them, and be honest about it.
The police are there to enforce the law.
Enforce the law, not dispense justice - that's what judges and juries are supposed to do - and for good reason.
When a cop beats someone, regardless of what the "beatee" did, it is a criminal offense. Sure, lots of police get away with it, or find justification for doing so, but that doesn't change it into something lawful.
Rodney King (or whoever is getting beat today, or right this minute) may have been a thug, but even thugs are subject to a fair trial and justice meted out by a judge and jury. And if the person isn't a thug, and injustice is surely being given - isn't the travesty that much worse?
Context may make someone's bad behavior more UNDERSTANDABLE, but it won't ever justify it.
It appears you seem to misunderstand justification and understanding.
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
I've seen a fair number of videos of police acting properly and a fair number where they act improperly - most of them had more than enough context to make that sort of judgement.
Loading...
The sooner they can get you talking, the sooner you might divulge something they can use. Even if they can't use it, they can ask you the same question again later and if your answer is not exactly the same then your story changed. Once your version can be called into question because you are changing your story (lying), they win.
Four words: I want a lawyer.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Boy, those iPhones sure are pesky what with their ability to record video and whatnot. It's a good thing those sucky Android phones can't do things like that.
Sorry. What's that?...
Judgements? What judgements would those be? The judgement that the truth is important? The judgement that the police have been proven, innumerable times, to intentionally lie and distort the truth to cover up improper behavior?
What, exactly, in their jobs do you think excuses this type of behavior?
Loading...
... should be worried about doing something wrong, not worried about getting caught doing something wrong.
Except of course the entire industry of finding and avoiding those cops that are doing it. FuzzBusters etc.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
"...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?"
Being busted by the Feds, like my local Sheriff "Big Dog" Melvin, or the many people Whitey Bulger will out if he doesn't get whacked or die mysteriously before testifying!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Then think about this; Ask the police how they feel about Internal Affairs Officers, then you'll see that the police don't want to be policed,
"What legitimate reasons do the police have for avoiding being recorded?"
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way -- much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Don't Talk To Cops videos, parts 1 and 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
At my work, I'm responsible for various chunks of municipal infrastructure that carry Big Important Messages such as "We need a doctor right now," "This cop needs help," "This firefighter's in trouble," etc.
When I was hired, I had to sign a fifty-page document that agrees to the following. The cameras pick me up when I get within 100 feet of the office, they stay on me every minute of every day and the video is archived for years. I agree to audio recordings at any time. My ID badge is trackable and my movements recorded. While I am acting as a representative and employee of this company, all communications of any kind are company property. I have no expectations of privacy at all while I am acting on behalf of the company. All phone calls -- cell, landline and voip -- are recorded. Every keystroke is logged. All emails and IMs are stored. For the 9-12 hours a day that I am doing my job, there is no such thing as a "personal" conversation.
If I make a mistake of any kind -- whether it had consequences or not -- the company is within their rights to fire me on the spot without recourse. I have agreed to mediation, meaning I cannot take my employer to court and I will lose any disagreements. If I make a mistake anyone notices, the company will cheerfully feed me to the customer's lawyers.
All of this because my actions carry a risk of liability for the company and a theoretical risk to human life.
Why on Earth shouldn't someone who carries live ammunition be held to at least the same standard? If Seal Team Six can do their jobs on camera with a live mike, why can't local law enforcement?
And by the way, that "Slut Walk" comment came from a Toronto police officer who implied that a woman deserved to be raped because she dressed like a slut.
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110217/police-slut-comment/20110217/?hub=OttawaHome
A Toronto police officer who told a gathering of university students that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts" has issued an apology.
Mark Pugash, director of communications for the Toronto Police Service, said the officer would send a written letter of apology to faculty and students at York University for inappropriate comments made at the university's Osgoode Hall Law School.
The officer in question sent a written apology to the school later on Thursday.
Pugash said the officer had also been disciplined internally.
The comments were reportedly made during a campus safety meeting on Jan. 24.
