NH Man Arrested For Videotaping Police.. Again

OhPlz writes "Back in 2006, a resident of New Hampshire's second largest city was arrested while at the police station attempting to file a complaint against officers. His crime? He had video tape evidence of the officers' wrongdoings. According to the police, that's wiretapping. After world wide attention, the police dropped the charges. His complaint was found to be valid, but the evidence never saw the light of day. Well, guess what? Round two. There are differing reports, but again the police arrested Mr. Gannon and again, they seized his video camera. This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera, most likely to protect its contents. If there's the potential of police wrongdoing, how is it that the law permits the police to seize the evidence?"

Comments

What are these words?

[suso]

What do you mean police wrongdoing? Can you use those two words in a sentence?

Re:What are these words?

[sortius_nod]

I think the writer got arrested for using them!

Re:What are these words?

[Anonymous Coward]

its like saying funny clown.

Re:What are these words?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jackbooted Rethuglicans at work. Most "police officers", if they hadn't slipped through the academy, would be working as leg-breakers for the local Mafia. Half of them are anyways as a sideline while off duty.

It's about "power", not honor and law enforcement.

Small wonder they don't want to be videotaped. At an intersection by my house, we had a particularly egregious asshole who found a way to fill his quota: he parked his car 45 degrees down an alley to make sure his dashboard camera wasn't covering the neighborhood entrance's stop sign, then would jump out and stop people claiming they "ran the stop sign" and fill out a ticket. He filled out over 120 tickets in a 1-week period that way. Finally, we had a neighbor set up a small hidden camera clipped to the top of a nearby fence and recording to a laptop on the other side of the fence, and recorded 3 hours of him pulling this shit at an angle proving that everyone he had written up that morning HAD stopped at the sign.

He's never shown up again, but the DA "declined to press charges" against Officer Corrupt Dickwad, and the local Dishonorable Judge Briberyfuck ruled that the day's footage was "inadmissible evidence" in the prior cases because it "wasn't footage of the relevant arrest." Go figure.

Re:What are these words?

[Cyberax]

Actually, not. Police and firefighters are solid Republcan voters.

That's why these two unions were not touched by infamous Wisconsin governor.

Re:What are these words?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominem attacks: good as logic since 2001!

Re:What are these words?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Hardly surprising that Rethuglicans gravitate to positions and a political party where they can tell people what to do and take away people's rights, I suppose.

Hey Rethuglicans, here's a hint:

Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one.
Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one.
Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them.
Don’t like sex? Don’t have it.
Don't like booze? Don't drink it.

Don’t like your rights taken away? Don’t take away anybody else's.

Re:What are these words?

[WorBlux]

But is does speak to the character and credibility of the only witness against these victims.

Re:What are these words?

[WorBlux]

You've just got to set it up right and then impeach them with the footage. Have you ever issued a ticket for a stop sign violation when the operator brought the vehicle to a complete stop?

Re:What are these words?

[Moryath]

If you read the OP's post, the judge appears to have disallowed that line of questioning. Which, to me, would be a clear indication that the judge is trying to tilt things and just wants to get the money from the victims.

Yes, you could appeal the conviction, but you're talking about traffic court, and it's already an uphill battle to fight a judge's decision on what evidence should or shouldn't be allowable. Appeals courts regularly reject cases that small as being beneath their notice.

Remember, in Ohio (a Republican stronghold), the police don't even have to have a measurement of your speed: they can just tell the judge they "estimated" your speed and that's good enough for their Supreme Court judges. This even after the corrupt cop in the case couldn't prove he was certified to operate a radar gun, and that revelation got the radar gun reading thrown out of court.

Republicans love rigging the system it seems. In the absence of sane levels of taxation, they get their revenue by turning the cops into the Badged Highwaymen, shaking down random citizens for money.

Re:What are these words?

[Moryath]

If you really want people to understand, listen, and take you seriously about grievances you have with your local police, you need to back off of the political garbage and treat the problem for what it really is, cops that lie and cheat.

When one political party is a group of people who in the past few years have been strongly associated with Stormfront-level racism and thuggery, the political party seems to have more to do with it than you are willing to allow.

Looking at the rhetoric coming from the Republicans and the Tea Party in areas like Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, the secessionist nutwad fringe from California, and even in northern states like Wisconsin and Ohio, it's not hard to understand why the OP would consider the primary problem to be the association of so-called "law enforcement" with the Republican Party, especially if OP happens to be of one of the demographic or racial groups that the Republicans/Tea Party have been targeting recently.

Also, consider the cases we've had in political and police corruption in the past. Civil Rights legislation and investigations - some of cases going back 60 years or more - go on because the police were all in the same political party, were all members of the KKK, and were all complicit in that sort of behavior in the South. The fact that OP's home county is dominated by the one political party is not to be discounted in the ability for said party to be corrupt, through and through.

Of course, I'm assuming that OP lives in the South. But it's not a bad assumption. They're well-known for the whistle-stop sort of towns with cops who do crap like went on in Tenaha, TX, another Republican stronghold.

Re:What are these words?

[Moryath]

Wow. So I'm modded "flamebait" for linking to the Tenaha abuses by police, in a story about police misconduct? I get the feeling some republican just ran through the entire thread dropping downmods anywhere they could.

Re:What are these words?

[Tolkien]

The police are wrongdoing it.

Re:What are these words?

[mcgrew]

Right on! The bad cops give the 1% a bad name!

I dislike all democrats and republicans, conservatives and liberals as a whole equally. I vote for and support the individual that has ideas and track record that is most aligned with my own regardless of what political tag

You forgot "don't forget to tip the waitress, I'll be here all week"

Re:What are these words?

[mcgrew]

I've noticed that in the MSM comments (Chicago Tribune, Yahoo), too. I think the Faux News watchers are pissed that Murdoch got caught hacking cell phones. Or he and the Kock (sorry, "Koch") brothers have modshills out in force today.

I'd have modded you insightful, but I haven't had mod points all week.

Re:What are these words?

[Moryath]

Yeah, I've been noticing the same thing. I'm willing to bet that they have a series of "sleeper accounts" being used to play the modpoint lottery a lot more than standard visitors. There seems to be a "bury brigade" effect going on subverting the mod system even more than usual.

Re:What are these words?

[Moryath]

Or maybe you're being willfully ignorant of the fact that the Southern Democrats almost to the man defected to the Republican Party, where their racist heritage persists to this day.

Re:What are these words?

[EastCoastSurfer]

You think Ohio is bad? Read about the crooked cops in Denver. Better yet they are still on the force! Even better is that these are only the ones they know about!

The list includes the names of about 81 officers still on the force out of 1,434. At least eight officers on the list have two or more violations. One officer has three violations.

The officers on the list have been found to have committed violations in at least one of the following categories: departing from the truth, violating the law, making false reports, making misleading or inaccurate statements, committing a deceptive act, engaging in conduct prohibited by law, engaging in aggravated conduct prohibited by law, conspiring to commit conduct prohibited by law, soliciting or accepting a bribe, removing reports or records, destroying reports or records or altering information on official documents.

At least seven officers are on the list for driving under the influence. At least 13 of the officers are on the list for violations involving dishonesty, considered a fireable offense at many police departments because such a finding could call into question whether an officer would testify truthfully.

And those are just the ones whose cases have been resolved with a finding that the complaint was "sustained." An untold number of other officers may be under investigation for dishonesty but testifying on any given day with no notice to the defense.

Re:What are these words?

[God_Retired]

Jesus fucking christ. Democrats and Republicans meant totally different things back then. Democrats were big business, the South, etc.. Shortly after the above, the Democratic Party split, with the conservative Democrats hooking up with the conservative Republicans and forming pretty much what the Republican party is today. You know the one that fought the Civil Rights Amendment? Talk about not knowing history, you sound like some fucking Tea Bagger.

To try to blame stuff on a particular party from 100+ years ago is just wrong. Neither party means what it did back then. Did you know that Conservative Christians and Progressives worked together to pass Prohibition? Interesting, but not really relevant to current debate.

Re:What are these words?

[Aighearach]

This is /. you're only supposed to complain about moderations when you're being an ironic karma whore.

Re:What are these words?

[superdave80]

Dont like abortions? Dont get one.

Interesting. How exactly does the baby voice it's opinion on the upcoming abortion?

Re:What are these words?

[sumdumass]

Actually, I followed that case closely and watched the arguments in the supreme court. Ohio does video tape it's supreme court sessions and plays them on one of the PBS stations for anyone to watch.

The corrupt cop was certified, he didn't bring his certificate to court. The court was very meticulous in determining this officers record on estimating speed. They considered factors like cops go through training to estimate the speed of a vehicle and this particular cop's record was something like within 5 mph over 35 of the 40 times needed to pass some part of the academy training.

So let's not make this into more then what it it. It's also not a republican thing. The most corrupt cities with the most corrupt cops in history in the US is demonstratively democrat controlled. Los Angeles, Chicogo, Denver, Cincinnati, Cleavland. And lets not forget the deputies in Zanesville ohio who were busitng people for drugs just to keep the evidence and sell themselves. And yes, Zanesville ohio, Cleavland ohio, and Cincinatti ohio are largely democrat strongholds even though they are in as you put it, "in Ohio (a Republican stronghold)". If there is any connections to republicans and this behavior, it's probably because they don't pay enough to get quality officers hired (I would suspect the same with democrats) and instead end up with these inbred john wayne syndrome asshats because it's all that is willing to work for the same amount of money as a waiter in a halfway decent restaurant. I know cops in ohio who make just over $12-14 an hour.

Re:What are these words?

[maj1k]

the same way it voices its opinion on a miscarriage.

Re:What are these words?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Ad hominem attacks: good as logic since 2001!

Insult != ad hominem. For example, if I were to say, "You're an idiot, therefore I conclude you're confusing an insult with an ad hominem argument," that would be an example of the ad hominem fallacy. On the other hand, if I were to say, "You're confusing an insult with an ad hominem argument, therefore I conclude you're an idiot," that would not. Since I don't like making fallacious arguments, I will restrict myself to the following statement:

You're confusing an insult with an ad hominem argument, therefore I conclude you're an idiot.

Re:What are these words?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Or maybe you're just bad at history.

Or maybe you're just hoping everyone else is.

Or maybe you've forgotten that ~150 years of history have happened since then. Including the major political realignment of the 20th century in which the Democratic and Republican parties pretty much completely switched constituencies and positions.

Or maybe you're just a moron.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but it's late... As a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, I can guarantee you that every right I've ever had to worry about in my life was in danger from Republicans and not Democrats. You seem to think that as a liberal I have faith in the beneficence of the state. What I want is the state to protect me from others, without taking away my rights. In other words, I'd like to have gay sex and smoke pot as long as I don't fuck over anyone else, and I don't want assholes to tell me I can't do these things because I'm not hurting anyone.

As far as Democrats spending too much money and "obsession with taxes" (the latest Republican catch phrase), meh. It doesn't affect me the way Republicans claim it affects people like me. I'm a upper middle class (~115K/year) so I do pay my fair share of taxes, but the extra 3% or whatever everyone is bitching about is nothing compared to a cop pulling me over to take money from me when I haven't hurt anyone, or the government telling me I can't visit my partner in the hospital, nor catching my friends with pot and treating them as if they were bank robbers or some other high profile criminals. This is not hyperbole, this is experience. And once it really bit me in the ass... I had to pay an extra $1500 in the ONE month between jobs because the way COBRA* works, my partner had to go to the emergency room in that ONE month and the federal government would let heterosexuals keep the same benefits at the same rate as the company gives them, but NOT the same rate to domestic partnerships. Yes, an extra $1500 when it would have been an extra $0 if I were straight. I hate you motherfuckers like I hate Hitler and Stalin... you and your ilk are constantly trying to take away the freedom of others.

So fuck you, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I love freedom and I hate Republicans for trying to take away my rights and freedoms and for God's sake not letting me live alone in peace. Don't kid yourself, asshole cops are not progressives and they are not liberal.

*COBRA is basically the law in America that allows employees who have been laid off to continue to have insurance at the same group rate as they had with the company. The company does not have to pay any money towards the monthly premiums if they paid a portion of it. In other words, the employees have to pay the full premium themselves. However, a family plan still applies even though the employee would have to pay whatever extra the company was paying. Unfortunately, domestic partnerships aren't considered families and therefore don't get to benefit from COBRA so they have to be paid as if they were individuals and not family plans.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

Indeed. During the last presidential election (Obama 2008), the national police association supported Obama, and many commentators talked about how it was ironic because most of the police in the country were Republicans, the "law and order" party.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

This is laughable like when Republicans say they are the party of Lincoln. The Democrat party used to be the conservative party in the South, but it switched sides during a period from the 60s to the 90s. The conservatives became Republicans and the liberals became Democrat. The Republican party used to be liberal, now it is conservative. This is why McCain had a hard time after the 2008 race in his 2010 Arizona election because his beliefs were very much aligned with the 1950s Republicans but not the 2010 Republicans. He had to make a hard swing to the right.

Re:What are these words?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what made you defender of all fetuses, Fetus Man?

Go educate yourself. A fetus isn't conscious. It has no feelings. It can't care about an abortion. That's been scientifically proven. If you believe otherwise, fine, keep your fetuses, but stop trying to force other people to keep theirs.

I'm going to start a campaign to pass laws that make abortions mandatory under some circumstances, such as if the pregnancy is the result of a rape, the child will have a disability or the mother will be raising the child alone. Maybe then, the anti-choice people will start to realize how good it is to be able to choose.

That is exactly the problem. Many pro-choice people believe it's morally wrong not to abort under some special circumstances, yet we respect that other parents may see it differently and therefore we would never even think of making abortions mandatory. What do anti-choice people do? You'd think they'd say "Gee, you're right, we disagree so strongly, it's great to let everyone make the choice they want about their own fetus/baby. Everyone can be happy this way, even if disagreement remains" but no, instead they think since we're already in a situation where everyone gets to choose, they should fight to force their choice on others.

You have your own babies, do what you want with them and leave us alone. Trade them with another family from your church if you want, or sell them or collect them if that's what you want! Just stop trying to convince everyone else that a fetus is conscious by using idiotic 'knowledge' such as "It haz hearts!!! Iz person!!11111" and "God said so". That won't convince us, and we don't feel you have any business telling us what to do with a fetus we don't see as a person. If you had to fight for the right to refuse abortion, maybe you'd appreciate the ability to choose a little more. Too bad we're too respectful to ever force anyone to abort what they consider as their baby.

Again, do what you want with your fetus and fuck off.

Re:What are these words?

[RichardJenkins]

Calm down. I expect the guy you're replying to read the original comment as meaning that most police officers would be working in organized crime if it were not for getting through the academy and therefore in this case decided to seize video evidence to serve self interests. A pretty easy misinterpretation. Or perhaps he was extremely confident that the original poster had used just-such fallacious reasoning in order to come to his conclusions before posting the comment.

In any case certainly his obviously-intended-to-be humorous comment is no call for snide remarks.

Assuming idiocy should be the last thing you do. Unless you want to be a dick, in which case knock yourself out, please.

Re:What are these words?

[drinkypoo]

As a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, I can guarantee you that every right I've ever had to worry about in my life was in danger from Republicans and not Democrats.

Close, but you don't really understand the danger. Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive us of our rights. We get parental advisory stickers on one hand and we get banning of certain media in certain situations in the other. We're just lucky we don't have a legally mandatory rating system for movies or video games... yet. But surely some Democrat will come along to propose it for the safety of the children every so often, and if we get one, some Republican will come along to propose that we make it illegal to sell the most "offensive" titles to minors, and if that flies, then they'll try to ban them from airports and gas stations, and eventually, from everywhere.

So fuck you, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I love freedom and I hate Republicans for trying to take away my rights and freedoms and for God's sake not letting me live alone in peace. Don't kid yourself, asshole cops are not progressives and they are not liberal.

Neither are democrats. Democrats are populists just as surely as are Republicans. Further, after session they all go to the same bars and drink together and discuss their yachts and their summer homes and the fucking they're giving the lower class and the ever-shrinking middle class.

Re:What are these words?

[jonamous]

Don't want a gun? Don't get one.. wait.. right? Oh, it only works on things you like. Sorry.

Re:What are these words?

[shentino]

Strange.

You'd think they could at least prove the cop and the hidden camera were both photographing the same intersection and use a bit of triangulation to prove that the cop's pictures were deliberately excluding the stop sign.

With that, you could establish that the cop was a liar, and attack his credibility, and maybe, if fortunate enough, get him nailed for perjury and kicked off the force. Police departments usually don't take kindly to their officers committing felonies on the job.

Then again if you got that close the judge would probably panic and toss you out for contempt.

Re:What are these words?

[GooberToo]

This is slashdot. Moderation based on merit ended many years ago. I constantly see factually accurate and completely valid posts moderated to -1 while complete idiocy sits at +5 Insightful. Its literally an every day occurrence.

Now people moderate because its politically correct, or more often than not (the norm), because it validates their own personal opinion, in spite of the fact their opinion if verifiably wrong. Ignorance and political correctness prevails on slashdot everyday.

Re:What are these words?

[Lumpy]

"With that, you could establish that the cop was a liar, and attack his credibility, and maybe, if fortunate enough, get him nailed for perjury and kicked off the force. Police departments usually don't take kindly to their officers committing felonies on the job."

Wont happen, short of public recorded murder done execution style. Cops NEVER get convicted or fired for breaking the law. In fact MOST cops break the law daily without any recourse or care.

Re:What are these words?

[sumdumass]

Thanks you, I will let my sleep deprived half drunken self who really didn't care at the time know that next time I decide to comment on something in that state again..

Re:What are these words?

[drinkypoo]

Typical false equivalence.

The right needs a new strategy - "I know you are but what am I" and "But they did it once, too!" are 'arguments' you'd expect from four year olds.

Too bad for you I'm more leftist than either party. The libertarian website claims I'm an upper-left centrist; that jibes fairly well with my own self-assessment. (I like their political assessment tool because it doesn't tell everyone they're a libertarian.) I agree most with the green party, which is quite liberal, and certainly moreso than the democans or the republicrats.

There IS no false equivalence here; the reps and dems are on the same team. It's not left vs. right, it's rich vs. poor, and virtually everyone in government is on the "rich" team, especially compared to the average citizen.

Re:What are these words?

[Cyberax]

What baby voice?

Re:What are these words?

[scamper_22]

"You seem to think that as a liberal I have faith in the beneficence of the state. What I want is the state to protect me from others, without taking away my rights"

Well congratulations, you're a libertarian and you find yourself by definition without a party. Since libertarians don't like the power of government, they tend not to end up in power.

Both parties are equally guilty of taking away rights. I'm glad you want to smoke weed and have sex with homosexuals. More power to you.

For some like me, it's about different rights, like the right to raise my kids. While the Democrats fight tooth and nail against school choice. They still tax me heavily to fund their 'public schools'. Let's not even get into the myriad of regulations from various government agencies around child rearing that have parents scared. Places like Chicago even have schools that have banned home made lunches.

So I'm glad you've found your hatred of republicans. Apparently having sex and smoking weed are the main rights you think are being violated in society.

For the rest of us, it's a different set of rights and on those issues the Democrats are the greatest violators.

But in the end, both parties are pretty bad. Now you just need to find the same hatred of Democrats and you can consider yourself complete in terms of wanting the state to protect you from others.

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

Rethuglicans! I bet they bomb abortion clinics and watch Fox News!

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

Gotta love how the GP was insightful despite using gratuitous insults, and you got modded troll despite noting a relevant exception to his list. Granted, it's possible that he would actually agree on guns too so your. The use of 'Rethuglican' strongly indicates a left winger rather than a libertarian though, so I wouldn't think assuming as much should be held against your post.

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

Please stop with the partisan crap. Being Republican has little to do with it. Ohio is a swing state. They voted for Obama, have a Democratic senator, and have several Democratic reps in the House-- most notable Kuchinich, arguably the most left-wing. They have a Republican governor, but I don't know what the makeup of their legislature is so I can't comment. I think I've already presented enough evidence that they're not a "Republican stronghold"... they are too authoritarian, which is a left-wing problem.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

No, you were probably modded flamebait for pretending that the Republicans and Tea Party have actually demonstrated racist policies as a group, rather than a few fringe elements within it which have. Even the strong borders people mostly disavow racist policies. It also might have to do with your failure to mention that the party associated with the KKK 50-60 years ago were Democrats, not Republicans, subtly indicating the opposite in a post that was strongly anti-republican.

The republican party has only been strongly associated with Stormfront level racisms and thuggery in the heads of far left partisans.

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

Because abortions just happen?

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

Go educate yourself. A fetus isn't conscious. It has no feelings. It can't care about an abortion. That's been scientifically proven.

No, it hasn't. I can't make it any plainer. This is a load of unscientific crap. We're not sure whether it has any "feelings". I'm not sure whether you mean emotions or sensation, but either way we should feel free to euthanize a lot of people with brain injuries.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

Insightful? Really? The last paragraph was fine, but use of the term "Rethuglican" is pretty strong evidence of idiocy. Also, which party was it that pushed for Prohibition back in the day?

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

Because the President is not as interested in the rule of law as he is in democracy and social justice. Being a nation of laws results in an inherently conservative government that moves slowly and deliberately, while mob rule and a sense of "fairness" derived from a policy of social justice results in summary decisions from the ruling party.

Re:What are these words?

[Dyolf Knip]

That's not true. It's easy to get a cop fired. You just have to nail them fro a crime they can't excuse away as "just doing my job, it was all the other guy's fault". Things like drug use. Police farces come down harder on cops for toking up on the weekend than they do for them committing cold-blooded murder on the job.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

Health benefits are not rights, so your example there sort of fails, although it would be nice if gays and straights had equal privileges too (I'm against marriage, both straight and gay, being a province or concern of government in the first place). Extending COBRA is not an instance of harm to you, it's an instance of giving benefits to someone else, which is not the same thing. I'd give you the inability to visit your partner, except that I haven't seen much proof that Democrat Politicians (unlike the rank and file) do anything more than pay lip service to equality here.

As for the police, compare and contrast with a Judge who takes away a child because of a complaint lacking any evidence. Or because a mother gave it a light swat on the behind. Or ignore there own laws and place a child with foster parents instead of her actual father. I vaguely recall at least one case of Family services taking away an infant, later to be proven wrong, only for the parents to be denied the return of custody because it's been 2 years and it would be too great a hardship on the child to be returned to the family that never did anything to justify his loss in the first place. I can't find the link on that one, but a quick search does turn up numerous other abuses by child protective services. I'm pretty sure CPS is in fact dominated by democrats in most areas, probably more heavily than police departments are dominated by republicans.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

Damn it... lost my first response by accident. I'd give you the inability to visit your partner, except I've seen no evidence that Democrat politicians are any better on this than their counterparts, unlike some of their constituents. As far as health coverage goes, that's not a right in the first place, so it doesn't quite work. I'd be somewhat happy to see equal privileges as well as rights, but i'd rather the government was uninvolved in marriage in the first place. Extending COBRA to straights is not an example of harm to you, it's an example of a benefit to someone else, and in no way is failure to provide that benefit taking any freedoms from you.

