Slashdot Mirror


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?"

55 of 666 comments (clear)

  1. What are these words? by suso · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:What are these words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:What are these words? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:What are these words? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:What are these words? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:What are these words? by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    6. Re:What are these words? by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:What are these words? by maj1k · · Score: 3

      the same way it voices its opinion on a miscarriage.

    8. Re:What are these words? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    9. Re:What are these words? by euroq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
  2. If Live Free Or Die are your choices by Scareduck · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices by dopaz · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    2. Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices by mrops · · Score: 4, Insightful

      what man, that is terrorist talk.

      I have notified homeland security

    3. Re:If Live Free Or Die are your choices by ilo.v · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  3. Falsifying evidence? by pclminion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Falsifying evidence? by haulbag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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!"

    3. Re:Falsifying evidence? by RazorSharp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    4. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

    7. Re:Falsifying evidence? by blackbeak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
    8. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Falsifying evidence? by mywhitewolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    10. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    11. Re:Falsifying evidence? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    12. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Roachie · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    13. Re:Falsifying evidence? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    14. Re:Falsifying evidence? by rts008 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...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.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  4. lulz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:lulz by LittleBobbyTables · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

  5. Re:A Fair Word of Warning by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  6. Re:A Fair Word of Warning by frozentier · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  7. I've learned not to yell anything at cops by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:I've learned not to yell anything at cops by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  8. Police state by gstrickler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    1. Re:Police state by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      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...

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    2. Re:Police state by Maltheus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Police state by SethJohnson · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

  9. Re:And people wonder why they want guns protected? by Ruke · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  10. National Record The Police in Public Day by physicsdot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Stranger than Fiction by skywire · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    --
    Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  12. Google+ by Ruke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Google+ by stealth_finger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  13. Douchebags by Mullen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
    1. Re:Douchebags by KTheorem · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  14. Re:New app by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean like Gandhicam ?

  15. Fuck The Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fuck The Police

    1. Re:Fuck The Police by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  16. Re:New app by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
  17. Things have to change by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Re:A Fair Word of Warning by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  19. Re:A Fair Word of Warning by Thuktun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. The case for "security" cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The case for "security" cameras by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."