Speaking as a brother, a husband and a father of daughters, the boy that made that comment has no business being allowed out on his own, let alone wearing a badge.
I don't care if a woman is a professional crack whore, a rape victim deserves your utmost sympathy, respect and compassion. You treat both the victims and the topic at large as if God and Mary Magdalene were personally going to hold you accountable for absolutely everything.
If you can't understand that, you have no business being in mixed company, let alone mine. I hope to God you don't share a uniform with anyone in my family.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
...but a uniformed or off-duty police officer? Why would someone with so much power be allowed to prevent the recording of the exercise of that authority?
Homeland security, of course! The article says, "In a hearing last December, Cook County Assistant State Attorney Jeff Allen invoked homeland security, arguing that Drew's recording could have picked up police discussing anti-terrorism tactics." Man, how could you make that argument with a straight face?
Anyone interested in "cop arrests guy with camera even though no law was broken" stories should check out Carlos Miller's blog.
What should be mentioned is that some states have prosecuted individuals for taping police, using wiretapping laws. This is a problem all over the country.
Police don't like being taped. Frankly, that's your best way of exonerating yourself during an altercation. And if you do... if you make the police look bad... that's when you have to worry about being prosecuted under wiretapping laws.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
There is a reason that the police ARE policed. My local Sheriff recently went to the graybar hotel for corruption. Blame the stress (rural area, he was King Shit) for that one.
http://natives-of-lee-county-south-carolina.blogspot.com/2011/02/big-dog-moved-out-of-state-for-security.html
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Um - didn't they cover this at the keynote - all the pictures you take, videos, etc, all sent to the cloud, and down to the rest of your devices... You take video, then remove file from your device. show camera roll to officer, show that there is nothing there. Get home, and onto youtube/twitter... This isn't going to get any harder for people to do.
That "Don't dress like a slut" comment came right out of the bad old days of rape legal defense. Defense attorneys used to work two arguments:
1. Every woman consents to be raped. "You cannot thread a moving needle," was quoted in every courtroom, and to some extent still is. She wouldn't have been raped if she had really objected to it. She wasn't resisting. If it really was so terrible, a good woman would have made him kill her first.
2. Even if she didn't consent to be raped, she provoked it. She came on to him. She dressed slutty. She was drinking, so she was looking for it. She asked for it, she got it, she deserved it. He's the real victim here. She's one of those bad women who prey on men's natural weakness. Look at what her accusation is doing to his good family...
Does dressing like a slut mean an unvoiced consent to sexual advances? No. Does it mean someone dressed like a slut deserved getting raped? No. Does being female absolve you of all consequences? No.
Yup, you're trying to sound reasonable, but there's that second argument again. There are consequences to dressing sexy, and she's responsible for them. Mess with the bull and you'll get the horn. Some women are sluts, some women dress like sluts, some women are asking for it...
Do you really think how a woman is dressed matters to a rapist? "Oh, well that's a tasteful and professional look from Donna Karan, so clearly this woman is off-limits to me..." You don't have to be dressed slutty to get raped. You just have to be weaker than your attacker.
Of course, what really worries me is this mind-set you've got going that a woman shouldn't be absolved for provoking a rape. "Well, she turned him on, so she got what was coming to her." Follow that train of thought long enough, and you end up dressing the women in burkas -- and it's still not enough.
Come on now, 'fess up a little. Time for some soul-searching maybe. When you see a hot woman, and you know you can't have her, it makes you just a little bit frustrated, and maybe a little bit angry, doesn't it?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I can't tell you what a relief it is to know that not only do we not share a uniform, we don't even share a flag. Thanks for the post.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Actually the public has the exact same power. It is just a difference of consequences when caught.
There's no shortage of examples.
The kid who was shoved off his bike by Officer Pogan during a Critical Mass ride. Nobody tried to take the tourist's camera, but it's one of many situations where the video kept an innocent kid out of jail.
The transit police who tried to take everybody's cell phones after the police shot a suspect cuffed on the ground (presumably it was a mistake, but still ...)