As far as police go, compare and contrast with child protective services. I'm not re-digging up the links, but there are cases of children being taken and kept with no evidence (amber james), being placed in foster care instead of with the father in spite of laws which should have said otherwise (emma unknownlastname). I vaguley recall but couldn't easily find the link to a case of an infant being removed from the home and placed in foster care, the parents successfully proving that they weren't in fact abusive, and the judge deciding it would be too great a hardship to return him after 2 years. I believe, based on my own limited experience, CPS is dominated by Democrats to an even greater extent than Police departments are dominated by Republicans, due in no small part to the nature of people who seek social services jobs.

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

especially if OP happens to be of one of the demographic or racial groups that the Republicans/Tea Party have been targeting recently.

Please stop playing the race card.

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

Civil Rights legislation and investigations - some of cases going back 60 years or more - go on because the police were all in the same political party,

The Democratic party.

were all members of the KKK, and were all complicit in that sort of behavior in the South.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

Your link is not evidence of the claim you just made. The word 'Only' is the problem. As near as I can tell, without reading the entire blog archives, he only infers that it's politically motivated without proof, but nonetheless does not claim that democrats never do that.

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

Or, maybe you're a fool who substitutes partisan rhetoric for actual facts and insights.

Re:What are these words?

[operagost]

What Civil Rights Amendment? Do you mean the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was made possible by a Republican president, created by Republicans, opposed by a Democratic president, and passed by a Republican majority in Congress before being ratified by mostly Republican-controlled states? Or do you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed by most Republicans and filibustered against by a group of 7 Democrats and... well snap! one southern Republican. Damn, I guess you're right! We should focus all our ire on eradicating one single party that you perceive is racist. Then we can be on a one-part system and get the "democracy" we really need!

Re:What are these words?

[chrb]

I love freedom and I hate Republicans for trying to take away my rights and freedoms and for God's sake not letting me live alone in peace.

It's nice to hear that you hate people who think differently from you.

He didn't say he hated people who think differently - he said he hated people who tried to take away his rights and freedoms. Two different things.

Having said that, hate is not a good emotion, and it does tend to inflict more negativity on the hater than the target of their hate. Live and let live.

Re:What are these words?

[Toonol]

Jackbooted Rethuglicans at work.

they typically support and vote DemocRat.

A pox on both your houses. Neither of you are rational.

Re:What are these words?

[Toonol]

Go educate yourself. A fetus isn't conscious. It has no feelings. It can't care about an abortion. That's been scientifically proven. If you believe otherwise, fine, keep your fetuses, but stop trying to force other people to keep theirs.

True, for certain values of Fetus. Are you willing to say that aborting a fetus after it can feel pain is wrong? That happens very early during the pregnancy.

Re:What are these words?

[Toonol]

When one political party is a group of people who in the past few years have been strongly associated with Stormfront-level racism and thuggery

They've been associated with it by their opponents. Just as democrats have been associated with communistic welfare anti-american big-government thugs by their opponents. You're just believing the particular rhetoric that feels better to you.

Re:What are these words?

[chrb]

Health benefits are not rights

Health care is a "right" in the same way that child education is a "right". Or electricity. Or clean water. If enough people decide that something should be a right, then it becomes a right. You can argue over the semantics of a "right" vs "entitlement" or "negative/positive rights", but in the end you are arguing over words, and it really comes down to what people believe.

For many in the developed world (e.g. hundreds of millions of Europeans), health care is a "right". For most people outside the developed world (e.g. billion+ Chinese and Indians), health care is not a "right"... what is the difference, except for a set of beliefs?

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

Damn it, I reloaded the page and didn't see my previous comment before I posted this one as a replacement. Sorry for the double post.

Re:What are these words?

[God_Retired]

Yep, sorry, meant the Civil Rights Act. I mentioned nothing about wanting one party over another. The point I was _trying_ to make is that anyone who really pulls for one party over the other is an ignorant jackass. It is much easier, and honest, to be against one or both. For what it's worth, LBJ did say upon signing the Civil Rights Act that the Democrats had effectively lost the South. And you know what? He was right. The Dems who fought the Act were correct politically. Totally wrong morally. If you think that I came across as pro Democrat, man did I fuck up.

Re:What are these words?

[jonamous]

Isn't that what the original AC did? Pigeonhole republicans into the belief-sets that he listed, while ignoring a well-known exception to the rights that the democratic party "likes"?

I pointed out that the argument was somewhat hypocritical. I'm somewhat liberal and looking at both sides, the democrats get mad that republicans want to dump on their right to [gay marriage, abortion, etc] and the republicans get mad that democrats want to dump on their right to buy guns. If people are picking and choosing which rights they want to protect and which they want to get rid of, you can't get mad when the other guy does the same thing.

Re:What are these words?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

FWIW, my comment was intended to be humorous too -- or rather, as I suspect AC's was, to make a serious point in a humorous way. I may have been a bit too acidic.

The reason for my annoyance is that I see an awful lot posters on /. name-checking some well-known logical fallacy in response to someone else's post without actually understanding what the fallacy in question is (and isn't), and it's become a kind of shorthand for dismissing arguments without actually paying attention to what they're saying. Really, it's a fallacy in and of itself, and probably ought to have a name ... The confusion between ad hominem and simple insults is a particularly common example; others include straw man, slippery slope, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and no true Scotsman.

If you want to dismantle someone's argument on the basis that it's ad hominem, fine, but show how this is the case, don't just assert it. And as with any other technical jargon, if you don't actually understand what the jargon means, it's best not to use it at all.

Re:What are these words?

[sumdumass]

And yet I still care enough to mock you.

I guess I do care.

Re:What are these words?

[TClevenger]

At an intersection by my house, we had a particularly egregious asshole who found a way to fill his quota: he parked his car 45 degrees down an alley to make sure his dashboard camera wasn't covering the neighborhood entrance's stop sign, then would jump out and stop people claiming they "ran the stop sign" and fill out a ticket.

I finally got fed up with that shit, as well as assholes who magically come up with "witnesses" when they plow into me. So, I wedged my old HTC Touch Pro2 between the passenger seat and its headrest, and started filming.

In the past year, I've recorded every kind of violation, from idiots massively running red lights to a big rig climbing a dirt embankment to get to the exit ramp he missed. I plan on permanently installing something with a GPS speed and time stamp, but in the meantime, I get over 5 hours of passable quality recording on a 2GB SD.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

As a liberal who doesn't like Republicans, I can guarantee you that every right I've ever had to worry about in my life was in danger from Republicans and not Democrats.

Close, but you don't really understand the danger. Democrats and Republicans work together to deprive us of our rights. We get parental advisory stickers on one hand and we get banning of certain media in certain situations in the other.

I stand by my original statement. Every right I've actually needed and worried about being taken away comes from Republicans not Democrats. I agree with your assessments that Democrats also try to take away various rights in the guise of "think of the children" (and other ways too). However, the core ability of my ability to exist in freedom is not in danger from Democrats raising my taxes or telling me what I can't watch on TV. When Republicans tell me I can't smoke pot in peace and tell me I can't provide proper health care to my lover, that is far and away more dangerous to my peaceful existence.

Yes, I'm also what one would call a "left libertarian" but if I had to tell a random stranger in black and white if I were a liberal or conservative, a Republican or Democrat, I would say "liberal" and "Democrat" even though those terms carry a lot of baggage I don't want or agree with.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

I specifically described what I hate. I did not say people who think differently that me. I specifically described the various rights that people are trying to take or have already taken from me. I did not write a 20 page long discussion clarifying everything, it was quite condensed, but if it matters, I do not hate Republicans, especially since half of my friends and half of my family are Republicans. I will reiterate, though, that I hate people who try to prevent me from having the same rights as heterosexuals such as the ability to visit my partner in the hospital.

If you think "tolerance" is defined as accepting people who take your rights away then you are wrong... tolerance does not have to extend to people who fuck you over. For example, if someone borrows your lawnmower and does not return it, you are not being intolerant by demanding it be returned.

And "For God's sake" is an expression.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

I do not disagree with you. I am aware that I am a "left libertarian". I certainly will care about rights especially related to my kids when we have children.

I also don't disagree with the fact that Democrats are also trying to take away my rights, such as banning home made lunches and other things such as saying what I can and can't watch on TV.

However, I reiterate my point that I hate the people who are trying to take away the certain rights I enumerated. Well, having sex and smoking weed aren't what I'm worried about. Not being able to protect myself with the law related to my homosexual partner/family is what I'm worried about, and being taken to jail for a significant portion of my life when I haven't harmed anyone is what I'm worried about.

I simply can't hate Democrats as much for the rights they take away, because being denied your life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness is by far and away more dangerous from Republicans than Democrats to me.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

That is an interesting assessment. A bit too simple, but pretty good for two sentences. I don't think Obama has really made that much more summary decisions from the ruling party than Bush did, though.

Re:What are these words?

[euroq]

Health benefits are not rights

Well, you know what I meant, I hope. One thing that scares the shit out of me is that if I weren't allowed to visit my partner while he lay dying in the hospital. Or if I were driving through Arkansas with my children and something happened to where my family was not considered a family in that state and they took them away from me. I don't care if you call those things rights or not... these things are something that I sincerely am scared about and I feel like as an American, a country where none of its citizens seems to describe it without the word "freedom", I shouldn't have to worry about.

As far as the awful stories about children being taken away from their families, that is awful, truly awful. However, I don't see that those stories are really a "party" issue (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) Those are abuses and failings of government. And I don't thing these awful stories you mention changes anything I've said, in reference to Republicans far and away being more dangerous to my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than Democrats.

Re:What are these words?

[WorBlux]

If you are denied cross, there is pretty much no easier appeal. Denial of cross is an error for which no amount of want of prejudice can render harmless.

Re:What are these words?

[Risen888]

"Rethuglicans?" Grow the fuck up. If the current presidential administration has not provided ample evidence that the expansion of power for power's sake, the erosion of civil liberties, and war for profit and distraction are the original bipartisan issues, I couldn't imagine what it would take.

"Rethuglican." Christ almighty, listen to yourself.

Re:What are these words?

[Risen888]

"everyone needs to vote straight ticket Republican or that evil socialist nigger will take all your money and force your kids to get gay married."

Yeah, and what's he actually done? He's done all the things you're ranting about the Republicans doing. Funny how that works. In 2008, all my Ranty McLiberal friends told me if I didn't vote for Obama, we were doomed to more torture, more war, more executive power grabs, more poverty, more imperialism. And no shit, I didn't vote for Obama, and that's exactly what happened.

Re:What are these words?

[Risen888]

The Republicans and the tea party are far from synonymous. Nor are they the "secessionist nutwad fringe," nor are they the KKK. Because there is some (perhaps much) overlap between some of those groups does not mean they are the same group. That's like saying all Democrats are lesbians.

Re:What are these words?

[uninformedLuddite]

Assuming idiocy should be the last thing you do.

Please take me back to your planet when you leave.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

Negative rights are compatible with equal rights, as they never come into conflict. Positive rights (or entitlements, or whatever you want to call them) require the involuntary service of someone, which requires force for backing, which is incompatible with the right not to be killed, and with the whole concept of equal rights. If you don't have the right not to be killed, all other rights are meaningless. The use of involuntary labor of others is a basic distinction to the two, and is an fundamental difference, not just semantics.

Consider two individuals trapped in such a way that there is enough food or water for one of them, but not both, to live until they can be rescued. The right not to be killed of one doesn't conflict with the right of the other to not be killed. But if you assume a positive right to live, then only one but not both can exercise it and only by denying that same right in their counterpart. The positive right to live thus is self negating in at least some circumstances. Conversely, the right to not be killed can coexist in every case, although it might lead to both parties dying unless one of them voluntarily self sacrifices for the other. Anything called a right which can't be universally applied should not be called a right.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

I think you are correct in the narrow case that republicans are more dangerous to your personal life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness than democrats. I don't think it they are worse when it comes to the public as a whole, which contains many individuals (small business men for instance) who are in more danger from democrat party policies. You didn't, upon careful rereading, assert anything beyond your personal case however.

I did assume that you were ascribing all instances of police abuse to republicans, which is inaccurate. I think it quite likely that many cops are part of the social conservative wing of the republican party, and I noted CPS as a bastion of Left wing individuals (judging on my personal interaction with them, which is limited) as an example of where the interference in peoples lives could potentially be ascribed to the other party.

Re:What are these words?

[chrb]

But what does a "right to live" actually mean? Does it mean that the government won't kill you? Does it mean that the government will protect you? Does it mean that other people won't kill you? Or is it just some convenient semantics that actually means "you might get killed, but the government won't try to kill you, will protect you if you are considered at immediate risk, and will try to track down your killer afterwards". Attempting to protect you and trying to track down your killer both require the involuntary service of someone, as someone has to pay for the police force. Every act by the government to enforce your "right to life" has a cost, and someone has to pay.

Re:What are these words?

[phlinn]

The right not to be killed is a negative right. The right to live is a positive one, and self negating at that. There is a clear distinction between the 2 even if the full extent of a right to live is nebulus. My entire point was that every positive right requires force, and the negative ones don't. Does that clarify things for you? I don't know how else I can make it clear.

The right not to be killed does not require the action of anyone else. It does allow action by other people to defend or avenge you (by attempting to kill you, the attacker forfeits their own right to live if rights are equal), if they choose, but all it requires is that no one kill you. Allowing you to starve, for instance, is not killing you. It's failing to intervene on your behalf.

An awful lot of positive rights supporters tend to confuse "causing harm" with "failure to assist", and/or to confuse action with inaction. I am responsible for any actions I take, and the consequences thereof. I am not, in any way shape or form, responsible for any events which I did not cause even if I could have acted to avert those events and chose not to do so. Inaction, by any reasonable definition of cause and effect, can't cause anything.

Re:What are these words?

[DeadCatX2]

I know it's tempting to look at a pack of partially differentiated cells and assign anthropomorphic characteristics to it, but a baby is not aborted. A fetus is aborted. A fetus lacks the neural capacity to form an opinion, let alone lungs with which to speak.

Re:What are these words?

[superdave80]

Well, aren't you just a pack of partially differentiated cells? I'm sure someone (maybe) would be upset if I 'aborted' you.

A fetus lacks the neural capacity to form an opinion...

So do newborns and people with certain neurological disorders. Am I free to go around aborting them?

...let alone lungs with which to speak.

I'm not a baby expert, but I'm pretty sure the lungs develop while in the womb. Unless you think they suddenly burst into existence as the baby is born?

Re:What are these words?

[chrb]

Positive rights (or entitlements, or whatever you want to call them) require the involuntary service of someone

My entire point was that every positive right requires force

What about the positive rights of, say, the Emirati people of Dubai? They pay no tax, and they have many positive rights, such as the right to a house from the government when they are married. However, this is completely funded by state enterprise - in effect, the government acts as a corporate entity which carries out profitable projects like construction, natural resource exploitation etc. The bulk of physical labour is carried out by immigrants who voluntarily enter into an employment contract. This system requires no force, no involuntary servitude, and yet still results in positive rights.

Re:What are these words?

[bhtooefr]

Too authoritarian isn't a left-wing problem, it's a bottom-wing problem. (Remember, there's more than one axis... top-wing is small-l libertarian.)

And both the Republicans and Democrats are bottom-wing.

Re:What are these words?

[reason]

Is stepping on a cockroach wrong? They can feel pain.

If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[Scareduck]

... I reckon "die" is all that's left.

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[dopaz]

I believe that is meant to say "or die (trying to live free)".

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[couchslug]

No, "kill" is left.

Americans are MUCH too comfortable to exercise that option at the moment. Nothing to see here for a long time.

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[mrops]

what man, that is terrorist talk.

I have notified homeland security

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[countertrolling]

Well, yeah, ultimately that would be true.

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[Lord Juan]

I honestly didn't know whether to mod you Funny or Informative (which is irrelevant now because by posting this the moderation will be reversed, but I do want to make the comment and going as AC I feels like cheating the system).

I went with Informative and I realized that someone else had modded you Insightful. It is a sad thing.

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[ilo.v]

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order". - Larry McDonald

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[Rizimar]

No, "kill" is left.

Americans are MUCH too comfortable to exercise that option at the moment.

Says couchslug

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[c0lo]

I went with Informative and I realized that someone else had modded you Insightful. It is a sad thing.

You modded "Informative" thinking that the GP poster informed the Homeland Security. Maybe the modders already know the poster is working for HLS and their modding was an assessment of a "job well done"? Perhaps it's "Performance appraisal" time in Homeland Security?

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[Jorth]

A "Soap Box" is an older saying for a box you stand upon to give a speech etc. In the context it really means you complain/preach/give speeches to the masses to try to change their minds.

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[Skidborg]

So, which stage do you think you're at now?

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[GungaDan]

To drop in the prison shower.

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[Amouth]

we went for the side rode and "Insightful"

Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices

[Maladius]

That's an awesome quote. In looking into it though it appears that Larry McDonald didn't include the "please use in that order" part. Ed Howdershelt, a science fiction writer did though.

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

Falsifying evidence?

[pclminion]

Evidence of what? Evidence of him having videotaped officers? This makes as much sense as when the police arrest someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest." He was resisting arrest. Why were you arresting him? For resisting arrest. Do they really think anyone buys that?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Mr. Underbridge]

I think it would be better to accuse him of truifying evidence.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[haulbag]

"Gannon was charged with resisting arrest, simple assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct."

The original charge seems to be disorderly conduct. Whatever he shouted at the police while they were driving by, plus whatever he said prior to being tackled is probably what the disorderly conduct was about.

If you ask me, they probably would have arrested him for saying "Booo!"

Re:Falsifying Evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kicked off the force? Well...I guess, but that's just standard employer responsibility.

They should sue for deprivation of rights under color of law and take the detectives homes, and advance payments against any pensions they have earned, and follow it up with a measure against the police department if training was improper. Sadly, that comes right out of the taxpayers though...

And that's after the DA tosses them in for 20 to life for assault, battery, perjury, assault with a deadly (pepper spray, meet asthma), destruction of evidence, intimidation of a witness, reckless endangerment, breach of the peace, and possession of a firearm while in commission of felony. Plus aggravated charges on all of the above, plus conspiracy to commit the above. And given they have a history of it, let's throw RICO in for good measure.

Police like throwing the book at people... How about people show them what it feels like to get hit by it?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most places that have a statute for "resisting arrest" rely on the generally accepted legal definition of 'arrest'. If a cop says "hey you, stand still. I have to ask you some questions.", you've been 'arrested' by legal definition. To 'arrest' is to stop, detain, etc. Get loud, rude, protest, say you can't because you're late for a meeting, then the cuffs can come out. You're under arrest for resisting arrest, and it makes perfect sense.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[fotbr]

Maybe it's different where you're at, but around here, resisting arrest is a bullshit charge lumped on by prosecutors who aren't sure they can make anything else stick.

Been there, got that charge tossed as well.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I ever meet you I WILL KICK YOUR ASS. Then piss in your face and shit in your mouth.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[RazorSharp]

Yes a suprisingly large amount of the populations belives that if a police officer says you are guilty then you must be.

Unfortunately a surprisingly large amount of (all) judges believe the same.

"If you enter a plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest' then I will look over the sworn statements by both you and the arresting officer. In which case, I will assume the written report by the officer is true and you will be found guilty. If you enter a plea of 'not guilty,' then a meeting with the prosecutor will be arranged for a later date. You will then, at another later date, go to trial with a jury of your peers. If you cannot afford legal representation then you may apply for a court appointed attorney by submitting an application along with a $25 charge for processing the application."

Basically, 'guilty' and 'no contest' are synonymous in the eyes of the judge. The only way for police testimony to come into question is for a jury to rule against it or for a lawyer to prove it's tainted in some way. So say you're being charged with something relatively minor and the penalty is like $100 + court costs. Of course, whether you're guilty or not, it would make sense to plea 'no contest' and take the punishment b/c the damn lawyer will suck more than that out of you. Not to mention the time it takes to go through the various processes.

Sadly, many police/court systems are nothing but legalized extortion. Justice is an afterthought.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's not the legal definition of arrest by any stretch.. depending on the circumstances it's either consensual contact or if there exists reasonable suspicion of a crime, a detention (aka terry stop, see terry v. ohio.) if there exists probable cause for an arrest, you are taken into custody -- probably physically restrained with handcuffs -- and booked. there is a huge difference.

also, there's no need to get loud or rude when a cop approaches you to ask questions.. ask if you are being detained, the officer is required to tell you... if you're not being detained, you obviously do not have to talk to the officer and may leave. if you are being detained, it's probably an even better idea not to talk to the officer. perhaps ask why you are being detained and then keep your mouth shut.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Moryath]

Also consider the following regarding "traffic stops" and "minor tickets":

If you show up to "just pay it" or "take defensive driving", they give you a "break" and it costs you around $150-200 after court costs.

If you want to plead not guilty, then you have to burn:
- The cost of your lawyer.
- At least one half-day (if not a full one) of leave from work to show up and plead not guilty.
- At least one half-day, if not full day, to "meet with the prosecutor."
- A large amount of time subpoenaing whatever you need to subpoena, taking your own measurements of the area, photographing. And half the time the corrupt police won't deliver the things requested as evidence (like the officer's dashcam record, radar gun calibration records, etc) and you'll have to fight for those, which means you have to show up in court and burn MORE leave time to get the judge to issue the subpoena for discovery.
- At least one half-day, if not full day, to actually be in court and empanel the jury.
- At least one half-day, if not full day or even more, to be in court to actually argue your case.

And at the end of it, you have to be prepared for the possibility that if you're found guilty, the corrupt judge is going to throw the book at you and the Prosecutor is going to tack on a bunch of miscellaneous bullshit charges, whatever they can come up with, to punish you for "wasting our time" by actually asserting your constitutional right to plead innocent and have a trial by jury.

The whole system is rigged. Cops know it; they're the corrupt underpinning of it.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Moryath]

If you ever have any question, make sure you're in view of the dashcam and ask the cop the following, verbatim:

"Officer, am I under arrest or am I free to go?"

At that point, the officer must make the determination. The two options you have given them are the only two options available to them legally, and are mutually exclusive. If they choose to arrest you, they'd better have a damn good reason. If they don't, and they simply want to ask you questions, you are well within your rights to say "As I am free to go, and I choose not to answer your questions, I will now leave."

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[blackbeak]

During voir dire I was asked, "Do you think a policeman might lie?" I told the obvious truth and was dismissed from jury duty. I guess they figured that selecting the ignorant helps the rigging process.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct response, dipwad, is:

1. "Officer, am I under arrest?".
2. If the officer says yes, demand to know what for, state that you are exercising your 5th amendment right, and shut up.
3. If the officer says no, ask "Then am I free to go?".
4. If the officer says yes, leave.
5. If the officer says no, that's the wrong answer. Rreturn to step 1.

Repeat until you are either told you're under arrest or free to go. You must be one or the other, and they know it.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[mywhitewolf]

WTF?

the guy is arrested for TRESSPASSING, "the owners want you gone, if you don't go, that's trespassing, if you haven't done anything wrong talk to the owners or call a lawyer after you have left the premises." could avoid the scuffle that you so clearly enjoyed.

instead you antagonized the situation by downplaying the legal rights of the owner and up-playing your authority.

I've seen thousands charged with resisting arrest in my country, and more often than not, the courts dismiss the charges.

People don't and won't ever like to involuntarily give up their own safety and ability to protect themselves and put complete trust into an absolute stranger who (as been proven) have almost 0 recourse for unlawful action unless caught on tape. It's reasonable to expect that a reasonable person may fight this on a purely instinctual level.

Re:Falsifying Evidence?

[TheGratefulNet]

if you get 'caught with drugs' while driving, they can take your car.

if you have money on you, they will 'associate' that with drugs and take it.

this is legalized theft.

I hope, some day, that they DO take cops' houses and cars if they are found guilty of abuse under color-of-law.

in the new revolution (yeah...) this will happen. up against the wall!

someone will snap, someday. a citizen will be pushed too far and then he'll go terrorist on the local 'law enforcement'. its been long coming, too. how long will it take? this is boiling and ready to boil over.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[DurendalMac]

Because trespassing isn't a crime, right? Fuck off.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[ehintz]

When I was a teenager partying in San Diego in the 80s, our finest used to regularly take us in on phishing expeditions, with the most awesome charge ever: conspiracy to loiter.

Naturally no charges were ever filed for that, but possession of a controlled substance, goodness me, look what we found on the loiterer in the Iron Maiden shirt... Bad loiterer.

Meh.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[fremean]

How did you keep from laughing when they asked you that question?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

When's that gonna be, when they stop airing Star Trek marathons?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[X0563511]

Assuming you are NOT under arrest, and they don't seem to be digging on you (eg "did you see such and such back over there") not being an ass and actually being helpful is the nice and ethical thing to do.

Unless you have drugs on you or something stupid like that, then you're fine. Cops are people too.

Now, if you DO have something on you or you DID do something, then you should be careful. I'm not going to get into the whole "wtf were you doing/thinking" aspect as this really doesn't matter. Just because you are not under arrest NOW, does not mean they won't take your actions NOW under determination LATER.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[X0563511]

Oh yea, because refusing to vacate private property when asked by the owner or an authorized agent of the owner totally isn't trespass.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[snowgirl]

Not necessarily the "owner" of the property either. It's the person in possession of the property, (which is not necessarily the owner of the property.)

I've had a landlord trespassed off his own property before, because he was there harassing us.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[nedlohs]

Being helpful is stupid. Unless you actually do know every law whose jurisdiction applies and that you have not broken any of them - which seems rather unlikely.

All you can do is incriminate yourself.

And of course some cops aren't beyond just making shit up so reducing the time spent with them is good in itself.

And yes it would be nice to live in a society in which helping the police made sense, but we don't.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Moryath]

They forgot "unlicensed possession of a Triforce of Power."

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[SvnLyrBrto]

In just what sort of business do the owners randomly send its security types out to give unsuspecting customers the boot for no explicable reason anyway?

It sounds like not only were you being unnecessarily confrontational, but that "the owners" were rather daft in the first place.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[demonlapin]

Actually, you should do that every time that you are approached by the police, whether or not you have a question why they approached you. And your response should always be silence or departure, depending on whether or not you have been formally detained.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being helpful is stupid.

Yes, it is.

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 (in which a lawyer tells you why you should never talk to the cops)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2 (in which a cop agrees with the lawyer)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[X0563511]

Disclaimer then: some of my family are cops, and some are soldiers. Perhaps things are just different from this perspective.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Assuming you are NOT under arrest, and they don't seem to be digging on you (eg "did you see such and such back over there") not being an ass and actually being helpful is the nice and ethical thing to do.

Completely wrong. The problem is that police officers have shown time and again that they are NOT ethical. Keep in mind that a cop is ALWAYS gathering evidence. Sure you know you didn't do anything, but you were nearby. Now you're a suspect. Wait, you were by yourself, so now no alibi. The cop will then of course make stuff up like you looked nervous or seemed anxious. Suddenly you're a prime suspect. At this point all it takes is an eye witness (people see things incorrectly all the time, police can pressure someone to talk) which carry way more weight in court than they should and you're going to jail.

You may think this sounds crazy, but just look at people finally being proven innocent by DNA years later. Turns out the cops and prosecutors got a bead on them and simply make stuff up to make the case work. Don't think police make stuff up? Read this.

A friend of mine is a lawyer. His advice, never speak to the police without your lawyer present. First, he can obviously advise you and second the cop can't later lie in court about what was said.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

by actually asserting your constitutional right to plead innocent and have a trial by jury.

It's simpler than that, they preemptively deny you the trial by jury by classifying anything that's not terribly egregious as a civil offense.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Roachie]

I used to drive a 'sporty model' and the local shit-kicker cops use to like to stop me and cite me for stupid crap.Young guy in an aerodynamic car with loud pipes, must be doing something wrong, never mind the minivan that just blew past me.

I started taking the tickets to trial, taking the opportunity to drill the officer on physics and math, velocity v acceleration, sin vs. cos, at 9pm( municipal court times ) It was pointless but entertaining, the cops didnt know how to respond to this type of questioning but the judge ordered them to answer. Im about as much a lawyer as they were mathematicians so I was always found guilty( surprise ) but it was fun.

The harassment eventually stopped. Conclusion: being a pain in the ass is a virtue.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Disclaimer then: some of my family are cops, and some are soldiers.
Perhaps things are just different from this perspective.

It's the bad apple effect.

Risk = Severity x Probability. The amount of damage a bad cop can do to an innocent civilian's life is enormous, so it only takes a few bad apples on the force to make the risk of naively cooperating with a random cop too high. It's different if you have a personal relationship with the specific officer because, chances are, you know if he's a douche or not. But when all you know about the guy is that he has a badge, the risk is pretty high.

I have cops in the family too and I'd be extremely surprised if you hadn't heard a tale or two from them about either their own exploits or that of another officer on the force, that in the sober light of day, was at least ethically wrong if not outright criminal. Part of the problem is that "good" cops let other cops get away with shit and that undermines public confidence. A little less of the "brotherhood" and a little more of the "duty" and things might eventually get better.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Z00L00K]

That's reserved for the triad and for the priests preaching about Trinity.

Oh - and it's also if you happen to have this video.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[fotbr]

I never said it wasn't.

I didn't address the made up story about rent-a-cops and trespassing, I was addressing the part where he said "people who aren't ignorant of the law buy it" -- around here, it is used only when the prosecutor doesn't think anything else will stick. It's actually a pretty good indicator of how much of a case the local prosecutors have; if they didn't include that charge, they have a pretty solid case. If they include it, you can bet they'll come offering a plea bargain, and if you tell them to shove it, you have a very good chance of getting everything tossed.

Also, note that I'm making a distinction between being arrested for something, and being charged with something. The officer can put down whatever they want on the arrest paperwork, it makes no real difference. What matters is what you end up being charged with.

Obviously that's not going to be the same everywhere, but it doesn't change the fact that where I'm at, it IS a bullshit charge.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[tragedy]

Wow. Sounds a lot like you were playing power games with those people. Nowhere in your description did you include the part where you explained to them about trespassing. By the sound of it, you just made it into "obey orders or else", with hopes that they wouldn't so you could impose your power on them.

Re:Falsifying Evidence?

[blindseer]

someone will snap, someday. a citizen will be pushed too far and then he'll go terrorist on the local 'law enforcement'. its been long coming, too. how long will it take? this is boiling and ready to boil over.

This has happened before. It has happened in the USA. We have had on-duty police get held at gun point by people fed up with the corruption. Oh, and those people that held the LEO didn't end up dead or in jail. I've had similar feelings that this police state has gone on too long and taken too much of our rights. What mostly comes to mind is an outright violent tossing of the TSA from an airport. I envision a mob going through an airport that busts up the back scatter scanners, drags the x-ray machines away, tosses those stupid little trays that they make people put their shoes and keys into, and locks the TSA agents in a room (or just chases them away).

If a lone gunman tries to take out a local police department I suspect it won't go to far. What it would take is a community effort to dislodge the corrupt police. This has happened before in the USA. I suspect it will happen again.

There was a book, Unintended Consequences, that seems to go along these lines. I believe the premise is that a group of people feel that the federal law enforcement have become essentially an occupying force. Since these federal LEOs are no longer defending liberty, but instead are defending unconstitutional law, these people declare war on them and begin to kill them off. I should actually read the book sometime instead of just the WIkipedia summary.

If things continue down this road then I suspect that there will be a time when enough people get the idea that some government agency has failed them and is now worthy of being eliminated. I'm reminded of the four boxes of liberty. They are the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. Use them in that order, starting now. Resorting to the last of the four boxes to create change in the government without first exhausting the first three makes one no better then the government agents they seek to remove from power.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[uxbn_kuribo]

Depending on what part of the world you're in, you can be lucky if trespassing doesn't get you shot rather than arrested.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Eivind]

Allthough in many jurisdictions you'll get reasonable legal costs reimbursed if you're deemed not guilty.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[isorox]

the guy is arrested for TRESSPASSING, "the owners want you gone, if you don't go, that's trespassing, if you haven't done anything wrong talk to the owners or call a lawyer after you have left the premises." could avoid the scuffle that you so clearly enjoyed.

Is trespassing a criminal offence in the U.S.? It isn't in the UK.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[KingMotley]

WTB Mod points.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[rts008]

...with the most awesome charge ever: conspiracy to loiter.

I will have to agree with you on that one, for I am truly in awe.

Conspiracy to loiter. Wow.

Well, from the 'teenager in the 80's' bit, I reckon I've about a decade on you (I graduated high school in '76), but I'm going to say something that I never imagined I would ever say:
In view of current happenings, I miss that era sometimes.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[AmiMoJo]

Problem is they can "lose" the tape from their camera, so really you need your own. Ideally what we want is a phone app that streams video and audio in real time, so that even if they take or destroy the phone it is already safely stored online somewhere.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[clifyt]

"but around here, resisting arrest is a bullshit charge lumped on by prosecutors who aren't sure they can make anything else stick."

I've been arrested for resisting arrest as well in the past, and I've had it removed.

And yet, I still agree it is a legitimate thing to arrest someone for. If you are ILLEGALLY being arrested, you most certainly have the right -- and most likely the responsibility -- to try to resist. For instance, I got pulled over by a cop when I was 16 because I briefly dated his daughter. I dumped her because I didn't care for her moral values (hmm...had to rewrite this because I realize I am now much worse than she ever was!)...he accused me of fucking his daughter and dumping her (which actually never happened...because I was a 'good' churchboy back then).

The arrest was totally illegal...and pulling someone over 'just to talk' is an arrest. If you cannot leave, you are under arrest...I told the officer to go fuck himself, and next thing I know my car was impounded and I was in jail...for resisting arrest.

Judge didn't believe me at first, but the cop actually admitted to this when I goaded him into it (first informal hearing)...and I got out of it.

This, however, doesn't mean that resisting arrest is a bullshit charge...if you are pulled over for speeding, and decide to leave -- you can be arrested for resisting arrest. Or if a cop has a legitimate reason to question you and you resist...I think its wise for society to teach these people that its not good manners. Sometimes, a cop has a legitimate right to stop you -- even if you aren't doing anything wrong -- just to talk. If they do it once, I'm cool with it...if it is a pattern of harassment...I'm not. Its funny how certain people see where the line is...the cop haters think that one time is harrassment, and the cop lovers...I'm not sure where they stand (some will say its never harassment...at least until it happens to them).

There are a lot of reasons to arrest someone for resisting. I've had my share of bad cops in my day, but I'm also lucky to have known a lot of good ones too. I realize they are people, and like most people -- there are always dicks in the crowd that stick out...

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[delinear]

Latin wouldn't help you - the latin would be "verum dicere" - I think "voir dire" is French origin.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Capt James McCarthy]

IANAL nor am I an officer of the law, however, if I understand the process, an officer can detain anyone for questioning. They can also put cuffs on you for their protection while under questioning. Still not charged with anything. But you still have the right to not speak to them.

It's a slippery slope I would think. I know officers who deal with folks who do nothing but lie all day long so they become accustomed to that. So when they come upon someone who is innocent they lose focus. Good police forces are constantly doing training with the officers to avoid such blanket assumptions though. I know it's not a job you could pay me enough money to do. And again, I would think like any other work force, 90% of them are decent folks who are logical and can deal with you in a normal way. Then you have the other 10% who give them a bad name.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Lumpy]

Judges and Prosecutors buy it every day.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Lumpy]

"Part of the problem is that "good" cops let other cops get away with shit and that undermines public confidence."

Right there is the problem. But remember, a good cop that ignores the actions of a bad cob is JUST AS BAD as the bad cop.

The only good cops I know are no longer on the force. One friend was SHOT "accidentally" in the head by another cop that was a friend of another cop he turned in for drugs and stealing.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[b0bby]

Now, if you DO have something on you or you DID do something, then you should be careful.

No, you should always be careful. I have been pulled over a number of times, mostly when I was younger, purely for being on a motorcycle or in a ratty/unusual car. Once you're in a situation with a cop, they are not your friend, and you should limit your interaction with them to the bare minimum. You should be civil, but not say anything more than required.

Now, if you're being a witness for something else, by all means the ethical thing to do is to help out, but if you're the focus then don't say anything.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[sorak]

The camera could have been used as evidence of disorderly conduct. I just wish he would stop telling the cops "I have a camera" and just try to film it in secret and put it on youtube. What he's doing now obviously isn't working, so, if he has a point, let it play out in the court of public opinion and see if local politicians can be shamed into fixing the problem.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[blackbeak]

Rhetorical question I'm sure, but crying (over the sorry state of our justice system) was more appropriate. Actually, I left the room a little shaken and confused. It just didn't feel right. How could anyone with two snapping neurons believe otherwise? Come on, man, humans might lie! How could they ever fill that jury? Btw, I was dressed appropriately, corporate like, clean shaved, with a tie, suit jacket and short hair.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[blackbeak]

My specific answer was, "I suppose possibly an officer might feel pressure to lie, say, to back up his partner for instance." Then, before I knew it I was gone!

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[h4rr4r]

That is easy enough to fix, you sue them for the deposit back and refuse to renew under those terms.

If you want access to the property I rent you must schedule it in advance or deal with the police.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[DavidTC]

Except you're resisting someone for the legitimate reason of trespassing.

Also, I'm unaware of any abilities of rent-a-cops to actually arrest anyone above normal citizen's arrest, and you can only do that for felonies, which trespassing is not.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[DavidTC]

And he tried to citizen's-arrest someone for a misdemeanor, which you can't do anywhere in the US, even in places where you can citizen arrest people.

Laws about citizen's arrest vary from place to place, and some don't allow it at all, but even the in the places that allow it, at the very very minimum to do a citizen's arrest you must has personally witnessed someone committing a felony. That's basically the lowest bar for citizen's arrest, some places have more rules, some ban it except in special circumstances, but every jurisdiction requires you to at least personally witness them committing a felony.

Note that simple trespassing sometimes become a felony, but usually either do to intent (And that takes a jury to decide.), possession of a firearm (Which the other person usually cannot determine) or other factors like previous convictions for burglary (Which the other person usually does not know.)

So the general rule is, you cannot citizen arrest someone for trespassing, unless you have personally witnessed something that would turn it into a felony. (For example, if they start stealing stuff, that makes their trespass the felony of 'burglary', which is unlawfully entering with the intent of committing crimes. Or, you can just forget the stupid trespassing/burglary stuff and citizen's arrest them for theft, duh.)

And, as you point out, you sure as fuck can't charge someone for resisting a citizen's arrest. Ever. That's not even possible. Inherent in the charge of resisting arrest is that you were resisting the arrest of a law enforcement officer.

It is entirely legal to resist even a letter-perfect 100%-correctly-executed citizen's arrest.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[MikeBabcock]

Unfortunately your legal system (see a lawyer, I'm not one) means that helping the police waives your Miranda rights. If you aided the police at one point, and then they decide to switch off and start questioning you about something you don't want to answer, its too late.

You're always best off to not answer anything.

Is this in the best interest of public security? no. Should the law allow someone to be helpful then shut up? yes, imho. Does it? no.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Dyolf Knip]

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his paycheck is dependent on him _not_ understanding it"

Re:Falsifying Evidence?

[DavidTC]

I believe the premise is that a group of people feel that the federal law enforcement have become essentially an occupying force.

See, when the premise is that the Federal law enforcement is an 'occupying force', you know it was written by a right wing loon.

Almost all instances of police corruption and brutality are local. If anything, the Feds are the people who actually solve those problems. But, no, the right has to pretend the Federal government is some big boogie-man, and local government is the solution.

Of course, in reality, all of the most horrifically corrupt governments in this country's history, all of the most murderous conspiracies, everything, it's all been local. Usually city or county, a few times it was a state.

That's not to say that the federal government hasn't repeatedly abused its authority in various ways(1), or it's never acted in a corrupt manner in the past (The blatant murder of Dillinger, for example.).

But even when you include the long past Hoover-era of the FBI, it has a much better record than 75% of the local jurisdictions out there, and more current professionalism and accountability than 99% of them.

1) Recent abuses have almost nothing to do with 'law enforcement', though. Witness the illegal wiretapping, done by the NSA, or the detainee stuff, done by the military and CIA. The actual Federal law enforcement is professional. The last actual 'abuse' was Waco, and almost all the information people think they know about the government in that is a lie.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Cytotoxic]

Evidence of what? Evidence of him having videotaped officers? This makes as much sense as when the police arrest someone on the sole charge of "resisting arrest." He was resisting arrest. Why were you arresting him? For resisting arrest. Do they really think anyone buys that?

Yes. They are called prosecutors and judges. If they are feeling generous they'll just string you along for a while and then drop the charges. That way you only lose a little time and a few thousand dollars defending yourself. But on their books, nothing happened to you at all. See? The system works!!

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[ginbot462]

I thought the same thing. Everbody knows that's what turned him anyways. (Now, for WHEN that happened ... well, that a whole another debate).

Re:Falsifying Evidence?

[Dyolf Knip]

The only thing you got wrong about this is that there isn't actually any requirement that there be drugs or any crime actually taking place. The standard of evidence for asset forfeiture is basically "suspicion of being related to a crime". No arrest, no charge, no crime actually needed. There is literally nothing stopping cops from simply pulling you over and taking your car and everything in it, except that they _might_ have a slightly harder time keeping it _if_ you later sue them to get it back. In fact, there are towns in the US with police farces that run exactly this racket full time. They pull over out-of-towners, demand they turn over everything of value inside the car or else they'll take it all _and_ the car as well and leave them penniless and stranded. They've threatened to take children from their parents during some of these shakedowns. It's beyond insane, and they don't even bother to take steps to hide it because it's entirely legal and above-board for them to do it.

Re:Falsifying Evidence?

[Dyolf Knip]

I got downvoted all to hell and back on Reddit when I pointed out that at some point, the risk of killing a cop and trying to get away with it may be safer than the risk of trying to deal with them peacefully. That's certainly already true from the perspective of the family dog.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[operagost]

How do you avoid being guilty of that? Walk alone? Walk faster?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[operagost]

So if someone's sitting on your front step and refuses to leave, you can't ask a cop to remove him? What do you do, sue him and wait a few months until the court date to see if you get to start charging him rent?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Toonol]

"If you enter a plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest' then I will look over the sworn statements by both you and the arresting officer. In which case, I will assume the written report by the officer is true and you will be found guilty."

Honestly, I would never have thought this wasn't true. If you don't think the charges are true, you plead not guilty. "No Contest" means that you aren't contesting the accusations.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[godefroi]

Might have been cheaper in the long run to stay under the speed limit. The fact that a minivan's going 20 over doesn't make it OK for you to go 10 over.

Just sayin'.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[isorox]

So if someone's sitting on your front step and refuses to leave, you can't ask a cop to remove him? What do you do, sue him and wait a few months until the court date to see if you get to start charging him rent?

Pretty much, however chances are he'll be arrested on some unrelated charge (aggravated trespass, breach of the peace).

If someone's sitting in your garden the police are more likely to interfere then if their sitting in a field you own (perhaps arresting you on suspicion of being a vagrant, then letting you go after they remove you from the site and find out you aren't).

Neither act is illegal on its own though.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[ehintz]

Best. Bogus. Charge. Ever.

But yeah, back then at least you wouldn't get put on some idiot watchlist for your evil loitering tendencies.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[ehintz]

Simple. Don't look like you might have some weed stashed on your person. Everyone knows that only potheads conspire to loiter.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[h4rr4r]

The rental agreement cannot override the law. My claim is the law in my state. The landlord cannot enter without prior notice unless there a fire or something of that nature.

Everyone should learn the laws for their state before entering into any rental agreement.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[FrellMeDead]

If saying something and/or cursing at the cops was illegal then I would have been arrested at minimum 40 times in 3 years. It's more likely that all the charges are B.S. except for resisting arrest which would be thrown out since he didn't break the law and was in fact recording the cops doing something illegal.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[snowgirl]

I'm guessing you never saw a penny of that deposit back. And I'll bet lease renewal time was a bit steep on price increases if he even considered renewing you.

He was the brother of my boyfriend at the time, so we had not actually made a deposit. (The guy was a slum lord, in kind of every definition of that term.)

And the guy was harassing us and trespassing on our property... why in the hell would anyone chose to remain at such a property?

Although, I did put up with it for a bit, and just dealt with the police, and eventually had a restraining order, which should have kept him away, but because the guy was a psychopath, he ended up breaking into the property to steal my laptop and briefcase two days prior to our court hearing. That should have been a slam dunk for getting my restraining order enforced, right? Except my idiot boyfriend at the time had called him up a ton and harassed him back, so the judge threw everything out.

That very day immediately after the court hearing, I went home, packed up and moved in with a friend.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[snowgirl]

Agreed. Assuming you didn't breach the rent agreement in which case you should become the trespasser.

(This statement is not perfectly pedantically correct, as laws may vary from state to state, and is not legal advice) If you have a valid rental contract you are not a trespasser on the property until they have a court order as the result of an eviction process, which is either a writ of eviction, a writ of restitution, or otherwise.

Namely, even if you are in breach of contract, you need a court to enforce terms of the contract, and until then your contract is presumed to be valid. (Imagine the case where a landlord, Alice, out of the blue claims a tenant, Bob, is in breach of their rental contract, and thus makes the claim that Bob is trespassing. However, Alice is simply fabricating a breach of contract. The courts would hold that Bob's contract is still valid, and that Alice's request for eviction is invalid. Because of this case, rental contracts are valid until voided by a court.)