I still think Rodney King was a watershed event that led to many of the future incidents where the police started trying to take cameras and claiming they couldn't be videotaped.
Likely because certain groups have been known to edit and release said video out of context as a deliberate act to discredit authority.
People openly carry large amounts of cash all the time, and yes, they still happily send muggers there to jail without blaming the victim.
Maybe this has something to do with the basic common decency we watched them demonstrate so impressively lately...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
It's part of the job. If they don't fucking like it, they can go apply for a security position at the mall.
So what about the male versions?
OK, sorry, I get it. You poor dude. She got sole custody, didn't she? Can I have the talking stick now? Is it time for the sweat lodge yet? How's that "Ladie's Night" lawsuit going?
Brotherhood is powerful, dude. You're in a safe place here. We understand.
Bitches, man.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Then all politicians are bad for making those laws, and all people are bad for voting in those politicians.
Yes, this would be the logical corollary. Though I am not much for Freud usually, in his Civilization and Its Discontents, he argued that it is possible for society itself to become dysfunctional enough to be considered psychotic in its own right. An individual has no real option at that point to be sane. They can either be sane in and of themselves and be completely out of sync with everything around them or they can be in tune with the consensual reality and be insane in and of themselves.
I rather think we have reached (and surpassed) that point. Certainly we have reached a point where people often find it impossible to be both moral and lawful, even though many people still equate these two qualities. None of the choices from that point are good. But I think we have had many police decide to not continue being enablers and leave the profession. This has largely left us with people in 'law enforcement' who are not aware of the contradiction or do not care. That is not a good outcome, either.
All tax-payers are bad. As long as we have unjust laws, cops will be charged with enforcing those laws, and tax-payers will be charged with financing those cops. Anyone who finances the enforcement of an unjust law is a bad person. Do you see anything wrong with my reasoning?
No, I don't.
This is why the Founders insisted on a limited government of explicitly delegated powers with deliberate inefficiencies ("checks and balances") and state/local control of the armed forces. They were, not, however, perfect. They could not, for instance, conceive of Americans ever being stupid enough to give the Feds control of a standing army (read, e.g. Madison in "The Federalist Papers") and disband the militias. [Sane] people don't believe in limited government because government is not useful--- it certainly can be--- but rather because it is a foregone conclusion that any government shall become corrupt given enough time and at least a limited one does less damage when it goes bad.
If they don't sooner or later the public will get organised and there will be "National Record Cops in Public Day" where everyone records the police so that they get the idea. Nothing like safety in numbers.
No offense, but there's no justification for cops "beating on some guy", there is justification for cops subduing a guy who is resisting arrest.
Is there a justification for subduing someone and then charging them with "resisting arrest" only? In that circumstance, IMHO, the police are just looking for a reason -- and that's wrong."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
No, that's not what he "implied". You quoted what he said:
When women expose primary or secondary sexual characteristics to men, some of the men are going to lack the impulse control to keep themselves from raping the women. It doesn't imply anything about who "deserves" what, it is not a moral judgment, it's just an observation about biology. If that observation is demeaning to anybody, it's demeaning to men.
Our society gives men and women a lot of freedoms, in the sense of not making things illegal. For example, in some places, you can drive without a seat belt. You can smoke. You can have sex without a condom. You can own a gun. And you can now expose parts of your body to the public that used to land you in jail, and unmarried women and men can get together privately late at night. The fact that you can do those things and that you have those freedoms doesn't mean that it is wise to take advantage of them or that society will go out of its way to make your conduct safe.
None of that means that society doesn't punish the guilty or try to care for you afterwards. If you leave your bike unlocked and it gets stolen, the thief is still a criminal in the eyes of the law. If you have wild unprotected sex and catch HIV, health insurance will still cover you. And if you're a woman and run scantily clad through a group of thugs or if you go home with someone you picked up at a bar and got to see more than his etchings, police will still try to find the rapists and bring them to judgment. Nevertheless, we can tell all these people that their behavior was stupid.