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Roachie]

Oh, I'm not saying I didnt have it coming... Out in the hinterland I would get that sum-bitch up to 150, roll into town and get pulled over for doing 40 in a 35. So when you think of it I never 'got caught' doing anything except get driving a sporty car thru town.

But my wife drove a SUV, she could barrel thru a school zone at 80 with a disfigured 1st grader in her grill and the fuzz would not so much as blink an eye. Catch me rolling 5 over and it was gangbusters on patrol.

It was just the principle of the thing.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[X0563511]

It doesn't work that way. The Miranda warning does not invalidate your constitutional rights, which the "Miranda" warning just notifies you of.

However, if you DO proceed to "waive" your rights and cooperate, you can still withdraw your waiver explicitly. You can't just "clam up" - you have to state, say, "I am invoking my 5th amendment rights" or what-not.

The important part to note is that there is no point-of-no-return.

On a side note, they DO NOT have to issue the warning. The only effect this would have is to invalidate your statements prior to the warning's issuance as evidence in a trial (note that this does not mean it invalidates their having probable cause to go about digging further should they decide to)

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[X0563511]

er, disclaimer: IANAL.

Now, in the course of my employment I have had to take training and do coursework, because (on paper at least) I had the duties of a security guard in addition to everything else. They also wanted you to have a clue about law as well because of how often nasty situations came up because of stupid customers pissing off the FBI etc. While it wasn't part of the coursework, my teacher in one of those classes (who WAS a lawyer) brought this Miranda stuff up.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Risen888]

Assuming you are NOT under arrest, and they don't seem to be digging on you (eg "did you see such and such back over there") not being an ass and actually being helpful is the nice and ethical thing to do.

That entirely depends on what they want your help with.

Cops are people too.

Sure they are, but they're also a badge and a uniform and a job. Just as it is within my ethical purview to decide that even though good people work for Wal Mart, I cannot support their mission, it is a perfectly rational thing to determine that even though a police officer may be a good person, I cannot support their mission. I do however agree with you that that is not the only possible answer to that question. There have been times when I've rendered assistance to police, or even called them myself. Other times not.

Now, if you DO have something on you or you DID do something, then you should be careful.

So "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?"

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[cbiltcliffe]

Nowhere in your description did you include the part where you explained to them about trespassing.

What part of "The owners of this property have asked that you be removed" didn't you understand?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[godefroi]

Sure, I know exactly what you're talking about. I've driven several cop-bait vehicles over the years (first car was a '68 Camaro SS, from there to a 3000GT VR-4, and on to various sport bikes) so I'm right there with ya, buddy :)

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Legion303]

"90% of them are decent folks who are logical and can deal with you in a normal way. Then you have the other 10% who give them a bad name."

And of those 900 out of 1000 who are otherwise decent folks, 899 of them will protect the wrongdoings of the 100 bad apples, and perhaps the one will actually step over the thug blue line and say something. Or more likely just keep his mouth shut and his head down.

It's not the 10% (or whatever made-up number you care to throw out) who give cops a bad name, it's the rest--the majority--covering for the bad ones who give cops a bad name.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[alexo]

Part of the problem is that "good" cops let other cops get away with shit and that undermines public confidence.

In which case they are *not* "good" cops. They are just as bad as the "bad" cops, except maybe more cowardly.

I have cops in the family too and I'd be extremely surprised if you hadn't heard a tale or two from them about either their own exploits or that of another officer on the force, that in the sober light of day, was at least ethically wrong if not outright criminal.

And since I doubt that you did anything about it, that make you complicit. So you are also equally as bad, except maybe more cowardly.

A little less of the "brotherhood" and a little more of the "duty" and things might eventually get better.

Don't lie to yourself. You, as a cop family, are a part of that "brotherhood". Not a first-class member but a member nonetheless.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[X0563511]

Now, if you DO have something on you or you DID do something, then you should be careful.

So "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear?"

No. You might try reading to the end of the paragraph.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And since I doubt that you did anything about it, that make you complicit. So you are also equally as bad, except maybe more cowardly.

You doubt wrongly.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[alexo]

You doubt wrongly.

Enlighten me. I'll apologize.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[CtownNighrider]

Oh come on not all cops are douches. What would you do if a cop came up to you and asked "hey can I talk to you for a second, we're looking for an old guy about this tall, white. Can you help me out at all?" Would you say "No I don't have to talk to you" as soon as he/she approached you or would you try to help?

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Enlighten me. I'll apologize.

Family members have been instrumental in getting two corrupt cops sacked. I will not go into any more detail than that. I don't want your apology, just back off the trigger next time.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[tragedy]

I know I'm replying to this a bit late, but anyway... I understand "The owners of this property have asked that you be removed" perfectly well thank you. In my experience, the average person is actually a bit confused about how laws about trespassing apply to "public spaces" even when they're actually private property. Ignorance of the law, especially when it's so complex, is actually an excuse. If you really made an effort to make sure that they understood that they really didn't have a legal right to be there anymore, that's one thing. If, on the other hand, you just robotically repeated something you knew they didn't really understand, as your description implies, then you were just setting up an excuse to exercise your power. You even wrote "idiots get confused about this all the time" which shows that you knew you were dealing with people who truly didn't understand the situation and were legitimately confused.

In my experience a lot of police officers use, and are in fact encouraged and trained to use, a hard-edged, authoritarian, and in fact bullying approach to people and situations. It seems to me that approach from the start just creates more problems than it solves. For example, most of the worst riots you can think of seem to happen because of police action rather than being prevented by police action.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[MikeBabcock]

You may wish to check that with an actual lawyer before you take that set of assumptions too seriously.

I've read good evidence of situations where judges said Miranda was waived implicitly because the suspect answered the police's questions early in the investigations. Their willingness to assist the investigation could not therefore be taken back after they realized they were now a suspect.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[X0563511]

Please refer to this. It did come from a lawyer.

Re:Falsifying evidence?

[Risen888]

I did, and I don't disagree. I was simply positing that there can be other factors in deciding whether or not to assist law enforcement. Simply because I choose not to help police does not mean I did something wrong. It may also be that I believe that they are doing something wrong.

A Fair Word of Warning

[DaMattster]

We are moving at an avalanche pace towards a police state!

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[pclminion]

No, we're moving toward awareness of the police state we are already living in.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[frozentier]

No, we are 100% IN a police state right now.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[GodfatherofSoul]

Good morning, Mr. Van Winkle! You already live in one.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

We need "broadcast" 'net connected video and photo cams. That stream LIVE into hosting services in realtime.

Smash my camera. Take it away.

The goods are already distributed.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[NFN_NLN]

We need "broadcast" 'net connected video and photo cams. That stream LIVE into hosting services in realtime.

Smash my camera. Take it away.

The goods are already distributed.

I use "DailyRoads" on my Nexus S. It's a dash cam for cars that can stream to a host. I haven't actually caught anything worthwhile yet... but who knows. It's a great application and I'm not saying that just because it's free.

http://www.dailyroads.com/voyager.php

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[gandhi_2]

We pay for police at the city, county, state, and federal level. Not to mention, we have several police at the federal level. Add in a sprinkling of police at weird levels, like constables.

Then people are being payed to make new laws at the HOA, city, county, state, and federal levels.

Not much room for liberty in that mix.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

We need "broadcast" 'net connected video and photo cams.
That stream LIVE into hosting services in realtime.

Qik is one.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[Gadget_Guy]

Who's gonna pay for that? You?

Good call. It is inconceivable that anybody would pay for a mobile, net connected technology.

On another matter, can anyone tell me how this Amish Anonymous Coward managed to make this post on Slashdot?

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[obarthelemy]

the Google+ mobile app does that: it automatically uploads your photos to our google account, if you have a net connection.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[guspasho]

Combined with a passive acceptance of it, that is exactly the same thing.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[JSBiff]

No, because the courts will throw these cases out, and in some cases, prosecutors with a lick of sense will drop the charges.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[spire3661]

THey are here now. Any iphone or android made in the last year and a half can stream live to the web. Check out Qik.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[Thuktun]

No, we are 100% IN a police state right now.

The final brick in that particular wall was the aftermath of 9/11, when the nation as a whole suddenly became obsessed with safety.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No, we're moving toward awareness of the police state we are already living in.

I wish people would stop abusing the phrase "police state". There's so much more to an actual police state than "a bunch of cops are dicks".

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[hamburgler007]

When I see nypd officers dressed in fatigues with M16's patrolling Penn Station on a daily basis, the first thing that comes to mind is police state. Just because it isn't as bad as some other countries (yet) doesn't imply that we are not living in a police state.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[c0lo]

No, we're moving toward awareness of the police state we are already living in.

I wish people would stop abusing the phrase "police state". There's so much more to an actual police state than "a bunch of cops are dicks".

True... except that you don't yet know there is already more than "a bunch of cops are dicks". Maybe there's no exaggeration at all?

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[Matt.Battey]

How true. In those days right after 9/11 when they had National Guardsmen stationed in the airports, they were issued their rifles, and between 3 and 10 rounds of ammunition, less than typical police officers carry (which is about 30 rounds, two spare magazines plus a loaded weapon). It was supposedly to protect the population from further attack, as if there was going to be a full frontal assault on airports. It maybe made a few people feel safer, but not me.

I know I feel safest when there are no police, no security guards, or no bouncers around. Why? Because those people are there for a reason. There's a reason there's a police station in the center of Times Square, there's a lot of petty crime happening there.

The thing about those NYPD officers in fatigues? It's not happening just there. Some of the Douglas County Sheriff's Deputies (in Omaha, NE) are wearing them too, and mounting an assault rifle in their car instead of a shotgun. The reason? No one really likes to wear wool and polyester all year long. It's not comfortable, the fatigues are cotton. Plus an assault rifle is so much cooler than a shotgun, although for a policeman's job, not as effective. The same goes for those officers in fatigues in Penn Station. The assault rifles and fatigues are scary, so no one's going to ask them for directions, or help, easier on them. It's about using a situation to get something more for yourself, instead of responding in a cool, even-keeled manner to awful circumstances.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[gknoy]

Nobody. The Real Housewives of Dramaville are on, so most people are watching that.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[Burz]

pclminion is right... Though I would add it has been accompanied by material plenty/abundance. This has made it seem "too nice" to be a police state. Now that the abundance is subsiding its becoming more recognizable to people who rely on Hollywood imagery to define the conditions that we live in.

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[element-o.p.]

Avalanches travel at Mach 5+?

Re:A Fair Word of Warning

[element-o.p.]

Check out DailyRoads Voyager in the Android Market. It's a bit of a resource hog, but I think it will do what you are talking about.

lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite obvious. Cops are here to serve and protect, themselves, above all else. You don't take videotaped evidence of police wrongdoing to the police, that's the last thing you do. You think there would have been riots in LA had there not been a helicopter overhead filming police beating the shit out of Rodney King? Dashcam footage of that beating would have never seen the light of day. First thing you do when you have video evidence of police wrongdoing, you upload it to the internet. Plain and simple.

Re:lulz

[ClioCJS]

helicopter? huh? Check your brain. The only helicopter videos related to that were of the riots.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

You think there would have been riots in LA had there not been a helicopter overhead filming police beating the shit out of Rodney King?

There was no helicopter. It was a guy in his apartment nearby.

Re:lulz

[Anonymous Coward]

All the more reason to get a google plus account... G+ seems to have an option to upload all your phone pics and videos automatically. So even if they take your phone, if they're not clever enough to turn it off, then you still have your video online :-)

Re:lulz

[delinear]

That's where technology like this starts to be scary. Mobile data packages stand a chance of tipping the balance of power back in favour of the people, how long is it until police cars/uniforms incorporate technology that disables the mobile devices?

Re:lulz

[LittleBobbyTables]

Quite certain it was video footage from a citizen filming from their housing complex adjacent to the parking lot where the beating occurred...yeah. Not suggesting your point is wrong but atleast attempt to post informative and factual information lest you become as factual as Fox News...not a good look

Re:lulz

[i kan reed]

I'd lean towards turning the evidence in to the state attourney general, your (state) congressperson, or the FBI, all of whom are able to persue corruption at the local level with some impugnity. Putting it on the internet shames the police without actually any chance of prosecution.

Re:lulz

[Target Practice]

had there not been a helicopter overhead filming police beating the shit out of Rodney King?

Could've sworn the guy filming was on foot, at a distance...

Re:lulz

[ClioCJS]

That's what I was thinking he thought when I rebuked him :)

Here's Why

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the GOLDEN RULE.

The one with the gold makes the rules.

Yeah, that seems fair.

[p0p0]

Pick up that can, citizen.

Re:Yeah, that seems fair.

[Coren22]

Very nice HL2 reference, and very fitting. I hadn't thought of that.

It's called legal realism.

[sdguero]

Look it up.

I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[bigtallmofo]

Once when I was 16 and a huge smartass, I yelled, "I smell bacon!" out the window of a car I was a passenger in. There was a cop on the side of the road that had someone pulled over. I see him drop everything, run back to his car and get back into it. I thought there was no way he would ever catch us, and anyway I thought yelling out the window was not illegal. He didn't try to catch us - instead he radioed ahead to someone else who pulled us over within a few minutes. The cop comes up to the car, says, "Which one of you yelled, 'I'm going to kill you fucking cops'"? We played it off like it was the radio and said nobody yelled that out the window. Anyway, they took all our names, made us get out of the car, the whole nine yards. For yelling, "I smell bacon" at a cop. I guess we were luck we didn't get beat up, tazed, maced and put in jail like this guy.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I've learned not to yell anything at cops.
I guess we were lucky we didn't get beat up, tazed, maced and put in jail like this guy.

That's the wrong lesson. What you should have learned is that people with power tend to abuse it, even for the most trivial of things.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[girlintraining]

What you should have learned is that people with power tend to abuse it, even for the most trivial of things.

Yes, hence my long-standing tradition of passive-aggressive revenge tactics against authority figures.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[silas_moeckel]

If everything was right int he world the officer would be arrested for filing a false report and loose there job. Those wither greater power need to accept greater responsibility for there actions.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yeah, it's funny, when I was in school, every time I stood up in class and yelled "FUCK YOU AND YOUR FASCIST IMPERIALIST BRAINWASHING OF YOUNG IMPRESSIONABLE MINDS MRS. B!!!", I'd get sent to the principals office and otherwise punished.

Fuckers. Abusing their authority to punish me for such a trivial thing.

And the resident fascist checks in! Good to see that you are in top form, it gives me comfort that the world is still the same as it was yesterday.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowingly filing a false report should lead to penalties for the cop in question, not just merely losing the job. Those penalties should be significantly more severe than other people would get for doing something similar, since the cop is in a trusted position.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Telvin_3d]

True. On the other hand, if random people were yelling insults at me while I was at work I'd be pretty tempted to fuck with them too.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's cute when you use words which you don't understand :)

You prefer authoritarian? I don't. Just because this time your post was primarily authoritarian doesn't mean that you haven't made nationalistic, anti-egalitarian and militaristic posts in the past.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

True. On the other hand, if random people were yelling insults at me while I was at work I'd be pretty tempted to fuck with them too.

But you aren't a cop. You know, entrusted with the public good and all that "with power comes responsibility" stuff.
If a cop can't brush off a little name calling then he might as well just be a member of gang that uses guns and blue gang-colors.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[izomiac]

So, the vehicle noises, oncoming wind, doppler effect, and unfamiliar voice/accent surely had no effect on what the officer heard... Someone who regularly receives death threats as part of the job...

What was disrespectful chiding from your perspective was a potential threat from the officer's. The lesson here isn't that people abuse authority (another valuable lesson for another time), it's that one shouldn't make pointless remarks that are likely to be misconstrued. Especially to someone armed and authorized to use lethal force to defend themself against a perceived threat. Obviously it didn't come to that, but it was based on the restraint of someone you had just insulted.

Don't say things without taking into account your audience's perspective. For a police officer, they constantly see unsavory folk, nobody is happy to see them, and they face a very real possibility of being killed everytime they wear their uniform. For all the officer knew, "I smell bacon" meant you were going to "fry" him via a drive-by shooting (bacon is a form of dead pig, after all), if he even heard you correctly.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's rather annoying seeing the same buzz-words and emotional rants all the time;

If the criticism is so broadly consistent that's gotta be a pretty big indication that your self image is out of whack. If you can't handle the cognitive dissonance then don't respond to my posts, or better yet, clean up your act.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[mywhitewolf]

did you get sent to the principals office for saying "i think you're brainwashing young impressionable minds with fascist imperialist lies Mrs. b" the day before?

Delivery & content is important, try to keep it relevant.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[trout007]

That reminds me of a good to protect and serve story. I was at college and I was in the labs until about 3am on a weekday. I was driving back to my apartment on an lonely little dark road on campus where I could see the whole road. I took a few turns aggressively blowing off some steam, there were no cars in sight. Except for the cop car parked in the dark. These two guys pulled me over and I unfortunately didn't know my rights so when they asked to search my car I said ok. They pulled everything out that wasn't attached to the car there it on the side of the road and when they didn't find anything just drove off. I spent a good 15 minutes trying to find all my books and stuff in the dark on the side of the road at 3 am. I lost all respect for cops that day.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Totenglocke]

There was no way that this was "misconstrued" as a threat. The cop knew damn well that the guy didn't yell any threat, he was being a typical asshole cop. That's why you should never, ever trust a cop - because their job is to terrorize the population into submission.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yeah, I guess the 9/11-was-an-inside-job idiots are right when they accuse me of being a paid CIA "dinsinfo" agent, and the UFO fanatics are right when they insist that I'm "part of the government" so I must be covering up evidence.

Funny, I didn't say any of those things but since you appear to think they are the "same" as what I wrote I have to seriously doubt your good faith. Maybe your first post really was nothing more than flamebait.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[mywhitewolf]

Deliberately insulting your teacher - whether loudly or quietly - isn't likely to go without a reprimand.

calling him a liar is probably worse than implying a cop as a "pig". But i do see you're point, were do you draw the line?

in my opinion, both are "public servants" (not the official authority, the official authority is the people, but this isn't about whats official anyway.), i think the difference is one system you could always leave and re-intergrate elsewhere? where as the other that isn't an option?

in the end you would still be an idiot for insulting police because what they can do back, not what they should do back.

another point should be "why should police be protected against insults that everyday citizens aren't" which also ties into why should police be protected against being video taped when everyday citizens can't?

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Splab]

Not only that, around here at least (Denmark) it is illegal to insult a uniformed officer; granted they are not in the habit of throwing the books at you for minor offenses and they are relatively forgiving - however, if you piss them off they will come after you...

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[dcollins117]

You hear what you want to hear, I guess. To me, "I smell bacon" means breakfast is nearly ready.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Anonymus]

It is consistent, you're just missing some things. There is difference that is unfortunately too subtle for you to pick out yourself.

An elementary school teacher is supposed to be the absolute ruler of their own classroom (to a point). When a teacher is disrespected, especially loudly while they're trying to work, it both interferes/disrupts their work, as well as undermines the power that they are supposed to have over their classroom.

Police are not supposed to be our rulers. They are public servants who are supposed to "serve and protect". The same (in theory) goes for all of our public officials all the way up to the president. If you shouting "I smell bacon" directly disrupts the job an officer is doing, then I agree it should be punished (although not by lying like in the original poster's story). If you're just insulting a cop, and not disrupting or threatening one, then no there absolutely should not be any negative effect for it.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Anonymus]

To further clarify the different situation teachers are in, they are also temporary caretakers for the minors in the classroom. Children necessarily have limited rights in some areas. A 6-year old can't be given all the same rights as an adult, or it would never survive to adulthood to begin with (or end up a severely antisocial adult).

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[argStyopa]

What's funny is that you were being a douche, got called on it, and somehow feel you're the victim.

You weren't tazed, shot, jailed, beaten, or anything.

You were INCONVENIENCED. Oh noes!

Here's a test: drive by, and shout a random comment to a bunch of MS-13's in Los Angeles. Trust me, you won't merely be 'inconvenienced' by their response.

Perhaps your post should have been titled, "I've learned not to be a dick that yells at people as they/I drive by"

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

What's funny is that you were being a douche, got called on it, and somehow feel you're the victim.

What part of the 1st amendment says that freedom of speech only applies if you're not being a douche?

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Sounds similar to my experience when I was younger and didn't know my rights, but was still a cocky little 20 year old ass hole. I was driving back to my apartment after working a 9 hour shift at my regular gas station and then an 8 hour shift at another one that was short on people. It was about 11:30 pm on a weekday and I was coming off the freeway onto surface streets (right by by regular gas station) and while on the ramp heard someone peel out from the stoplight. Sure enough a couple seconds later when I reach the top of the ramp behind me is an Eagan cop with his flashers on. I go and do what I am suppose to do which is pull off to the side of the road so the cop can pass. Unfortunately for me the cop stops behind me and thus begins the standard inquisition:
Cop: License and registration
Me: Hand over license and registration
Cop: Do you know why I stopped you
Me: No
Cop: I heard you peel out from that stop light
Me: No I was coming off of 494 on the ramp. Besides this car is physically incapable of peeling out from a light. (It was an 85' Olds Cutlass Supreme with the 3.8 v6 that was really worn out as it had about 240,000 miles on it, lots of valve train chatter, leaked and burned oil, mis-calibrated computer controlled carb, and would foul the plug in cylinder #4 in about a month)
Cop: Where were you going?
Me: None of your business.
Cop: what is in you vehicle?
Me: I don't have to tell you.
Cop: Sir, I am going to have to ask you to step out of the car
Me: [steps out of the car]
Now the field sobriety test, which I didn't pass because I was just exhausted. So I get shuffled off to the cop car. The cop then goes and opens my car and proceeds to empty the contents of my car onto the road. After emptying the trunk.
Cop: Why do you have all these tools and car parts in here?
Me: Because I drive a fucking piece of shit car that breaks down a lot and I don't want to be stranded. (I kept all of my tools, a spare set of belts, spark plugs, and a few other odds and ends in the trunk)
Cop: You are free to go but you need to pick up all your stuff otherwise you will get a ticket for littering
Me: How about you pick up my shit that you dumped on the ground or I will report you for littering
Cop: Pick it up now.
Me: What is your badge number
Cop: (provides badge number I forget what it was)
The cop then proceeded to sit behind me in his car the whole time I load all my crap back in my car. The next morning I went down to the Eagan police station to file a complaint. Nothing ever came of that. Granted I was an ass hole but so was the cop.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Skidborg]

Still, the job ought to carry a little respect just in case one of the cops isn't a scumbag. If I was one I know I'd probably give up on the whole being upstanding thing after I see that everybody assumes that I'm corrupt and evil anyway.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[kevinNCSU]

If cops are pigs then bacon would be dead cops. You thought it was funny cause the badass shouts it on the TV, the cops don't think its funny because they're the ones who get shot for real. With the amount of gang activity in this country I'd radio ahead and check the names of people driving by shouting out the window that they're gonna kill me too.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[kevinNCSU]

Unless you live in a magical world where pigs give you bacon unharmed without dying I'm pretty sure that term could easily be construed as a threat against a police office.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[npsimons]

But you aren't a cop. You know, entrusted with the public good and all that "with power comes responsibility" stuff.
If a cop can't brush off a little name calling then he might as well just be a member of gang that uses guns and blue gang-colors.

Yeah, seriously. Anyone remember those scenes in "Full Metal Jacket" with the drill sargeant yelling all sorts of vitriol at full blast? In case anyone thinks that's harsh, it's nothing compared to a bullet wound, grenade, RPG or IED. Now, a police officer may not be expected to handle the last three, but if their feelings are hurt by some harsh words, maybe they should find another career. One where their fragile little ego isn't entrusted with power over others.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Entropius]

You don't have a legal right to disrupt a school class.

You do have a legal right to engage in protected speech on public property.

See the difference?

You're such a troll.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Entropius]

Just because some crackpot someplace called you some naughty words that happened to be crazy doesn't mean that everyone else who points out your authoritarian, militaristic tendencies is also crazy.

You have a history of arguing in favor of state-sponsored violence, and taking great delight in it, as long as I've seen your posts here.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Dyolf Knip]

The real question is, how good a language is Danish for creating stealth insults, or insults with plausible deniability?

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Still, the job ought to carry a little respect just in case one of the cops isn't a scumbag.

Respect that is mandatory is no respect at all.
It makes a mockery of anyone who actually deserves respect.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[gknoy]

If you'd give up on being an ethical and good officer, then I'm glad you're not a police officer.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Cytotoxic]

That's just patently ridiculous. Acknowledging that it is the de-facto law anywhere there is an armed officer of the state, actually taking the time to codify Cartman's "Respect my au-thor-a-tai" quip as law is crazy.

In the US the crime of "contempt of cop" is usually prosecuted under "disorderly conduct", "resisting arrest", "failure to comply with a lawful order", "assault on a police officer"... they can rack up as much of an offense for you as they'd like. So perhaps just giving them the ability to enforce their petty vendettas with an "insulting an officer" ticket would be an improvement.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[argStyopa]

1) the amendments have to do with what speech is limited by the government, ie basically none. Was he prosecuted? Was he even seriously inconvenienced?

2) congratulations, you have the 'freedom of speech' to be a douche. You're still a douche, and to expect people to somehow give you a pass on it is idiotic. Be a douche, and people will respond. Contrary to what you might believe, police are human beings. Personally I'd have preferred that an 'anonymous' tip be received that you're smuggling drugs and kiddie porn in your car, forcing them to pull you over, strip your car while you stand there in the hot sun, and then saying 'sorry, didn't find anything, have a nice day'.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[scot4875]

Being a dick that yells at people as they drive by isn't illegal. Are you arguing that it should be?

--Jeremy

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Skidborg]

I'm not saying making it mandatory, but when you see a cop and immediately think "scumbag", is it any surprise that only people who are genuinely scumbags aspire to the position?

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

but when you see a cop and immediately think "scumbag", is it any surprise that only people who are genuinely scumbags aspire to the position?

I think you have cause and effect reversed.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[wye43]

They spend most of their time near the scum of the society. Of course they are affected massively by their environment, and they transform into scum. Its very natural.

I fear police the very same way I fear criminals - and I stay away from them at all costs.

Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It's true. There should be no repercussions for yelling derogatory names at a complete stranger who is just doing his job.

The "repercussion" you get for yelling at a cop is different from yelling at anyone else then that is pretty much textbook abuse of authority. Cussing someone out is not against the law.

Police state

[gstrickler]

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it. I most places around the US, the police video tape the public every time they stop a vehicle. The public has the same right, no matter what laws they try to create or enforce to prevent you from taping them. When they're in public, you have the right to record their actions. If not, then you're already living in a police state.

Re:Police state

[Psyborgue]

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it.

That's the way it is right now. Cameras, especially internet connected cameras, threaten the status quo.

Re:Police state

[girlintraining]

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it

The police report says he was yelling a lot just before he fell down a bunch of stairs filled with tasers, mace, boots and car hoods and that when officers helped him up, he tried to pass his camcorder off to someone standing nearby, who also fell down the stairs. I find it really hard to understand why you're blaming the police for defective stairs...

Re:Police state

[Maltheus]

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it.

We've had C-SPAN for decades and it hasn't done anything to restrain congress from abusing its authority.

But of course I agree, we do have the right to monitor our employees.

Re:Police state

[SethJohnson]

the police video tape the public every time they stop a vehicle.

In Austin, Texas, when the police shoot someone they've pulled over, they are allowed to review the dash camera before having to give a statement or answer any questions about the incident. This policy was instituted by police chief Art Acevedo to ensure that the descriptions of the incidents given by officers would align with the video taped evidence. Civilians are not afforded this privilege, however.

Seth

Re:Police state

[russotto]

In Austin, Texas, when the police shoot someone they've pulled over, they are allowed to review the dash camera before having to give a statement or answer any questions about the incident. This policy was instituted by police chief Art Acevedo to ensure that the descriptions of the incidents given by officers would align with the video taped evidence. Civilians are not afforded this privilege, however.

Actually, they are. It's called the Fifth Amendment. If you assert it long enough, it becomes moot because it's hard to talk with your teeth broken and a PR-24 shoved down your throat.

Re:Police state

[krray]

I am living in a police state.

Re:Police state

[TheGratefulNet]

I'm pretty sure the Right To Bear Cameras was written into the constitution for exactly this purpose

as a non-american (of your own admitting) AND as an ex rental cop, I will speak for everyone where in saying.

STFU

and if I had mod points, I'd mod you to negative oblivion.

YOU are part of the problem. I hope you have a lot of pain in your life, 'friend', as a karma payback.

and, don't try to teach us about constitutional matters. you come off looking like an ass when you open your mouth.

Re:Police state

[mypalmike]

"the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job to the best of my ability is the moment I find something less dangerous to do"

Being accountable is a bitch, ain't it?

Re:Police state

[Red Flayer]

I'm all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system

The system is broken. There is collusion within police departments, with prosecutors, with judges that prevent the system from operating properly. One of our only weapons against the collusion and corruption that dog our system is the ability to disseminate evidence that brings the foulness into the light of day. Since you're so fond of commenting on US issues, despite the fact you're not American... the right to free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, and dissemination of videos like the ones we mention should be allowed as free speech.

Trial-by-media is necessary because the justice system has been perverted.

Re:Police state

[powerlord]

If people, especially authorities can't be recorded when in public, then there is nothing to prevent them from abusing their authority, doing anything they wish, and lying about it.

We've had C-SPAN for decades and it hasn't done anything to restrain congress from abusing its authority.

But of course I agree, we do have the right to monitor our employees.

That would imply someone was actually watching.

In today's age of Reality TV a'la "Jersey Shore" the only way to get people to watch is the way Robot Chicken jokingly suggested: http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/X-Span_Request_Live

Make it more ... interactive ...

Re:Police state

[c6gunner]

The system is broken.

Agreed. Any system which would hand Rodney King 3 million dollars is definitely broken.

Trial-by-media is necessary because the justice system has been perverted.

The state isn't about to give up it's power. I understand, and agree with, your goals - the limiting of corruption. Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime. You also create an us-vs-them mentality which is absolute poison to the survival of a civilized society. When you get to the point where police are no longer able to do their jobs, don't be surprised when the government rolls in the military, instead.

Re:Police state

[mywhitewolf]

but the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job

and yet you hold this power over the citizen every time you interact with them, maybe its time to balance the power out a bit? what happened to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about?".. there needs to be a risk involved in arresting people (and potentially ruining lives on circumstantial evidence) so that police only arrest when they have a good reason to arrest someone and don't just go arresting peaceful people who smoke dope or dance at the Washington monument because it's "risk free".

Cameras lie, all the time,

NO THEY DO NOT. people lie, cameras are hard evidence, even if they can't paint a complete picture a camera is no more capable of lying then a DNA swab or a boot print.

Re:Police state

[Antique Geekmeister]

This is inevitable with any species that competes. The competing loyalties, and privileges, are balanced day to day. It's actually not as bad right now as it has sometimes been: those of us old enough to remember the strangeness of the Vietnam era, the Nixon era, the McCarthy era, the Reagan era, or even the mad rush of patriotic ferver in place of human rights that occurred after 9/11 can testify to what hiding the evidence leads to.

Re:Police state

[c6gunner]

and yet you hold this power over the citizen every time you interact with them

Not with the courts being what they are. Even if I had my heart set on being a fascist and ruining random lives for no reason, it would be next to impossible even on a case-by-case basis, let alone as a consistent long-term policy. We can't even get the guilty convicted half the time - what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?

what happened to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about?"

It's a stupid phrase used by stupid people. Why would you bring it up?

there needs to be a risk involved in arresting people (and potentially ruining lives on circumstantial evidence) so that police only arrest when they have a good reason to arrest someone and don't just go arresting peaceful people who smoke dope or dance at the Washington monument because it's "risk free".

The two examples you cite, I agree with completely - the drug laws are ridiculous, and dancing on a monument shouldn't be a problem unless you're doing it during a funeral or some kind of ceremony. Not sure what that has to do with "risk", though - if you're talking about the risk run by cops when performing a false arrest, that's almost always present. You don't need cameras for that.

NO THEY DO NOT. people lie, cameras are hard evidence, even if they can't paint a complete picture a camera is no more capable of lying then a DNA swab or a boot print.

That's just a stupid technicality. If I have one camera that shows me shooting an unarmed man, while another camera from a different angle shows that he was reloading a gun which he had just emptied in my direction, then the first camera lies. It presents a distorted version of what happened. It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted. You can call it by whatever words you want - it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

Re:Police state

[trout007]

Here is the essence of the problem. We only have ourselves to blame. We have given up on the idea of liberty and we ask the state to impose morality on citizens by force. Laws against adults doing consensual things be they gambling, drugs, sex, ect are naturally unjust. Their enforcement cannot be conducted without causing resentment and abuse of power. So until we eliminate all vice crimes we will live in a police state. If we eliminate them then you can go back to being peace officers

Re:Police state

[Red Flayer]

Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime.

Bringing evidence of corruption to light is not demonizing police -- it is demonizing corrupt police. There is a difference, unless a premise of your argument is that all police are corrupt.

Also, you are using a bogeyman (military control) to justify allowing corruption to continue in the current system. I question your logic on this one.

Regardless, I still prefer my methods (which actually do something to stop corruption) than yours -- which is to passively allow it to continue. You are an enabler of corruption and the police state, motivated by fear.

Re:Police state

[c6gunner]

Here is the essence of the problem. We only have ourselves to blame. We have given up on the idea of liberty and we ask the state to impose morality on citizens by force. Laws against adults doing consensual things be they gambling, drugs, sex, ect are naturally unjust. Their enforcement cannot be conducted without causing resentment and abuse of power. So until we eliminate all vice crimes we will live in a police state. If we eliminate them then you can go back to being peace officers

Well said. I think some of the resentment will always be there because much of it is simple rebellion against authority, but yes: whittle the laws down to the bare minimum and you'll decrease the amount of resentment, decrease the opportunities for corruption and abuse, and increase the ability of the police force to enforce laws which matter.

Unfortunately, the "FUCK DA KKKOPS" crowd much prefer having a visible target to hate over actually doing something productive, and they're vocal enough - even on forums like these - to make rational discussion next to impossible. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason.

Re:Police state

[Ambvai]

Interestingly enough, one of my friends was complaining that the commercials were boring so I turned my computer to the most boring thing I could come up with off-hand: C-SPAN 3. What followed was a fascinating half hour about the legality of small businesses vs large businesses selling collected customer information.

Re:Police state

[mywhitewolf]

It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted.

We can't even get the guilty convicted half the time - what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?

wait, your worried you're going to get convicted, but somehow you can't even convict the guilty half the time?

That's just a stupid technicality.

what, that cameras don't lie? seems more of an inconvenient technicality than anything.

It presents a distorted version of what happened.

no it doesn't, what happened would be more distorted without the evidence to back it up. You're just concerned that people might see a one sided story and its not on you're side? ever wonder how all those "criminals" felt?

what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?

1) Well, first off you don't need to take someone to court to ruin their lives.
2) In front of wife / boss "sir, you're under arrest for child pornography" = "fucked life" does it matter that they dropped charges 20 min later? no.
3) Harassing Innocent people (aka, what this story is about) because charges were dropped previously, I do hear this far too often.
4) you have people helplessly handcuffed completely under your control. if you can't think of ways to ruin someone while they are helpless then you're too stupid to be arresting people in the first place.

now, I'm not saying you would do any of the examples above, but pretending that you can't is just ridiculous.

It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted

with the absence of a gun on the guy, bullet holes near you're position, a recently fired weapon with the guys finger prints all over it, witness accounts of shots fired from 2 different weapons (making different noise) and radio chatter of "oh god, someones trying to kill me".. I'm not sure if the second camera would be you're saving grace, in fact i don't think the first camera would make a difference to your case. Again, a camera (any camera) helps to paint a clearer picture.

now if there was a way to keep my employees accountable (cops) without keeping tabs on them directly through camera footage, I'd be happy to peruse that, but i get the impression I'd be met with just as much resistance from police.

the other side of the coin? you could always reduce police powers so they can't discuss the crimes of a 3rd party without their consent until convicted? then everything comes out "after the trial" for both sides, instead of the citizen being left in the lurch.

Re:Police state

[euroq]

m all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system. Punishing them in a trial-by-media based on some blurry footage, followed by a political decision to lock them up or dismiss them ..... that's wrong. Period.

So are you saying that people shouldn't be able to record police doing their jobs as public servants? Listen, I'm sympathetic to your worries that media frenzies can happen to cops doing their jobs, but that is obfuscating the issue. Media frenzies are not a good excuse to disallow the public from knowing what their public servants are doing. If a (wrong) media frenzy happens, that is not an excuse to prevent the public from knowing what the public servants do. Similarly, we allow the public to buy guns even though guns kill tens of thousands of people a year in this country, and I don't believe you would agree to prevent the public from buying guns because of that reason.

Re:Police state

[euroq]

Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime. You also create an us-vs-them mentality which is absolute poison to the survival of a civilized society.

No. I am also accountable for my actions at work. If I fail, I get reprimanded in some fashion. In the extreme, my career would be ruined. You are arguing against police being held accountable. If 99% of police are good and doing a good job, then 99% of police shouldn't care that they are being recorded. In fact, this is why so many police departments like the TV show COPS, because it sheds a good light on what police do, and what they have to deal with. Police being recorded, if they are doing good, is a good thing for both the public and the police.

Re:Police state

[L4t3r4lu5]

but the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job to the best of my ability is the moment I find something less dangerous to do.

Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear. If you're so scared of being filmed "just doing your job" then the manner in which you "do your job" must be questionable. Perhaps you should change career anyway.

Re:Police state

[evilviper]

but the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job to the best of my ability is the moment I find something less dangerous to do. I'm all for holding cops accountable for their actions, but the response has to be reasonable, it has to based on common sense, and it has to be carried out by the system. Punishing them in a trial-by-media based on some blurry footage, followed by a political decision to lock them up or dismiss them ..... that's wrong. Period.

Being videotaped is NOT the cause of ANY of these problems you've listed. If it was, police sure as hell wouldn't have video cameras on their dashboards.

The video is just another piece of (objective) evidence. If "the system" will steam-roll you because of that, then it's the system that has the problem that needs fixing.

It wasn't long ago that a cop shot (and killed) an unarmed man, in the back, for resisting arrest, was videotaped doing so by multiple people, and the video was aired by the media, causing a huge public outcry, yet the officer was acquitted.

What else springs to mind? Rodney King beating? All acquitted.

So now YOU tell me, where are these cases of cops NOT being given every benefit of the doubt, and instead being railroaded for doing their job?

Re:Police state

[grumble_grumble]

Of course, once they've shot you, you're probably not too interested in watching a video....

Re:Police state

[b0bby]

Anybody can be legally recorded in public, but being legal is no impediment to them getting upset about it.

Here in MD, that's not the case - video is legal, but audio taping (or the audio portion of a video) in public can get wiretapping charges thrown at you. Of course, that's only applied when the video is embarrassing to the police; when it's not, charges are dismissed. It's a bad law, and yes, I've written to my reps.

Re:Police state

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Anything important still happens behind closed doors in smoke filled rooms. We just get to see the posturing and cock waving on the floor now.

Re:Police state

[virg_mattes]

Also, if you honestly think that the cops are your employees, you're a fool. Police exist to protect the state. Protecting people can be a part of that, but legal precedent has already established that police do not have a responsibility to protect you. A cop can stand by and watch you get gang-raped and murdered, if he feels like it, without violating his legal responsibilities. The services that are provided to you, personally, are volunteer work - don't for one second mistake it for an obligation.

Whoops, you fail. The police cannot stand by and watch you get attacked without facing repercussions, because their job is to enforce the law. The thing that drives the whole "the cops have no obligation to protect you" meme is that they can't be held liable if they fail to prevent a crime. That is, if you're gang-raped and murdered, your estate can't hold them to task legally for failing to prevent it, but if an officer sees you being attacked that officer will be very likely to face charges and punishment if he doesn't do anything but watch it happen.

Virg

Re:Police state

[Entropius]

It turns out that this is overwhelmingly the attitude of responsible cops -- see http://www.americancopmagazine.com/expecting-privacy-in-public/ and many other views.

Re:Police state

[gknoy]

He meant that civilians are not allowed to review the dashboard camera video before saying anything -- not because the 5th doesn't let them delay speaking (it does), but because civilians are not allowed to review dashboard cam footage.

Re:Police state

[gstrickler]

It's a question of balance. Cameras lie, all the time, and people overreact all the time.

That's all misplaced blame. Your comments/complaints aren't related to the use of camera. That people overreact is not related to being recorded. A camera did not cause the Rodney King riots, the officers beating the crap out of him did that. The camera just exposed how brutal that beating really was. Those cops belong in jail, they broke the law. If a civilian were seen/filmed beating someone that severely, you can bet they would end up in jail, and their careers would be ruined. The police shouldn't be protected from that just because they're police. While the police must be given some leeway due to the risks and stresses associated with their jobs, they are not above the law and must be held accountable for their actions.

Cameras do not lie, people do. Cameras don't paint a full picture and should not be the only testimony, but they're far more reliable than eyewitness testimony. If you have a problem with police (or other authorities) being held accountable for their actions, then you should find another job. Good luck finding a job where you're not held accountable for your actions and the quality or legality of your work.

Re:Police state

[Psmylie]

Of course there's a right to bear cameras. Just because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right. Look through the Constitution and tell me where it says you have a right to breathe, walk, read, or have consensual sex. Should the state be allowed to take any of those away because "it's not written in the Constitution"? No, of course not.

It's important to remember that the Constitution doesn't GRANT rights. It's assumed that, unless otherwise noted, those rights exist and are protected. There are very specific ways in which the state can violate those rights, and the Constitution spells those out (such as: needing probable cause or a warrant for a search).

Re:Police state

[SuperTechnoNerd]

"The public has the same right, no matter what laws they try to create or enforce to prevent you from taping them."

Yes if you want to end up in jail for a few days, have your apartment searched, have you equipment taken, and have to pay a lawyer; after all that you probably will have all the charges dropped.(unless they find something else in the search - And they will..) But do you really want to cross that bridge? Not to mention having your name on the cops or some government shit list. Intimidation by those with power is a powerful .

Re:Police state

[euroq]

Read through the lynch-mob mentality here on slashdot, then tell me that again. And these are supposed to be educated people with a bit more common sense than the average hick. For an even more fun experience, go surf youtube - you can find hundreds if not thousands of videos of police using reasonable escalation of force in order to arrest a suspect, each of which has thousands of comments filled with vitriol, demands that the cop be executed, his family be raped, etc, etc.

I really do sympathize with a cop who has to deal with that. And I am still adamant that such comments on YouTube are by far and away no excuse for not allowing the public to record public servants.

The statements you are making are called Strawman Arguments (google it). Just because horrible comments on YouTube are made from a recording of police officers by the public don't mean that the police should be allowed to operate as public servants in private without accountability. If a person in the public abuses or threatens a cop, that is illegal and it is illegal regardless of whether or not the police are being recorded. In fact, the fact that someone is committing a crime and it is being recorded is even better if it is being recorded, because it is proof above just the officer's testimony.

Re:And people wonder why they want guns protected?

[Ruke]

I imagine if this guy was waving a gun around, instead of a video camera, he'd be dead right now.

So much for moving there...

[CrazyDuke]

So, what happened to this bastion on libertarianism I heard so much about? Oh, well, at least I won't need to look for work up there anymore.

Re:So much for moving there...

[FredFredrickson]

Oh god, given the chance, the free state project would transform new hampshire into an anarchy. Police would only be better in the sense that my privatized police are better than yours, if you could afford them. Don't forget the FSP is libertarian. Their ideals look good on the outside, until you really think it through- most libertarian ideals are just that- ideals.

Re:So much for moving there...

[Totenglocke]

I say we change it to Ohio - better climate, plenty of farm land, some big industry cities, and extremely nice gun laws.

Re:So much for moving there...

[surgen]

So, what happened to this bastion on libertarianism I heard so much about?

As someone who recently moved here, it basically just means no income tax and becoming a right to work state.

National Record The Police in Public Day

[physicsdot]

We need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". I think that a public event like this would enforce the point far more strongly that the police losing an occasional lawsuit.

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day

[NFN_NLN]

We need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". I think that a public event like this would enforce the point far more strongly that the police losing an occasional lawsuit.

There are a lot of the days that are meaningless. But this I could really get behind. +1

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

We need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". I think that a public event like this would enforce the point far more strongly that the police losing an occasional lawsuit.

Watch as a few of the more corrupt departments announce a "Put the picture and name of anyone filming us into NCIC tagged as a troublemaker Day."

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day

[Antique Geekmeister]

Excellent. We should all read XKCD and change our names, first.

            http://xkcd.com/327/

Bringing NCIC to a thundering crash could be delightful in forcing people to actually look at who is in that database, and why.

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day

[EnergyScholar]

Agreed, this is a very worthwhile thing to do. I suggest July One 2012 as the first one. This seems like a natural for Facebook. National Record the Police Day should have flag-waving and patriotic sentiment. Participants should be very polite and law-abiding, and should operate in groups of two or more. Each group should have one large and visible camera, and at least one small and discreet camera carried by someone not visibly associated with the main group. This would also be a great environment to use phone software that uploads video in real time, preserving video evidence in the case of a confiscated phone.

Some states that claim recording police in public is a crime. If we allow this precedent to stand we are further enabling the rise of the police state. This is an excellent opportunity for non-violent civil disobedience, in the style of King and Gandhi. Such laws will not stand up to public scrutiny.