Your misrepresentations and demagoguery aren't going to make your daughters any safer. And with all your political correctness and self-righteous indignation, if your daughters "dressed like sluts", you'd give them an earful because you know full well that doing so is a bad idea.
What arguments defense attorneys use to get their sleazy clients off the hook is totally irrelevant. What matters is that it is a reasonable inference that women who dress scantily are at higher risk of getting raped.
Yes. And so do you: men are sexually aroused by visible sexual characteristics (or, in some cases, fetishes). Take the visual stimulus away and you get less arousal, and likely less rape.
I'm not the GP poster, but personally I have no interest in women at all. But as a gay man, I have absolutely no trouble understanding that if I don't want to get beat up or raped, I have to dress appropriately depending on circumstances and stay out of some situations. There are also places that it isn't sensible for me to go as a white male or a wimpy geek. Getting upset about that is about as sensible as getting upset about the existence of gravity. That realization has nothing to do with the morality or legality of such attacks, nor should it have any bearing on legal proceedings.
I have a judgement for you asshole. Break that thin blue line once in your life & prove your the man you think you are without hiding as a coward with your gun & badge. I was threantened in front if another officer, beat with bones broken by your comrads while in handcuffs and did any of them step up and say stop.
Break the blue line then if your still alive maybe ill listen to what you have to say, but as long as you all carry yourselves as above the rest of us citizens you can fuck off. Oh and to your little stickers to keep other cops from pulling you over so you can speed and act like a nut in your personal vehicle well that just proves your all dirt, and if you seea guy honking and flicking you off well wave cause thats me you dick.
Hows that for personal experience OFFICER Fuck.
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
Yes, I hear Whitey is having a hard time renewing his life insurance policy...
Loading...
While I strongly support the public right to record the public actions of public servants, I think there is a legitimate fear of such things on the part of officers. The spectrum runs from "You couldn't handle the truth," to "The enforcement of the law is like making sausage -- you wouldn't want to see how it's done."
I'm sorry, but unless you're only worried about the sensitivity of white women in their late 40's in north east Wyoming, most people in the south, California, New York/New Jersey, Maryland/DC, Florida - think things are worse than they generally are in any case. Some people keep trying to say that allowing the videotaping would be detrimental to the police. The problem with that argument is that you already can video tape them in just about every public arena, and these nightmare scenarios don't seem to be happening. They do seem to be helping people being brutalized by the police though. Hell, video has exonerated many police officers as well (the car cams have probably dropped abuse reports 10 fold since motorists can't lie about what happened at a traffic stop either.)
The latter can be entirely valid. In order to detain hostile suspects in a manner that is safe for the public, the officer, and the suspect, it can be necessary to use a degree of force which to a normal member of the public can look harsher than is necessary.
- First, who cares if the public thinks it is harsh, what matters is what a court things. Second, again, most of the populations of major metropolitan areas think the cops all act like the ones in "Do the right thing" anyhow.
Certainly I am not saying this is always the case. I lived in San Francisco for the Fruitvale BART incident and the suspect who got smashed through a BART station window. I am not saying such things do not happen. However, it is the case that even ideal police enforcement involves a degree of physical altercation that is well outside the realm of experience of most people.
Officers, with good historical records to work from, fear the media creating a spectacle of such incidents -- even when the subduing the suspect is done in the best possible way
- Tough shit. Really. You want the power of life and death over people, you'll have to live with the fear of the media.
much as we feel about the RIAA creating a public spectacle by equating downloading with lost revenue.
All that said, I believe the right solution is to be *more* open about the reality of law enforcement. For the public to see the hostility that officers face on a daily basis, so we can better understand the stress and psychological trauma these men and women must endure. With the ideal outcome being that we are both more understanding of the internal problems these people face in protecting and serving us, and so that we can more precisely identify and punish those who abuse their authority.
Personally, I think the more monitored the police are, the more you will weed out corruption (or drive it into smaller areas) and EVENTUALLY create trust between the public and its public servants; however, that'll never happen because cops cover for cops pretty much no matter what. A perfect example - an off duty cop in Charleston, SC (Mt. Pleasant to be specific) was inebriated and hauling ass down a road (Rifle range road) after a soccer game (he was on our team) and then about 12 beers in the park afterwards - he hit someone in the traffic circle on that road and then turned on his lights and hauled ass away. He called his 'buddies in blue' and (I forget exactly what they did) they set it up so that he was logged as responding to a call someplace 30 miles away in order to excuse the accident. I know this because the racist as*hole told me all about it the next week somehow proud about it.
Loading...
Yeah, I read that blog a while bag. Sad.
Loading...
It would depend upon whether they resisted arrest or not, yes/no?
Loading...
It would depend upon whether they resisted arrest or not, yes/no?
That's circular reasoning. "I'm arresting you because you resisted arrest."
If there's no underlying reason for an arrest, there's no reason for the police to arrest the person and, hence, any force used on the arrestee is just assault and not justified by the claim of "resisting arrest." If someone attacks the police, it's assault and they should be charged accordingly. If someone is being arrested or detained for a valid reason, then that person should be charged with whatever crime they are alleged to have committed. However, if the *only* charge is resisting arrest, there (apparently) is no reason for the police to arrest this person in the first place. And that's either assault or false arrest/unlawful imprisonment. In that circumstance it's a trumped up charge.
Often [Citation needed] this happens when someone mouths off to a police officer -- which, while it is in poor taste and often deleterious to your health, is not a crime as long as you're not threatening harm in some way. For example, if I tell a police officer "you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny," whether or not it's true, it's not a crime. A handsome and well dressed police officer might have a case for libel if others heard me, or if my statements were published in the media. However, that's a *civil* matter and should not result in the officer over-stepping his or her authority by detaining or arresting me for "resisting arrest."
Please provide a circumstance where this reasoning does not hold.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I doubt you would accept any argument or proof showing all police officers are rights violating abusers of innocents. You, like a lot of people on this thread assume all police officers are corrupt liars and then base your comments from that starting point.
Not all police officers, but enough of them that the public has reason to want protection for themselves. Funny how the cops' cameras always seem to malfunction when someone claims that they were a victim of police brutality or other abuse. Suddenly they can't retrieve the video from the car's camera. If they can't even keep their damn cameras working properly, they should be thanking us for providing that service for them with our own cameras. If they wish to counter our video evidence, perhaps they should fix their equipment so that they can present their own evidence. I'd rather see both sides in court. The more evidence we can look at, the better.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I have nothing against anyone recording anything they want. I fail to see why anyone would have a problem with recording anything in that takes place in public. However, I do have a problem when people use unsupported accusations and anecdotal evidence to brand a large group of people as corrupt or dishonest. We tend to use the extremes on both sides of any argument to make a point while disregarding the large number of balanced opinions that actually represent the true will of the majority.
The extremes are often the issue though. The fact that police abuse is known to occur, in extreme cases, is exactly the reason why we need the ability to record the police. Maybe 99% of police interactions are above-board and in accordance with the law. When they aren't, though, the victims need to have the ability to defend themselves.
Given the apparent lack of training and knowledge of the law that has been displayed time and time again by police officers who attempt to prevent recording by citizens, or who abuse those citizens doing the recording, or who try to destroy the recordings, it's quite obvious that we have good reason to need the protection of recordings. We've seen similar training issues regarding laws in other areas, such as armed civilians, bicycle riders, etc. If the law is too difficult for the police to know and understand, how the hell is the public supposed to be accountable for knowing and understanding the law?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
We need a reasonable way to separate "sound advice to reduce your chances of being victimized" with "if you don't do this, it's your fault."
If the officer had said, "Provocative clothing can draw unwanted attention," no one would have batted an eye. t2t10 has a point. That is precisely the advice I give my daughters.
When they give you a uniform -- any uniform -- they explicitly tell you "You watch your mouth when you're wearing this." I even got that speech when they gave me a fast-food uniform as a 16-year-old boy.
Because all people are equal in the eyes of the Law, certain words have no business coming out of an officer's mouth. Words that imply some people are "less than," words like bitch, slut, skank, ho, cracker, spic, kike, gook, coon and their modern variants have no business being spoken under the color of authority.