Hey, Slashdot Geeks, let's make this one actually happen!

Bruce
energyscholar@gmail.com

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day

[SuperTechnoNerd]

I love this idea!

Re:National Record The Police in Public Day

[sunzoomspark]

We need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". I think that a public event like this would enforce the point far more strongly that the police losing an occasional lawsuit.

This sounds like a very good idea! It would be good to pick a day with some historical significance. None springs to mind at the moment, but something that would make it very ironic (and maybe newsworthy) if someone got bothered by the police for taping them.

Stranger than Fiction

[skywire]

This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera

Preserving it is falsifying it? Orwell had nothing on this.

Re:Stranger than Fiction

[sorak]

This time it's 'falsifying evidence' because he tried to hand off the camera

Preserving it is falsifying it? Orwell had nothing on this.

IANAL, and I don't know much about chain of custody rules, but the camera is evidence. Allowing people who are not in law enforcement to run off with evidence could make it inadmissible in court. If the evidence can no longer be trusted, that could fit the legal definition of "tampering". Again, IANAL.

Re:Stranger than Fiction

[Monchanger]

The quote you used was editorialization and supposition, not a known fact, claim, or report. There is no information on why the charge of falsifying was made. Here's the only mention of "falsifying" in the Telegraph article:

Reynolds was charged with falsifying physical evidence and resisting arrest, police said.

Note that "Reynolds" is the woman receiving, fleeing with, and hiding the camera, not the guy who allegedly made the recording. So the knee-jerk anti-authoritarian populist accusation is obviously wrong- he, by recording the police, wasn't charged with falsifying. Rather:

Gannon was charged with resisting arrest, simple assault on a police officer and disorderly conduct.

In fact, there's absolutely nothing in these charges related to recording police, so this whole discussion is irrelevant to this event.

Considering how the suspect has a history provoking trouble and videotaping, I'd be as inclined to believe a charge that he was yelling something into the camcorder like "stop hitting me" prior to any physical contact, as I would to actual police misconduct. I'm not in any rush to judge without watching the video tape, reading an official police report, and hearing testimonies of the accused.

Of course, we don't care about evidence and truth here on the Internet, since it's easier to simply convict whichever party with which we don't sympathize in order to promote our own agenda. It's scary to think politicians might listen to idiots like the submitter and other commentators here when deciding to vote on nominees to the supreme court.

Google+

[Ruke]

The feature I love most about Google+ is that, as soon as I take a picture or a video on my Android phone, it is immediately uploaded to my Google+ account, without any further action on my part. Suddenly, having control of the device isn't enough to guarantee that you have control of the data.

Re:Google+

[stealth_finger]

The feature I love most about Google+ is that, as soon as I take a picture or a video on my Android phone, it is immediately uploaded to my Google+ account, without any further action on my part.

I can see that biting you in the ass sooner or later....maybe not you personally but people in general.

Re:Google+

[Ruke]

Yeah, I realize that the feature isn't for everyone. It's tempered by the fact that I had to enable this functionality specifically, in addition to installing the Google+ app, and the fact that the uploads default to "private to me" when they're uploaded - I have to mark each one with whatever circles I want to share it with. Absolutely, there are risks and concerns, but, in my case, and for the time being, they're outweighed by the benefits.

Re:Google+

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It needs a way to specify at session start what you want to do with the recordings, and do it via easy-to-pick "profiles" so you could have your "taking naked pictures of the girlfriend" profile which won't auto-upload anything and the "oh shit" profile that uploads everything immediately and makes it 100% public too.

Re:Google+

[bluemonq]

Pro-tip: smash the phone yourself as soon as it's done uploading. You might be out a few hundred bucks, but at least you'll have secured the evidence.

Re:Google+

[spire3661]

And secured an Obstruction/Tampering charge.

Re:Google+

[Insightfill]

Yeah, I realize that the feature isn't for everyone. It's tempered by the fact that I had to enable this functionality specifically,

Hmm - I just installed it today and didn't think anything of it. A few hours later I was in the store and took a picture planning to email it to my wife, when I saw an "uploading" prompt. I started digging around and finally saw that it was Google+, and it was configured to "upload photos via mobile networks".

I didn't want the thing sucking down battery that quickly, so I set it to do it only on wifi. Having read this story, I may go back to the "mobile networks" thing.

Re:Google+

[countertrolling]

But remember this is Google. If the authorities order them to freeze/delete the account, no doubt they will comply, just like all the other big shots in this business

We don't need no steenking warrant, man

Re:Google+

[ADRA]

The pic/video is just uploaded, but you actively have to take the step of sharing it with others explicitly. It won't just be uploaded and marked public or something equally horrific.

Re:Google+

[Totenglocke]

........this may finally give me a reason to do Google+

Re:Google+

[Plombo]

Depends on the authorities. I don't see why Google would be inclined to pay attention to a demand from a municipal government with no regulatory authority or control over it.

Re:Google+

[Ruke]

But the police need to recognize that you've got a G+ account, and figure out how to bullshit their way through the bureaucracy. I mean, maybe Google would do it, but they're not going to automate the process. All you've got to do is tell your lawyer, "My username is 'countertrolling', and my password is 'trustno1'. Get those files for me and put them somewhere safe."

And at this point we've devolved into an elaborate fuck-the-man revenge fantasy, with no actual bearing on reality. =(

Re:Google+

[martinX]

And at this point we've devolved into an elaborate fuck-the-man revenge fantasy, with no actual bearing on reality. =(

No way. You have to add the 5 years of kabuki ninja training we will undertake in order to destroy that corrupt force from the top down, including the cop that is just weeks away from retirement.

Re:Google+

[bluemonq]

Then "accidentally" drop it on the ground and "accidentally" step on it.

Douchebags

[Mullen]

NASHUA – Maybe Michael Gannon shouldn’t have given lip to two police detectives that afternoon.

But Gannon claims he wouldn’t have said a word on July 1 if a detective – unprovoked, Gannon said – hadn’t shouted something at him as their unmarked police car passed by on Canal Street.

Sounds like a couple of douche bags yelling at each other. The police should not be yelling anything at anyone unless it is part of their job and Mr. Gannon should just learn to ignore stupid comments. If either of these two people had the slightest bit of decorum, it would be a non-issue.

However, Mr. Gannon will win. The police don't seem to have much of a case to stop him in the first place. And while being a douche is dumb, it is not against the law.

Re:Douchebags

[silas_moeckel]

And the officer in question will get what? Fired would be the correct response I'm thinking maybe some days of suspension with pay (AKA vacation)

Re:Douchebags

[Snarky McButtface]

Could this be why people are shooting back?

Re:Douchebags

[TheGratefulNet]

five years with zero chance of parole.

you know what they do to cops in th pokie?

it would be too good for 'em.

zero tolerance for cops that go astray.

(that would be a 50% reduction right off the bat).

they carry lethal force and can ruin your LIFE.

I say: zero tolerance. one bad report that turns out to be true (ie, conviction) and its game over. pokie and getting 'poked'.

if we really want to fix our laws, any reports of cop abuse should be heard by a non-cop citizen committee. no judges, no cops, no lawyers. JUST PEOPLE. people who are not on the take or who do not have connections.

_(yeah, and then I woke up)_

Re:Douchebags

[sjames]

In a way it makes it all the worse. Just how petty and childish do those cops have to be to abuse the public trust over a bit of name calling? And for the second time no less. It sounds like they're not yet grown up enough to be allowed to have a gun. Or for that matter, any amount of authority or responsibility for anything beyond emptying the trash.

Re:Douchebags

[KTheorem]

Couldn't agree more. The justice system is very fond of claiming that harsh punishments deter crime. We should make them put their money where their mouth is and punish cops who break the law by having mandatory additional jail time on top of the normal sentence for whatever crime they committed. You could implement it as an 'abuse of authority' law. You break the law while acting in the capacity of your job as a police officer (I am aware there are some jurisdictions where cops are 'on duty' 24/7 in which case this would apply 24/7) and it's an extra 2 years + half the sentence length for the crime committed.

I think similar should be done for prosecutors. If you say something in your role as prosecutor about a defendant that turns out not to be true, even stating that the defendant is guilty if they are acquitted, you should have to serve time. How many people's lives have been ruined because of public perception brought on by a mouthy prosecutor? There should be punishments for doing that.

Re:Douchebags

[c6gunner]

zero tolerance for cops that go astray.

(that would be a 50% reduction right off the bat).

they carry lethal force and can ruin your LIFE.

I guess you're in favor of the same punishment for drunk drivers?

Re:Douchebags

[Dhalka226]

Quite possibly. What's the issue? Having the right to say something does not automatically mean it should be said. It never has and never will.

Now the police arresting him for it, on the other hand -- that is a big deal that needs to be deal with swiftly and severely.

Re:Douchebags

[KDR_11k]

What do you expect from a magical gerudo-pigman?

Re:Douchebags

[abigsmurf]

It would be 100% reduction because you wouldn't be able to recruit any police officers.

Everyone makes mistakes, even the best cops, over a 30 year period are going to make a few bad judgements (even if there's a 0.01% chance of them making a bad call). No amount of training will eliminate mistakes, especially given that they're involved in high stress situations involving unpredictable situations where their personal safety may be at risk and they have to follow a thick book filled with laws and regulations.

So tell me, how do you plan to recruit 700,000 police officers, who are very intelligent, have impeccable judgement, are capable of showing an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law, are willing to put their lives on the line, are happy knowing that a single mistake will end their career, lose their pension and give them an unspeakably hellish 5 years in prison? All for a typical salary of $45,000?

Applying your reasoning. A nurse/doctor/surgeon fails to spot a condition or makes a judgement call that proves to be wrong and a patient dies from complications that result. Do you think they should be tried for murder?

Re:Douchebags

[del_diablo]

Lets do this really simple:
1. Each cop carries a blackbox, that records and tapes his or her actions
2. The "zero tolerance" only applies to cases where the cop lied
If you do a bad judgment, and admit it, it is just normal penality. If cops can not be that maturewhat is the bloody point of having cops in the first place?

Re:Douchebags

[abigsmurf]

It's never simple.

What if, for example, there's a dispite over acceptable levels of force used? Would you then treat the cop as lying even if he genuinely thought his level of force was acceptable and it took a long court case to determine it wasn't?

The law books are vast tomes purely because offences can't be simply defined and once you get into that level of detail, you may as well go with existing legislation rather than complicate the laws and regulations further.

Re:Douchebags

[Cytotoxic]

I'll take that bet. "Proper procedures were followed" is the normal conclusion to these situations. Even when they shoot and kill an unarmed man on video the finding is always "the officer acted withing proper police procedures". In this case they were classy enough to also arrest Mr. Turner's children for yelling at the police (who had just killed their father). You'd think having just attacked their father from behind and then killing him they'd be a little charitable about the kids being upset. But no, they've been charged with making criminal threats and participating in a criminal street gang for yelling at the people they see as their father's murderers.

Don't worry though, the system works. The video evidence from the store will show what really happened. Oh, darn! It seems that the video cuts out just a second before the police shoot and kill Mr. Turner. Don't worry though... it picks up again a few seconds later. So, nothing to worry about here. Everyone did a great job!

Re:Douchebags

[Cytotoxic]

. If you say something in your role as prosecutor about a defendant that turns out not to be true, even stating that the defendant is guilty if they are acquitted, you should have to serve time. How many people's lives have been ruined because of public perception brought on by a mouthy prosecutor? There should be punishments for doing that.

Hey that's exactly how it works! Ok, not really. They've granted themselves something called "absolute immunity". It doesn't really exist in law, per se. But the courts have codified it for us. A prosecutor can actually frame someone for murder and face no recrimination from the justice system whatsoever. Not even civil liability. Strangely, some of the latest case law on this was provided by singer Harry Connick Jr.'s dad. Seems his office was involved in some pretty egregious violations in more than one case. But the supreme court ruled that they couldn't be held liable - even though one of their prosecutors (Deegan) admitted the frame-up before he died.

Re:Douchebags

[alexo]

The justice system is very fond of claiming that harsh punishments deter crime. We should make them put their money where their mouth is and punish cops who break the law by having mandatory additional jail time on top of the normal sentence for whatever crime they committed. You could implement it as an 'abuse of authority' law. You break the law while acting in the capacity of your job as a police officer (I am aware there are some jurisdictions where cops are 'on duty' 24/7 in which case this would apply 24/7) and it's an extra 2 years + half the sentence length for the crime committed.

I think similar should be done for prosecutors. If you say something in your role as prosecutor about a defendant that turns out not to be true, even stating that the defendant is guilty if they are acquitted, you should have to serve time. How many people's lives have been ruined because of public perception brought on by a mouthy prosecutor? There should be punishments for doing that.

This will never work, due to the following:

1) It makes sense.

2) People in power do not pass laws against people in power.

3) What's the point of having power if you are not allowed to (ab)use it for your personal benefit?

Falsifying Evidence?

[haulbag]

Isn't falsifying evidence when you give false evidence? How is trying to preserve your own evidence by keeping it away from the police classified as falsifying evidence?

These police officers were way out of line. Sounds like they can dish out their own insults, but they can't take it. They should both receive mandatory anger management and be kicked off the police force for using excessive force. I mean, what do you do when the police act like criminals -- just play along and let them bully you? Actions like these make people afraid of the police, and that has terrible consequences for community policing.

I'm pretty sure Mr. Gannon is right: he does have a right to video tape anyone in public, including the police. AFAIK, the rule there is that if there is an expectation of privacy, you can't record people and use it as evidence. But on a public street, there is no expectation of privacy.

But I wonder if there is another reason for why he ditched the camera. Maybe it was because it would condemn him instead of the police. The article doesn't really tell both sides of the story, so that is possible. I guess we'll see after the contents of the video are made public.

New app

[sustik]

I wonder how long before there will be iphone and android emergency apps which record a video
and instantly upload (stream) it to the internet. I suggest the names: Evidence, Police Check Mate, Truthful
Police, Little Brother.

If you develop this app please *do not* credit me with the idea...

Re:New app

[mysidia]

You mean like Gandhicam ?

Re:New app

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

How about if they call it "www.qik.com" and the corresponding free apps that go with it. Oh wait, they've already done that...

Re:New app

[Anonymous Coward]

The Google+ app for android has such a feature....instant uploads of photos and videos.

Re:New app

[mark-t]

Probably only for android. It is unlikely that Apple would ever approve such an app if that purpose was even implied.

Re:New app

[sustik]

Gandhicam is for android only and not yet available through the marketplace. But thanks I will give it a try!
"Currently Gandhicam for Android is a beta version, meaning it is still under active development, and not yet considered ready for widespread use. However, it is installed and working on several project-members' handsets, and has yet to cause a single issue. It also does nothing which could potentially cause data-loss or corruption, so it should be perfectly safe to install and play with, regardless of its beta-development state."

qik appears to be some skype like video chat app. That is not exactly what we need. I meant something preconfigurable that backs up the video off the phone but only available to the owner if so desired.

And my names are way cooler!

Re:New app

[srjh]

I might be mistaken, but I think qik allows that.

You can stream live video to an account (much like the related app for ustream), and/or download it later. If you set the privacy options properly, no-one else will see it, but you'll still be able to download it afterwards.

Re:New app

[TheGratefulNet]

a month ago, apple files a patent about 'auto turn-off of cameras' if there is an ir spray nearby (of the right code).

apple phones are the LAST thing I'd trust to protect my rights. sheesh.

Re:New app

[giorgist]

You mean like Goggle+, dropbox, dropsnap allows you to do that now as well as a slew of other apps.
Wait for a few months and go patent it

Re:New app

[sustik]

I respond to you, because it appears you did not get it. But you were not alone.

Yes, you can sort of achieve the goal stated using existing solutions, however not exactly and not with ease. A dedicated app would still be of value.

When Gandhicam is released it will come pretty close. (My first comment was that there is no app in the stores.)

Here are a few features that would be useful for a dedicated app:
1. The camera records without the picture showing on the phone. Actually, after activation of the stealth recording app the phone behaves like it does not record at all: the lock screen is shown if applicable etc. You cannot turn off the mode without some password authentication or removal of the battery. (So ideally the off button would make the phone pretend its off but keep recording.)
2. No trace is left of the recording on the phone. No directory is set up to be shared etc.
3. Nice option would be if the forensic could reveal only a dummy prerecorded video.
4. Tag the video with the gps data.
5. Use encryption to allow authentication of the recording if wished only. (Do not reveal the id otherwise.)
5. Allow preconfiguration of maximum time to run the recording when no picture or sound is recorded. (Phone locked in drawer etc.)
6. If time limit reached, wipe the phone.
etc.

Re:New app

[kanweg]

As patent applications are secret for 18 months after filing, I wonder how you know that. So, they did that much longer ago. If the system is ever going to be used in real life, it can be foiled with an IR filter. So, somebody can develop and sell that. Would keep your lens protected at the same time.

Bert

Re:New app

[0100010001010011]

So ... like Qik. And Google+

Google+ automatically uploads after.
Qik does it life if it has network. You can even set default privacy settings so that only you can watch the video. OR you could stream it live at qik.com/username

Re:New app

[strikethree]

You can choose to have your pictures and video uploaded automatically to google+. I have the app on my phone. It also allows you to make the pictures immediately public if you want. (default is private)

strike

Re:New app

[DJ Particle]

Qik is available for iOS.

Re:New app

[gknoy]

Upload-after-filming is nearly worthless in the case you want uploaded video the most, namely when your phone is confiscated/broken during/after you experience abuse. You need a solution which streams the upload, so that only the last few seconds are lost if your phone has an unfortunate experience with a boot, curb, or police officer. The device should be treated as disposable, with the expectation that it will be destroyed or confiscated before you have finished filming.

The concerns about Qik being a corporation (who will certainly hand over any video that is asked for nicely) are valid, and I'd prefer to be able to upload to a computer that I own (in my home or in a colo), which could then handle archival or (optionally) uploading to Youtube or any other video hosting service.

I'm really thankful that I've never been in a situation where I've wished I could record+upload video.

Re:New app

[snadrus]

I never figured out how to make it work with my site (and I'm a PHP coder) and the site Author never responded. I switched to ustream.tv

DA's office?

[thisisauniqueid]

I thought this is the sort of thing the DA's office was for?

Re:DA's office?

[CriminalNerd]

The DAs will lose political clout with the police if they prosecute cases, even ones with mountains of evidence unless the expected political backlash is too great. Chances are, they'll just accidentally forget about it and/or rough up the guy a bit for show to pretend they thought he had no case.

Re:DA's office?

[gfreeman]

Surely the political clout from the public is greater than the political clout of the police

Fuck The Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck The Police

Re:Fuck The Police

[Ihmhi]

Sting's handsome, but not thathandsome. And don't get me started on the other guys.

Re:Fuck The Police

[L4t3r4lu5]

Comin' straight from tha underground!

*Arranges fingers in pseudo-complex gang sign*

*facepalms*

[Gideon Wells]

I guess I can cross New Hampshire off the states to consider moving to as a semi-pro photojournalist. Not that I was seriously considering them.

Let's see who else is on that list so far. Kansas, Alabama, Arizona... any other suggestions?

Re:*facepalms*

[JSBiff]

Maybe Massachusetts - right now, they are trying another case of someone recording police in public as "wiretapping" and "aiding a prisoner escape".

BTW, before you write these states off, might let the cases work their way through the courts. I suspect the courts will say this is utterly absurd, unconsitutional BS, and throw them out.

However, I suppose you might *still* write those States off because who really wants to have to go to court to prove your innocence when the state shouldn't have arrested you for doing something plainly constitutional. I know I'd rather live in a state where the public officers fight to uphold the constitution, instead of fight to work around it.

Re:*facepalms*

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, in Pennsylvania and Maryland the courts have stepped pretty hard on authorities who have persecuted people for recording the police in public (of course that was partly because the authorities did it within the jurisdiction of the same court that had already ruled that the state wiretapping law did not apply to recording the police acting in their official capacity).

Re:*facepalms*

[yt8znu35]

I know I'd rather live in a state where the public officers fight to uphold the constitution, instead of fight to work around it.

What state would that be?

Time to imprison the criminals uhrm cops.

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to arrest those detectives and put them behind bars permanently.
They are time bombs waiting to go off, they will eventually kill to keep someone from exposing their crimes.

Wow. so police has become judges now.

[unity100]

'according to police, thats wiretapping'.

i dont remember any police force in any country having been given the authority to interpret laws. attorneys, lawyers, judges exist for a reason.

Re:Wow. so police has become judges now.

[fotbr]

Depending on the officer, they've also become executioner as well. But they have the handy excuse of mistaking their gun for a taser when they do that.

Re:Wow. so police has become judges now.

[c6gunner]

i dont remember any police force in any country having been given the authority to interpret laws.

You're joking, right? What do you think they're doing every time they make an arrest?

Re:Wow. so police has become judges now.

[hedwards]

Just because they're the ones that said that it's wiretapping doesn't mean that they're interpreting laws. The law is very clear that this is wiretapping. The question is whether or not it's illegal in this instance.

As for interpreting the law, how else are they going to do their jobs if they're not interpreting the law? Wait for a jury verdict before making an arrest?

Re:Wow. so police has become judges now.

[unity100]

d.a.s exist for a reason.

Re:Wow. so police has become judges now.

[Legion303]

Or the handy excuse of mistaking the suspect's can of pop for a gun.

Re:And people wonder why they want guns protected?

[ThePeices]

Well Duh! its a gun!

Videocameras dont kill people at the push of a button, or press of a trigger.

Things have to change

[erroneus]

Among these are abuse of "wire tapping" laws which must be reformed in states that require two party consent. Recording public events is not and should never be considered wire tapping. Where is the wire? Where was it being tapped?

This case needs to go to trial and speedily. Police dropping charges only means that they are free to continue their harassment and terrorizing.

People need to make copies of their videos before presenting them as evidence anywhere. One should go to the FBI, others to news organizations and still more somewhere online. (There must be a service somewhere that allows hosting of large encrypted files which can then be made available to all with a key file kinda like the wikileaks thing.)

All of this wrong really gets under my skin sometimes. When you have to defend yourself against police, things have gone way too far.

Re:Things have to change

[hedwards]

The wire tapping statute is just where they put the restrictions on recording other individuals for practical and historical reasons. I'm not aware of any state in which wiretapping is literally wiretapping. Hell even when wiretapping a phone they don't even tap into the wire the way that they used to.

Re:Things have to change

[Ihmhi]

(There must be a service somewhere that allows hosting of large encrypted files which can then be made available to all with a key file kinda like the wikileaks thing.)

Sadly, CookedBacon.com is already taken. And that would've been the perfect name!

Re:Things have to change

[gknoy]

What about ...
MakinBacon.com, BaconFeed.com, Minitruth.com, or the like? I don't think that bacon references are the best way to go, as that seems inherently disrespectful to police. What about EvidenceLocker.com?