The word slut literally means "a woman unworthy of respect because of her sexual behavior" and for an officer of the law to be callous enough to use that word in a discussion of rape shows that he is incapable of providing justice to all women. When it comes to rape victims, there are no women unworthy of respect.
Beyond the uniform though, there's a basic issue of manhood here. When I turned 17 and began to put on some grown-up muscle and the last little bit of adolescent squeak left my voice -- not to mention the rough background I come from -- women began to be afraid of me. I don't mean they'd run screaming like I was Jason Voorhees, but if I was out ofter dark, an it was just me and some woman alone at the ATM, or in the laundromat, or a parking garage, they'd get a little tense, a little nervous, they'd walk a little faster...
I didn't like it. I didn't understand it at first because I'm a little thick about things like this, but it came to me.
"Because it's not just you, moron. OK, maybe because of the rough way you look, it's especially you, but all men make women a little nervous when they're alone with a stranger. We're generally twice their size. We carry the brute strength to casually beat them down. This has not always turned out well for them in the past."
I grew up a little when I understood that. I learned to treat women I didn't know with a certain deference, like the best men I grew up with did. Around women I did not know, harsh language dropped entirely out of my speech. I began to use words like "please," "thank you" and "ma'am." A sincere genuine "ma'am" does wonders to signal good intent, that I am trying to live up to our best rules and traditions, even if it means reaching back to out-of-date social conventions. Even younger women who still think it's a little goofy to hear appreciate it.
Because I am a grown man possessing raw physical power, the word "slut" -- which means women undeserving of my respect -- does not belong in my vocabulary. I may tell you I do not believe a woman has carried herself in a dignified fashion. I may tell you I believe an outfit leaves too little to the imagination. Grown men do not use words like "slut" or "whore."
Punks do. And that punk in Toronto has no business wearing a uniform or carrying a badge.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I'm sorry, I thought you were saying something else. You can't be arrested for resisting arrest when there's no original charge. Now, the police can screw you over by lying, but that's true of any situation.
Loading...
When guys start defending the practice of plying women with alcohol, it makes them look like they can't get laid without drugging women.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I grew up on Navy bases during the Vietnam war. We expected 18-year-old kids to stand up to gunfire. And they did. But since we're talking civilian cops, let me tell you a civilian story.
When I was in college, I got ran through the training they hold for volunteer firefighters in my state. At the end of the week, they held a little dinner/get together. It was a small community, everyone knew everyone.
There was a table where the grizzled old men sat, and the guy who was showing me the ropes clued me in on the stories. That guy got his ear burned off saving a kid. That one traded that finger for some woman. The guy with burn scars over his entire left arm? That was a bad day, but they got everybody out.
They also had a couple of chairs out for their friends who couldn't make it on account of being dead.
No, I really don't think it's too much to ask of an officer of the law to speak in a professional tone when he's in uniform and talking to a group of law students. I expect one of the city's finest to express himself without using words like bitch, slut and whore.
I really don't think we're setting that bar too high.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
...do the police have for avoiding being recorded?
There should be legislation to record police actions *when attending a job*. Sports stars are recorded when "working", actors, judges and lawyers, and police are recorded for COPS etc. So why not as a matter of course? In fact it seems counter-intuitive that they aren't. Not while they're patrolling, just when they attend a job.
Even if it's just audio from a lapel mic, I'm sure it would ease people's minds and help prevent misconduct. People would know that what they say is being recorded, the officer is recorded, all words spoken will be on record. And its technologically pretty easy.
>but the documents encourage police to examine iPhones during the course of interacting with the public to see what apps they have ...do they need to sit there and strat scrolling through a persons countless apps to see if there is one that will record them, THEN decide to arrest them....I really dont understand... O_O
Why, they all come with recording apps that you can not delete, inherent to the phone itself, unless the people asking the cops to take a look at the apps, do not own iphones themselves....I do not understand the comment made to check the phone for apps, why