Ahh, New Hampshire

[Alien Being]

I like New Hampshire. "Live Free or Die". New Hampshire used to stamp it into the license plates on every car. I liked that. I also liked The Old Man of the Mountain.

Now, i like this guy. Balls made of granite.

Re:Ahh, New Hampshire

[Taty'sEyes]

The real question is, "is it time to die for your beliefs yet" or do we continue to post complaints on slashdot? Nothing will change until we've had enough. Very few have the fortitude to stand against oppression. I'm not sure I'm there yet. I still hold out some hope of the vote. But I'm more cynical each day.

Re:Ahh, New Hampshire

[russotto]

The real question is, "is it time to die for your beliefs yet"

Dying for your beliefs doesn't help. The line attributed to Patton about "the other bastard" is quite applicable.

Re:Ahh, New Hampshire

[Rob the Bold]

The real question is, "is it time to die for your beliefs yet"

Dying for your beliefs doesn't help. The line attributed to Patton about "the other bastard" is quite applicable.

Either Patton or George C. Scott: "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

So who in New Hampshire needs their zerks greased?

He's asking for it

[failedlogic]

Sorry but this dude is asking for it. He has a similar last name to the bad guy from the Zelda games. The cops are doing us a favor. Think of the children!

Re:He's asking for it

[sorak]

Sorry but this dude is asking for it. He has a similar last name to the bad guy from the Zelda games. The cops are doing us a favor. Think of the children!

When he turns up dead with a silver arrow through his skull, I'm blaming you!

Wiretapping? How?

[ThePeices]

Wiretapping? Why not call it tax evasion, or driving while under the influence of drugs? They all have absolutely nothing to do with videotaping police.

What "wire" was "tapped"?

Re:Wiretapping? How?

[hedwards]

None, but it's filed under the same rules that wiretaps are. Videotaping and audio recording are both forms of wiretap when done in a surreptitious manner. And you do need to have consent of one or all parties involved depending upon the state you're in.

Re:Wiretapping? How?

[DrKnark]

Do you need consent in a public location? Honest question, I'm not from the US. In Sweden you can film, record audio and take as many pictures as you like in any public place including inside buildings.

Re:Wiretapping? How?

[ravenscar]

I do believe that this applies only in the cases where the person being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person, while on a public sidewalk, doesn't (in my opinion) have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Listen to the song "I fought the law."

[Anonymous Coward]

I fought the law, by the Dead Kennedies sums up this situation.

They can do whatever they want. Don't think otherwise. Who's going to stop them? They can plant some dope and you'll be in the joint for as long as it takes to break you. They can (and will) break your face, shoulders and wrists.

Even if you don't like the music, listen to the song once... and listen to the lyrics.

Re:Listen to the song "I fought the law."

[Travelsonic]

And this prevalent apathy, ladies and gentlemen, is why it never changes.

Re:Illegal to film?

[FredFredrickson]

Even better- if you're not-for-profit, and you've done it from a public place, you don't even need to cover their faces! The only reason to cover their face isn't an inherent illegal bit- only that it leaves you more liable for defamation if that person chooses to sue because you've misrepresented them. It's not guaranteed they'd win.

No Expectation of Privacy

[stating_the_obvious]

Even if NH is one of the silly states that requires 2-party consent, it's hard to believe that police officers, engaging in publicly visible activities, in public areas, have a a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The article says: "It also probably didn’t help Gannon’s cause that he told police he was videotaping the incident with a small Kodak mini camcorder". It would probably help his case if he'd been able to claim that his taping was being done visibly.

This issue comes up enough that it needs to be settled -- preferably at the Federal level.

Re:No Expectation of Privacy

[Freddybear]

There have been several court rulings that the police do *NOT* have any expectation of privacy, and these sorts of wiretapping cases generally get overturned pronto. But that doesn't stop the cops from hassling people, and the "internal investigation" will clear them regardless of any video evidence, assuming the investigators even bother to look at it. And good luck getting your camera back in one piece.
Oh, and then there's a little concept called "qualified immunity" which means the cops can't be held liable for what they do "in the furtherance of their duty" as long as they have the least, feeblest excuse that they didn't know they weren't supposed to do it.

Pretty soon ...

[Selanit]

... we'll have sufficient bandwidth that video shot from a mobile device can be uploaded straight to the web, with only a brief "buffering" stop on the actual filming device. Then they can confiscate the device as much as they like, but the video will be beyond their grasp due to the technical difficulty of 1) figuring out where it went, 2) getting the host to take it down, and 3) doing so before the original filmer (or friends) can spread copies of it all over everywhere.

Shortly after that, some bright lad will suggest jamming devices to disrupt the transmission, which will pose all kinds of problems for them, such as disrupting their own signals. So then they may try short range hand-held EMP devices, which will work great right up until they fry somebody's pacemaker. Meanwhile, people will busily be miniaturizing the technology even further, so that observers could be filming the cops' activity without any obvious sign of it.

And eventually they'll give up and conclude that they'll just have to put up with being filmed by whoever happens to be standing around.

Ah, technology.

Re:Pretty soon ...

[swillden]

we'll have sufficient bandwidth that video shot from a mobile device can be uploaded straight to the web, with only a brief "buffering" stop on the actual filming device.

qik.com

Re:Pretty soon ...

[gknoy]

Thanks for the informative post. If I ever feel that I can afford a smartphone, I'll use it. :-)

I've always wondered about how to set up an automatic recording system for my car - video of what's in front, behind, etc - that could store + upload a last-N-minutes set of video (and audio, if wiretapping laws permit it where I live) in case of accident or emergency. Probably infeasible.

The Rules don't apply to the Rulers

[bahface]

Because the rules don't apply to the rulers. Just you.

The proper way to record the cops...

[Maltheus]

A bunch of my friends got escorted off some property during our last protest by a sheriff's deputy. I was laughing my ass off because the second he came over to us, no less than 6 phones and an iPad were pulled out to record everything. No way was he confiscating shit. Especially as two of us were open carrying. By that point, he was quite friendly. There is strength in numbers.

Any of you Free Staters want to move out to Colorado instead, we'll welcome you with open arms. NH is too freakin' cold.

Re:The proper way to record the cops...

[ehintz]

Something's wrong when the *solution* to cold is Colorado. :)

(says the guy who decided free state was too risky (and cold) and moved to NZ instead(which in the last couple of years has been less nice with National in power, but still way better than home))

Re:The proper way to record the cops...

[spire3661]

If the officer acted in a an illegal manner and you feel your life threatened you are damn straight he gets plugged. Being right or wrong doesnt change being dead. What the person was trying ot get across is that the police should have reason to fear the populace when acting illegally. IN no way is it legal anywhere in the United States for an officer to erase another's data in the field. The citizens brandishing weapons merely reminded the officer of the proper balance of power between governance and the citizenry.

Re:The proper way to record the cops...

[Maltheus]

No, I'm merely saying that an armed society is a polite society. In NY, where I grew up, guns are all but outlawed, nobody open carries, but the cops there are total assholes who over-react to everything. In fact, the only time I ever had a gun pulled on me was because I dared to ask a NYC cop for directions. In Colorado, this deputy treated us with respect, we treated him with respect and he even let us come back onto the property after an hour or so.

But my comment wasn't really so much about carrying a gun in public (which I don't personally do) as it was about carrying a smart phone and making sure that you have the numbers to make it unfeasible to confiscate anything. If he would have tried, he would have only gotten a few, while the others ran. THAT'S what makes them polite. Publicity is much scarier to them than any handgun.

The Cloud

[atomicbutterfly]

I have a gross mistrust with cloud technology (except for the the cloud you aren't running at least, which technically isn't a cloud anymore), but if there's one good thing about it, it's the increasing number of consumer devices which can automatically upload photos, movies, audio to various cloud sources once captured. Great for those pig fucks who think by confiscating your gear you don't have any evidence.

Video Cam Flash Mob

[JSBiff]

What this guy needs to do is put out a call for a flash mob to show up - hundreds of people all videotaping at the same time. Let the police try to confiscate every single camera lol. Make sure to videotape the guy videotaping the police, and the police confiscating the camera.

When the police try to turn out in force, scatter to the four winds, then upload the videos to several different places, make offline backups, etc.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[BradleyUffner]

What this guy needs to do is put out a call for a flash mob to show up - hundreds of people all videotaping at the same time. Let the police try to confiscate every single camera lol. Make sure to videotape the guy videotaping the police, and the police confiscating the camera.

When the police try to turn out in force, scatter to the four winds, then upload the videos to several different places, make offline backups, etc.

They could just throw in a conspiracy charge also if he did that.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[JSBiff]

But where there's no crime, there is no conspiracy.

The video evidence from all those people would prove there was no crime, and the conspiracy charge would also be thrown out.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[b0bby]

But where there's no crime, there is no conspiracy.

The video evidence from all those people would prove there was no crime, and the conspiracy charge would also be thrown out.

The problem is, in two-party consent states, audio and video recording can be seen as a violation of wiretapping statutes, and is the crime itself. That's not the case everywhere, and where it is I think the law should be changed, but it IS the law now.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[JSBiff]

It seems quite probable the courts will find that application of wiretapping laws as in violation of the first amendment. It does not seem reasonable that any legal interpretation which would make recording IN PUBLIC a crime, would not be in direct conflict with the first amendment.

Essentially, it's not the law at fault, it's the cops and the prosecutors who are *extending* the intent of the law to cover making recordings in public.

I do agree with you, however, that two-party consent should be overturned, but not on Constitutional grounds. Simply because I agree with you that it's bad law.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[Nevo]

Unfortunately, in order for that to happen, a case would have to go to trial. It appears the police departments involved have been smart enough not to let any of these cases actually go to trial. I remain optimistic that, when one of these cases finally does make it to trial, courts will in fact interpret the law consistently with loads of case law that have found that an individual in a public space has no expectation of privacy. Hopefully, the court will throw in there the public good that is served by videotaping law enforcement officials in the line of duty as well. But I'm not as confident in that one actually happening.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[Cytotoxic]

You'd think so. But you'd be wrong. In Illinois you'd be really, really, crazy wrong. Illinois has a special law that makes it illegal to record police, even in public. Even if they are already being recorded by their own dash-cam. And it only works one way. They can record you all they'd like. They passed the law because they were shocked, shocked to learn that someone was able to prove police misconduct by having a video as evidence. Things are all better, now that they've closed that little loophole. No more police misconduct in Illinois.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[b0bby]

Man, I thought the situation in MD sucked, but you have it way worse!

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[Cytotoxic]

Yeah, MD is a real prize. They have magical disappearing video to help ensure that the bad guys are always brought to justice.

For those too lazy to read linked articles, in Prince Georges County Maryland they've had quite a few incidents with police "caught on tape".... or not. In the most remarkable coincidence in recent history, all 7 dashboard cameras at the scene simultaneously malfunctioned while the police were allegedly roughing up a TV reporter. Another case had a student beaten and arrested for assaulting police only to find that the surveillance video mysteriously malfunctioned at that exact moment. Fortunately for him some random passers-by happened to capture the whole thing on his cell phone video camera. It turns out that the official version of events had a few holes in it.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[Legion303]

"I wasn't recording the police, your honor, but just this weird flash mob that showed up. Thought I would get some footage for my brother who was asking me what 'flash mobs' are."

Now pick up that can.

Re:Video Cam Flash Mob

[Cytotoxic]

HuffPo recently hired Radley Balko, probably the best investigative criminal justice reporter in the country right now. He may be a token, but he's worth visiting HuffPo to read.

Automatic uploading

[Mantrid42]

I'm sure there are other services, but http://qik.com/ has a pretty good interface. Shoot the video on your phone, hit stop, video gets automatically uploaded to your account, YouTube, etc.

Re:Automatic uploading

[spire3661]

On my Ipad 2 if i press record on Qik it streams to the web immediately, LIVE!

Who watches the watchmen?

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

The coast guard, that's who.

This is nothing

[the eric conspiracy]

This is nothing.

Don't EVER get into a traffic accident with a police officer. Seriously it will screw up your life big time.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/off-duty_nj_state_police_offic.html

Two years ago on a darkened stretch of South Jersey highway, Clayton Tanksley was almost killed when his SUV was rammed from behind and sent tumbling to the side of the road â" by a man who doesnâ(TM)t exist.

"He hit me hard enough to crush the back of the car like an accordion," said Tanksley, 46. "It was like a shark attack. Itâ(TM)s so sudden, out of the blue."

The accident, on Route 295 in Camden County, left Tanksley with a demolished car, back problems and recurring flashbacks.

"In the middle of night, everything is calm and peaceful," Tanksley said. "And then you live through it again. Even the smells."

According to the State Police crash report, a man named William Gillespie was behind the wheel of the other car that night. As Tanksleyâ(TM)s medical bills from the crash neared $30,000, his lawyer filed a lawsuit against Gillespie.

But when it came time to serve him, Gillespie was nowhere to be found. A private investigator couldnâ(TM)t find Gillespie at the home or business listed on the State Police report of the accident, and the insurance company named did not recognize the information about his car.

It was as if Gillespie didnâ(TM)t exist, and for good reason â" he doesnâ(TM)t.

Through a series of interviews and a trail of documents, The Star-Ledger has learned that Gillespie is the undercover name for State Police Detective Sgt. William Billingham and that his true identity was withheld from Tanksley â" in violation of State Police policy â" leaving Tanksley and his lawyer to go on a prolonged wild goose chase for a phantom. The newspaper also found that Billinghamâ(TM)s fellow troopers provided Tanksleyâ(TM)s insurance company with fictional and incomplete information.

In fact, Tanksley â" an actor who has appeared in movies and on television in "The Cosby Show" under the name Clayton Prince â" had no idea who really hit him until The Star-Ledger tracked him to his Philadelphia home in April.

Tanksleyâ(TM)s lawyers are considering a lawsuit against the state claiming his civil rights were violated.

Issue the police offical masks

[Required Snark]

Why not go all the way and make individual police unrecognizable? That way they will never have to constrain their actions, because they can always say "it wasn't me, but some other masked officer." No badge number, no face, no accountability. That's what the cops really want.

The current situation in New Hampshire is only a difference of degree, no a difference of kind, from anonymous officers. If it the word of a uniformed cop against a civilian, and there is no other evidence, then the cop wins. It takes either a lot of witnesses, or a video to show that a cop is lying. If you let the cops stop video, you have no effective rights.

Re:Issue the police offical masks

[1800maxim]

Why not go all the way and make individual police unrecognizable? That way they will never have to constrain their actions, because they can always say "it wasn't me, but some other masked officer." No badge number, no face, no accountability.

They already did it at G20 in Toronto, Canada in 2010.

Re:Illegal to film?

[$pace6host]

I'm about as far from a lawyer as you an get, but I think the majority of states where videotaping someone without consent is considered illegal, the issue is usually with the sound - not the video. If you don't record sound, in many cases there is no issue. If you do record sound, and you don't have the consent of the parties being recorded (in some states, I think it's all of the parties, in others you need only the consent of one), you could be in trouble. Some states might also only consider it a problem if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy (which you shouldn't expect in a public place). But it's definitely a per state thing.

I personally think that you should be able to record sound and video of someone in a public place - but once bad laws are in place, they are hard to change.

Camera's lie?

[publiclurker]

More like corrupt cops lie, and the camera calls them out on it. Sounds to me like you need to have your so called career ruined for the sake of all of the decent people around you.

Public service

[billcopc]

I'm going to stick my neck out and state that, IMO, police should be under video surveillance at all times during duty. They are granted exclusive privileges in order to do their job, such privileges require oversight to control abuse.

Or we can let them continue down this deceitful path until the police career loses all credibility, and watch as society descends into violent chaos a-la Mad Max. No, I'm not exaggerating. Bad cops only create more and badder criminals.

Re:Public service

[Pfhorrest]

I'm going to stick my neck out and state that, IMO, police should be under video surveillance at all times during duty. They are granted exclusive privileges in order to do their job, such privileges require oversight to control abuse.

I'm going to go a step further and say that they shouldn't be granted such exclusive privileges to begin with.

There should be procedures by which it is legal to stop, question, or apprehend someone who is committing a crime and bring them to trial, sure.

There should be people paid specifically to go around performing that valuable public service, sure.

But those procedures shouldn't grant any power that any ordinary person couldn't be trusted with, because try as you might, search anywhere you want, and you're not going to find anybody besides ordinary people to hire for that job.

So look at any police action, ignore the uniform, and see it as an interaction between two ordinary people, because that's all they are, all they can ever be. Is that interaction just? Did the one person do anything to warrant the behavior of the other? If the answer is "no", then what does it matter what clothes the other wears or who his employer is?

txt of the email i sent to my representatives. ple

[koreanbabykilla]

I have seen abuses of power in other states, thankfully utah not one, where it is not legal to videotape a police officer at work. I would very much like federal protection of such, as I firmly belive this is critical to our society having people in power (such as the police) be accountable for their actions. i am on camera much of the time i am at work (so my employer may verify i am doing what they pay me for), how are the police i pay for different in this respect? state laws differ on this matter, but i feel this should be a federal issue. As a citizen, i feel i have the right to videotape and/or audiotape any public servant in the course of their duties. i understand you are busy, but please take my opinion into consideration. A state where we are not allowed to document the wrongdoings of the police, is by definition, a police state.
thanks,
xxxx xxxxxxx

Easy Fix.....

[IHC Navistar]

The way to get around all of this "wiretapping" crap, aside from a judge who beats some common sense into police chiefs with his gavel, is simple:

A small red led, either flashing or continuous, on the recording device, or.....

A t-shirt that says "Audio / Video Monitoring In Progress", or both.

If you want to cover your ass while driving, place a reflective sticker right next to your license plate that reads: "This vehicle equipped with active audio / visual recording devices.". The officer won't be able to claim, unless he is blind, that he didn't see the duly posted notice. Hell, you'd even be able to see it on the officer's dashcam recording. Be vague yet accurate and truthful to the officer if he asks you about being recorded (don't be a total dick, especially if you really did run the stop sign and are trying to cover your ass, as it will look bad in court).

Officer: Am I being recorded?
Driver: Yes, that is why I posted the sticker on my car, right next to my license plate.
Officer: You do realize that it is interfering with my investigation and traffic stop, don't you?
Driver: No, I don't. How is it interfering with your investigation and traffic stop?
Officer: You might use the recording improperly.
Driver: Like how?
Officer: Where is the recording?
Driver: It's being streamed to servers in Havana, Cuba, with the added bonus that they don't have an extradition treaty with the U.S. It's also available streaming from Hulu, but people only watch the good ones the whole way through.
Officer: Good ones?
Driver: You know, where the cop goes ballistic about being videotaped by some bystander from 50 yards away, and then confiscates his phone and tries to arrest him on charges of wiretapping, invasion of privacy, interfering, tax evasion, lion taming, etc., then simultaneously "loses" both the phone recording and the squad car's dash cam tapes. It only works because those idiots didn't post any notice that they were recording the cops. Which is why I posted notice. .....

Re:Easy Fix.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Officer: What notice? There are no stickers on your car, and you have no license plates. Also, your car appears to be on fire. I'll give you a minute before you can step out of the vehicle.

Re:Easy Fix.....

[evilviper]

In the real world, it goes more like this:

Officer: Am I being recorded?
Driver: Yes, it's posted on my car. I'm streaming this live to...
Officer: Please stop recording.
Driver: Why? I know my rights and it's not interfering with...
Officer: Step out of the car sir, I'm placing you under arrest.
Driver: What am I being arrested for?
Officer: Watch your head sir...

You see, the legality doesn't matter, and the threat of live streaming and archiving doesn't accomplish a thing. Long-term, if everyone did it, maybe... The court has this miraculous ability to deem something inadmissible on technicalities, and completely pretend it doesn't exist.

Re:Easy Fix.....

[gknoy]

Frankly, I'd be OK with that. I'd rather be cited for instances of things where I was failing to meet code (and have to fix them). Granted, I'm pessimistic to expect that it would be a chat->arrest->lawyer->Major Inconvenience sort of day (as evilviper mentions below) rather than the breezy chat the GP implied. Perhaps talking to a lawyer and to the local police about how to ensure that you can record audio (Don't say it'll be of them, or in your car!) and having informed consent by parties in order to not fall afoul of wiretap laws would be fruitful.

Police IQ

[Nyder]

I guess expecting Policemen to know the laws is a bit much...

Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

When this war is over, and the vets get home, how long before some kingshit cop pushes the wrong one around? How are our troops going to like the fact our freedoms are in the toilet in spite of the fact they went to fight a war to preserve them? I am starting to think they are keeping them overseas on purpose, so that they don't have to worry about them revolting or aiding insurrections or starting them here. Our military is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. That means if politicians start trashing the Constitution, they have not only the right, but the duty to put a fucking bullet in their heads.

These dipshits in office keep fucking around, they will have a military coup. My generation is obviously a bunch of pussies, or else we would have lynched these fuckers ourselves. I don't know about this new generation though. The brainwashing that goes on in this country is intense as fuck. This article is yet another example of how one just stands in awe at the balls of all authority figures these days. The system is a good one, but corruption is so rampant in it, it's sickening. We are seeing corruption from the lowest levels of government to the highest.

Don't think so? Take a look at Britain with this hacker scandal. Britain has always struck me as being a bit more reserved and cultured and for that much corruption going to the highest parts of it is dismaying. We KNOW we have super ambitious, money grubbing, stab your kids in the back with a butter knife for a dime, kind of people here in power. To think it's not 100 times more corrupt here is living in La La Land. We literally ARE the wild west.

Here is how I see it playing out. Dumbfuck Republicans and Democrats will fuck this up and the government will go fucking broke belling up. This is going to threaten the sovereignty of the United States in way you can't fucking imagine. I hope to fucking shout that we still have some people in high command in the military that Constitutionally say "FUCK YOU", arrest the entire lot of them, and we hold emergency elections to replace them. In the mean time, they lock the entire country the fuck down. Meaning nothing comes in, we tell ships coming this way, fuck off or we sink you. Planes, everything has to be turned back unless the military O.K.s it.

The economy will go WTF as Wall Street pisses it's self. But it will prompt local manufacturing to start up. Which will be good for the economy of the little people. The multinational cocksuckers will be fucked, Wal-Mart will not get to fuck us with all the cheap shit from China. We can uncap untold amounts of oil wells here and gas will be so fucking cheap even I will not bitch about the prices.

The bad news, lots of people will die. There will be panic, riots, more riots, cultural clashes if not mini-wars. There will of course be a split in the factions of the military, so probably up to half of it will be fighting with the other half and the UN. Fuck the UN, they will be here trying to beat down OUR military that is doing the coup. So the UN troops will come to know the horror of what we do to foreign troops in our land. If any survive they will tell horror stories for hundreds of years about our savagery, making anything out of darkest Africa, or South America, or even Hollywood, look pale in comparison to. I am talking about shit that would give Hannibal Lecter and Colonel Kurtz a nervous breakdown.

The whole world will collectively piss it's self. After all, when it comes to nukes we invented the game, which means we have plenty of them around. And we have plenty of crazy fuckers who would use them on OURSELVES in a heart beat. That means when we are over the rainbow, batshit crazy, fighting it out with each other, that if you fuck with us, we will probably nuke you shitless, then get back to the business of fucking each other up.

People have been seething pissed for decades now. Cops are under some impression that they could survive the public deciding to off the entire lot of them. Frankly they don't h

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[cosm]

I'll make you some tent brewed beer come the days you mentioned, and we'll have a glass together. I tell myself things can't get that shitty, but its good to be prepared if they ever did. We live in New Rome for a reason. Just how long until the house of cards falls. Keep your ammo dry folks, shitty times could come at the drop of a dime, the imaginary stock market, a nuke, oil reserves, whatever. Better to live prepared and know you wont have to enact emergency plans than to wish you had them in the first place.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[ilo.v]

There will be panic, riots, more riots, cultural clashes if not mini-wars.

Lex, you forgot to take your medicine this morning.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[Red Flayer]

Adolescent fantasy. Might make for a good movie, though.

The government still has plenty of bread and circus to keep the masses off their backs.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

People will adapt, some will not, but we can medicate them with things like that mentioned beer. Weed will keep us all mellow so we don't blast each other shitless. Don't shoot at the pot smokers, unless they shoot first. Medical personal will be priceless to have around. I can see big hospitals becoming city-states quickly.

All in all, I just want to ride out this heatwave. I know where to go to cool off in the wilds or even places in town that are underground if things went to shit and we had no electricity. I suspect the heat isn't going to let up much anytime soon. I went out in my little convertible and got a sunburn this near evening. Either I am getting old or the sun seems to cook the living shit out of me these days. If I spray on the chemicals, I am fine. I can remember when sunscreen was for soulless gingers, or pussies. I am part Cherokee (who isn't..lol Cherokee's must have fucked everyone in those days or visa versa) so that makes it worse, I used to rarely burn. I would burn ONCE at the start of the season, after that I would just get brown as hell. People still think I am Mexican, or Samoan, or Italian. I just look at them. o.O I know I digress, but the point is I shouldn't burn to a crisp, let alone burn at all. THE SUN!!11!! WTF??

Electricity is the big thing I worry about. Without it our civilization is fucking OVER as we know it. My candy ass will melt without air conditioning. I will evaporate into a pile of sugar.
  >.>
  .
There is a way to deal with these overly dominating out of control powers, Frank Herbert laid it out in Dune, it was a huge metaphor.

BTW, just one glass? Beer should be drank by the kegs..no? Drink yourself sober kind of drinking. I know, an oxymoron, you had to be there I guess.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

Fucker! lol, I ran and checked though. I did. Let me beat you to it, they need upped, right?

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

Until the janitor knocks the plug out with his buffer.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[Swampash]

When "the boys get home from the war" they're going to be unemployed and looking for work.

So you're going to have a large group of people with military training and proficiency with weapons, who in all likelihood are now mentally unstable to a certain degree, and who have only managed to stay alive for the past ten years because they've collectively adopted a policy of spontaneously killing people who challenged them.

Yeah everything's all going to be sweet when the boys get home from the war, that will FIX EVERYTHING.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[ilo.v]

Check out "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein. The scenario you describe is virtually identical to the political backdrop of that story. Good book. TERRIBLE movie. Not a bad idea for a democratic form of government. I just would like to skip the chaotic transition phase.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

This would also make for a fun RPG, the pen and paper kind. One could use G.U.R.P.S. or create their own system, it's not hard, in fact it's rather fun. Kind of a current events gone haywire setting, with limited supplies to start...etc. Use Google Maps as the GM, things like that. It's cheap entertainment. Once upon a time, I owned a game shop, back in the RPG days. I had to GM a lot of genres on game nights. Gaming, it prepared us for about any contingency, from aliens to the zombie outbreak. I think we could set around playing Steve Jackson's Illuminati card game now and get a good hoot out of it.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

You don't give them enough credit and your apparent fear of them being so potentially bad is rather unkind and frankly I think unmerited.

Let's pretend you are right. They are a catalyst of chaos then that might be what is need to bring certain things to a boil. They will have a distinct sense of right and wrong and will probably be triggered off by "wrong" events that we have been too pacified to deal with. For example, kingshit cops who gets huffy and gruff over being video taped, gets handy with seasoned combat troops over something this stupid, are probably going to get their asses handed to them. Or they will fuck the wrong person up and it will set off a "Rambo" situation. The problem with that is, Rambo will be twittering, then you will have a thousand of them.

This is the information age; strike the wrong match and you can set off a social blaze that can turn the world upside down in a heartbeat. Don't think so, discuss it with some Arab leaders going through the "Arab Spring", then get back to me.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

I have never viewed survivalists or militia as wackos. They have a sense of pioneer spirit mixed in with national pride, which to me isn't something to be worried about. They are very misunderstood, and people tend to be afraid of what they don't understand. I find the negative attitudes often come from big city dwellers who really don't understand the complexities of country life.

On the other hand, its hard for someone who lives in the country to imagine how many people are packed into cities. Firing a gun in a city is infinitely more dangerous than firing one in the country. Big caliber rifles are insane to fire in a city unless you are highly trained and uber responsible. I can understand the paranoia about firearms in the city, but this clashes with life in the country. Gun alternatives to self defense is what is needed. With our current technology, we should have no problems replacing clumsy firearms with something more elegant. ( I think I just went Obiwan with that)

The 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, light sabers, laser rifles or muskets. It's about "the right to own and bear arms". This is from feudal days, and only the knights had the right to own and bear arms. Meaning if you were a peasant, and you fought off bandits or invaders, you were hung for being a potential traitor. They couldn't have peasants being that dangerous. Our founding father's decided that we were all Lords of the Land and the responsibilities of keeping it free where each and everyone's. We the people advocate this authority to public SERVANTS who work in our steed full time. That way the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker can do their jobs.

Somehow this has all become seriously fucked and we are effectively back to being serfs and peasants. The 1st Amendment is the right to talk about problems and the 2nd one is the right to do something about it. It's about personal empowerment to the people. Do we have that these days? Hell no, we have a police state that hails back to feudal times. We all seriously need to ask WTF?

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[Mr. Shotgun]

What you are describing is not entirely unprecedented even in the 20th century: Battle of Athens. Albeit was a much smaller scale and did not include nukes nor ...cannibalism? (seriously wtf?). Anyway returning veterans grew tired of local political corruption and ran the members out of office.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[P. Legba]

"You don't give them enough credit and your apparent fear of them being so potentially bad is rather unkind and frankly I think unmerited."

Horseshit.

I live in a town with a large Air Force Base and have had several former friends do tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. I say "former friends" because when they got back, they were unrecognizable from a personality perspective. Distant, scary, intense. These were people without a lot of options, largely, in the first place and when they're not deployed, even the AF guys around town are often insufferable assholes.

When 100,000 of these guys get back, a solid percentage of them are going to be ticking time-bombs of insanity. We're going to have big problems on our hands, I fear.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[Kevin Fishburne]

That was an awesome story. One of the best replies ever that wasn't one sentence.

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

Of course they will be different. Did you expect them to come home banging tambourines, flowers in their hair and skipping around maypoles on gossamer wings? Fuck, they just came back from a war. War is hell. War is as close to hell as you will ever be while still being alive. People have to be programmed to operate in any capacity in War.

If there is an error, it's in the fact that the military isn't bright enough to deprogram people. Perhaps it's not in the budget or perhaps they have a mental block against the whole concept as a defense mechanism. (no pun intended) I think you have correctly identified that there is a problem, but fear of them isn't the answer. And you as a civilian should buck the fuck up and honor them by not being a pussy and changing your perspective of them because they are "potentially dangerous". You, that have set at home safe while they served, need to do your part by welcoming them back from the jaws of Hell. Fuck yes, treat them special. Lure them back home with acceptance and support. Give them some room when they need it.

We still have veterans around that can help them, guys from the Nam are still alive. Even some Korean War guys are still around. Veterans know WTF is going on. Don't worry, they aren't going to let the young new veterans get fucked, not on their watch. Oh fuck no!

You have to deprogram returning troops. They have been seriously mind fucked. That is a given. There are things you have to deprogram them from, things they need to learn. What is sad is we have some FUCKING RETARDS in charge obviously of this aspect. And if this slips through the cracks by some monumentally stupid mistake, we will have some problems on our hands.

Especially when you drop that into a society that has twisted into a police state. That is one big recipe for disaster. Do you know what "Army of One" means? We have taken soldier training to levels the Spartans would be in awe of. We have intelligent technological savages that can operate with cold precision.* Think about it, weapons grade bad-asses will be placed in close proximity, and most likely direct confrontation with arrogant, bullying cops who have been accustomed to asserting their "god-like" authority on whomever they deem worthy of their attentions.

In the wilds where I live, we had that problem with Viet Nam vets who were animals, they would fuck cops up for sport. They ran in outlaw biker gangs and it wasn't "cool" to be a biker then. These fuckers were serious trouble. Yet another failure to deprogram troops, you would think we would learn. All in all, neglect in this department is a serious insult to our troops, and ultimately to our society.

So don't be afraid of them, don't treat them like social pariah. Lastly I need to correct everyone on this one thing; military service isn't a job, it's a duty. I hate how people label it as a "job". They can then throw soldiers away because the "job" is over. Duty, honor, country. It's amazing how these simple words can convey the essence of greatness. If you don't understand this, learn it. If you do understand this, don't forget it.

*(It could be said that this is a rather sad situation with this Iraq War, because they really don't have challenging traditional opponents. They have to contend with pussy hit and run stuff that will destroy your moral. They are a blunt object, a baseball bat being used in brain surgery. This whole Middle East shit should be all one big Intel + Black Ops campaign, not a ground war.)

Re:Wait until the boys get home from the war.

[lexsird]

Cannibalism is always good for shock and awe. Think of it on a psy-ops level, does it not inspire a deep primal horror? It involves a deep level of commitment, don't you think as well? Notice in how regions in the deep darkest jungles where cannibalism happens, these areas are eschewed by outsiders? If I said, "hey lets go do some free lance journalism with the cannibals?", how many would be willing to tag along with me?

That and I really like 80s music and "Fine Young Cannibals" is a band name that still cracks me up from the irony.

"She drives me crazy...like no one else....she drives me crazy and I can't help myself."

The case for "security" cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

I run a youth program. We have HD security cameras covering all of our premises (not the bathrooms). We have caught police misconduct more than once with those cameras.

Back in May we had a police officer from the next town over come in to "talk" with one of our teens about a crime that "they may have witnessed". When I got this call, my next call was to 911 to put on record that this was going to go on (standard policy for us, any time a police officer calls to interview a kid in our program, a staff member calls 911 to put it on the record. We find this stops a lot of police abuses, along with our ready access to lawyers). When the police officers came, the two of them tried to strong arm the kid out the door. We flatly refused to allow the teen to be taken to the police station to be questioned, and told the police officers that they would need to arrest the teen and read them their rights before we would allow them to leave (and that the teen was then invoking the right to a lawyer). They were not happy - they even accused me of not 'playing ball'.

When they started shoving the teen and talking about how the teen had just hit the officer (to be clear, the teen never touched the cop, the cops flatly made it up), and that was grounds for arrest, I physically stepped between the cops and the teen (I am 6'1, 220, a third degree black belt in Tie Kwan Do and like to lift weights) and informed them that the interview was over, and they were to leave. My volunteer assistant (who works part time as a judge at the state Department of Education!) called 911 at that point - calling 911 also activates the audio recording of all of our cameras, as well as an auto backup of our cameras to the law office next door.

Long story short, it was a weird stand off until local police arrived - the two cops having their hands on their guns, my telling them they had to leave or be escorted out. When local police arrived (with whom we have a generally good relationship) we informed them that our security cameras had caught the whole thing and we wanted the two cops arrested for assault. The first thing the local cops wanted to do was take the recording device and arrest the teen. When I said that it was no problem, our system recorded to three redundant devices, one of which is at our lawyers office, suddenly they didn't want to take the teen, and couldn't get out of their fast enough.

We sent a copy of the video to the DA's office, asking for an investigation, another copy went to the lawyer we set the family up with to represent this kid, and a third to the police department of the next town, with a letter from our lawyer stating that we would not allow any officer from their department to enter our premises or interview any of our kids without the programs lawyer present.

Re:The case for "security" cameras

[cheros]

You've got the HD cameras. Now get yourself educated :-)

(for those who don't get it, google "Lie to me").

Re:The case for "security" cameras

[abigsmurf]

Why are you calling 911 as routine for non-emergencies? You should call the station rather than hog a line that someone may need to report something life threatening.

Re:The case for "security" cameras

[TheTyrannyOfForcedRe]

I run a youth program. We have HD security cameras covering all of our premises (not the bathrooms). We have caught police misconduct more than once with those cameras.

Back in May we had a police officer from the next town over come in to "talk" with one of our teens about a crime that "they may have witnessed". When I got this call, my next call was to 911 to put on record that this was going to go on (standard policy for us, any time a police officer calls to interview a kid in our program, a staff member calls 911 to put it on the record. We find this stops a lot of police abuses, along with our ready access to lawyers). When the police officers came, the two of them tried to strong arm the kid out the door. We flatly refused to allow the teen to be taken to the police station to be questioned, and told the police officers that they would need to arrest the teen and read them their rights before we would allow them to leave (and that the teen was then invoking the right to a lawyer). They were not happy - they even accused me of not 'playing ball'.

When they started shoving the teen and talking about how the teen had just hit the officer (to be clear, the teen never touched the cop, the cops flatly made it up), and that was grounds for arrest, I physically stepped between the cops and the teen (I am 6'1, 220, a third degree black belt in Tie Kwan Do and like to lift weights) and informed them that the interview was over, and they were to leave. My volunteer assistant (who works part time as a judge at the state Department of Education!) called 911 at that point - calling 911 also activates the audio recording of all of our cameras, as well as an auto backup of our cameras to the law office next door.

Long story short, it was a weird stand off until local police arrived - the two cops having their hands on their guns, my telling them they had to leave or be escorted out. When local police arrived (with whom we have a generally good relationship) we informed them that our security cameras had caught the whole thing and we wanted the two cops arrested for assault. The first thing the local cops wanted to do was take the recording device and arrest the teen. When I said that it was no problem, our system recorded to three redundant devices, one of which is at our lawyers office, suddenly they didn't want to take the teen, and couldn't get out of their fast enough.

We sent a copy of the video to the DA's office, asking for an investigation, another copy went to the lawyer we set the family up with to represent this kid, and a third to the police department of the next town, with a letter from our lawyer stating that we would not allow any officer from their department to enter our premises or interview any of our kids without the programs lawyer present.

Yea, and just yesterday I was having sex with a dozen of my girlfriends when Santa and The Easter Bunny dropped by to do blow and jerk off unicorns. I have quite a few unicorns. Their barn is right behind the lake where my pet Pleseosaur hangs out.

Re:The case for "security" cameras

[savanik]

I don't know about this particular jurisdiction, but in many places, 911 is also used for cell-center type stuff you'd think you'd get by calling the station. Seattle, for example. Need a copy of the police report from an accident? If you call the station, they'll tell you to call 911 to order a copy.

And yes, I think that's pretty boneheaded.

Re:The case for "security" cameras

[abigsmurf]

Ah, in the UK, emergency numbers are strictly for a crime in progress or for serious emergencies. Anything else tends to result in you getting a lecture or a fine and being one of the examples in the annual "silly things people dialed 999 for" slow news day stories.

Re:The case for "security" cameras

[cbeaudry]

With IP camera's now. (All HD camera's are IP camera's), you can have them connected to more than one NVR (Network Video Recorder) simultaneously.

So its easy to have one setup in house and another at the neighbors (through the Internet or over a hard line Ethernet connection if it inst further than 333 feet)

About the phone integration, with IP phone systems there are multiple things that can be done via scripting from the switch to external applications.

Re:The case for "security" cameras

[DeadCatX2]

a third degree black belt in Tie Kwan Do
 
....did you mean "tae kwan do"? Funny, I would expect a black belt in a martial art ought to know how said martial art's name is spelled.

If he had any sense, he'd have had himself taped

[couchslug]

...while taping the pigs and worn a transmitting microphone.

The right lens would allow photography from elevated cover in a building.
Just as snipers shoot through holes, so can photographers. No need to stick anything out out so you can be identified.

This would be a fine topic for Ask Slashdot.

isn't the path ahead obvious?

[however comma]

Sorry officer, this is NOT a video camcorder. You are being streamed live on the internet. SMILE

Non-life threatening?

[TimTucker]

Two angry men with guns who prefer to use intimidation rather than follow the law show up at his doorstep -- I fail to see any way in which that isn't potentially life threatening.

Re:Non-life threatening?

[abigsmurf]

If cops just showing up was a life threatening situation you'd end up with a feedback loop requiring infinate numbers of officers to attend.

He called 911 when he got a call from the cops saying they were coming around. Unless he's psychic and can see the future, it is not an emergency and he should call the station, not an emergency line.

Re:Non-life threatening?

[N1AK]

He phoned 911 to report that police were coming. He didn't say, and I don't believe him to mean, that he wanted to attend. The reason for phoning 911 was that his call and the audio would be retained on record by a source that couldn't be easily dismissed.

Re:Non-life threatening?

[gknoy]

I believe he was calling 911 mainly because he believed the next-town-over police were trying to unlawfully detain a youth under his protection with threats of force, and had assaulted the young man. Calling 911 to report an assault is certainly appropriate, and is the fastest way to get your local police to get there.

No Expectation of Privacy

[EmagGeek]

Police Officers have no expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties, and nobody has an expectation of privacy in a public place.

You know tyranny is setting in when government criminalizes the collection of evidence against it.

How to cure repeate offenses?

[X86Daddy]

Over and over, continuously, we see this sort of purely abusive behavior on the part of police in several "civilized" countries. Every single time, some poor individual, if lucky enough with press coverage and donated legal assistance, has to go through a huge ordeal to get charges dropped against his/herself, and usually no repercussions are faced by the abusers... or the individual does jail/prison time, gets assaulted... even murdered. Either way, next step is that we see it happen again. Even the rest of us, who aren't being assaulted by police, are paying those officers to stay employed, paying for their defense, paying to prosecute and imprison someone for trumped charges, etc....

How do people in "free" countries enact preventative measures? How do we turn the tide against the police state? Systems like the TSA seem bent on making "official vs citizen" interactions more and more degrading, and if nothing is done soon, there will be less and less public support for any sort of stand for our rights movement. So what works? Has any other country repaired this kind of damage?

I must be blind

[subanark]

I have never seen "police abuse" in even the slightest form from any time I have dealt with the police, or seen the police deal with someone else.

I can remember 4 times in my life (30 years) that I have dealt with the police:
1. Had a nice chat since some of the library guests thought I was stoned. The police officer asked me to come to a room, told me that some people were concerned at my odd behavior, and let me go as he could tell from my physical attributes that I was not stoned. He later said "hi" every time I passed by from that point on, which was a bit creepy.
2. Got pulled over for a broken tail light. Said I had a week to fix it or I would get a ticket. None of this, "you must verify with us that it is fixed" crap.
3. My grandmother who was suffering from altimeters managed to escape her house and ended up at another house in the neighborhood.
4. Most recently, me and my insane apartment mate were play acting some "drama" and were a bit loud. The police came and wanted to check up on us, which we assured them (we were separated by about 10 feet and talked to different officers) that everything was fine. They also asked us if we knew of any "weed" that was around, to which I replied "no," even though it was a lie, since my appeasement mate just 1/2 hour ago wanted to show me his cache.

I've also seen plenty of times the police pulled people over and saw nothing wrong there. Even saw a drug bust (very rare where I am), or at least I assume it was as the police were removing wads of cash from various places on an individual and placing them in a plastic bag.

It is my belief that either these situations of "police abuse" are extremely limited (given how many police there are in the US) or I'm simply living in a part of the country where it doesn't happen.

Re:I must be blind

[MLease]

Police are, first and foremost, human beings. So, you'll find some that are very, very good, some that are very, very bad, and most that are just people trying to make a living and doing the best they can. They have a very tough job, and sometimes they will make mistakes.

I think - I hope! - that police abuse is indeed rare. But when it happens, and the media catches wind of it, it becomes very public and very noticeable. The police officers who do their jobs day in and day out without incident don't make the news. The ones who screw up royally and/or abuse their power do.

-Mike

Re:Wiretapping is the wrong term

[gknoy]

Frankly, I think it's good that they did that. I don't necessarily agree with two-party consent (as we've all read about cases where that's abused, especially when trying to document/prove official misconduct), but I like that they legislated the concept of recording audio communication, rather than specifically legislating about taps that involve wires.

Of the people, for the people, and by the people.

[neurosine]

We are entitled to these rights, and it's only when we're unwilling to fight for them that they get stripped away. Your gun is a final solution...and it's going to be too late if you don't use your voice and your pen now. Your gun is just going to get you killed, you idiot. There should be public defenders stepping up, but they've been marginalized to defending base offenders...they should be there for everyone who wants to protest in the name of social disobedience, or who would pursue some injustice, but can't afford it...they should be there as an option for everyone...not the people who deserve them least and who they likely will not benefit much in the final analysis....grrr.. The greedy corporate-military enterprises. They're bringing us to totalitarianism. They've broken the law of checks and balances, and nobody spoke up who had any power who survived politically or sometimes literally very long. Despite all the crazy conspiracy rigmarole...we need to turn off the TV and step up...or the world we all share will literally be reduced to ash. I can't figure out if the perpetrators are evil or stupid...I mean look at George Bush...elegant speaker...until he walked into the white house. Now he's a world renowned idiot...but he's good...he's Yoda'd us all. And that's my yearly rant.

Re:How is this legal?

[Coren22]

Yes mommy.

hasnt learned

[hesaigo999ca]

you need an iphone, then you need live streaming to the internet like (justintv) and then you have no worries, you let them do what they want, in fact you can try to goad them into attacking you, and then receive 2 black eyes and a million dollar payout from the city....

Re:115k is not upper middle class

[euroq]

You may think that it isn't upper middle class, but it is the top 15% of Americans. If you don't like the term upper middle class, fine. But the percentage of Americans who make $115,000 a year or more is 15% of Americans, at least it was in 2005.

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

If inflation has brought that number down since 2005, oh well, I doubt that the percentage of Americans who started gaining $115K/year or more has significantly changed during the recession.

Go ahead. Work the numbers on inflation. And stop being a chump.

Ha! I'm right and you're wrong!

I wonder if it will end this way?

[dave87656]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/20/2214257/Jury-Acquits-Citizens-of-Illegally-Filming-Police?utm_source=headlines&utm_medium=email