Slashdot Mirror
Cop Seeks Wiretapping Charges For Woman Who Videotaped Beating
An anonymous reader writes "A police officer who was disciplined for his role in the beating of a Massachusetts man (many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness) is looking to bring criminal wiretapping charges against the woman who caught much of the incident on video. The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating. He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed."
The full video being available in the second link, but it looks it's being taken on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy.
On another note, the individual referred to in the summary (identified in the stub-of-an-article as Michael Sedergren), was not the guy who beat Jones senseless, but in my personal opinion, he's just as dirty, and should have been fired, too.
FTFA:
“They’re really just trying to intimidate and silence her, but whether she’s charged or not (the tape) can still be used in court,” said attorney Shawn P. Allyn, who represents Jones in a civil rights lawsuit against the police in U.S. District Court.
Case and point. Guy is a complete dirtbag.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
Seems like no matter how many injustices we hear like this, we never to anything to put a stop to it. He'll be back on the job and busting heads again in no time. And we'll let him.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
on how wiretapping is the same as recording video.
He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed.
Too bad... fuck 'em.
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
This guy tells me we need a Darwin Award category.
"Idiots Who Lose Their Job Because of Supreme Incompetence".
[End Of Line]
If a civilian beat someone up that badly, he'd be facing a few years in prison.
Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.
Public street, well, she might not be able to release the audio depending on the state law. My state you can't. Video/stills, yes.
If I weren't afraid of what would emerge from it, I'd say we need a national standard at this point with all these new technologies. We have portions of the country ruling a GPS device on a car, that required the cop/officer to come onto your private property without a warrent to stick on is legal. Then we have cops claiming video footage, which you can practically get on everything from a camera to your toaster, should be illegal in the public area. If it is wire tapping for this cop, then it is wire tapping for all.
I loathe this double standard.
Re-election to the senate.
No brain, no pain.
I hope that this pig will be made to pay that woman heavy (heavy!) damages for all sorts of things, as a warning to other public servants who think they can get away with abusing their power. What a rotten piece of shiat.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/10/jeffrey_asher_fired_as_springf.html Wow.
I would like to see this piece-of-sh1t cop get severely beaten, see how he likes it. And coppers wonder why they can't get cooperation from civilians...it's pretty bad when you fear pigs more than you fear criminals -- oh, wait, there's no difference, pigs *are* criminals. Sorry...
Lee Harvey Sphincterwhistle
You're in a public street, idiot.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
What has happened to law enforcement in this country that too many of them have started acting like there's no such thing as accountability?
Charging someone for videotaping police never stands up in court, so it's just another example that we're not dealing with the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Pick me for that jury, or just let one person like me on there and this case is over.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating
What do you think would happen to me if I beat a police officer enough to cause "many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness"?
I don't know the etiquette for reposting ideas, but we need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". If nothing else, this would force the issue to be dealt with. Anyone interested should contact this guy.
Police Union
If you film somebody being beaten, then wait until after the trial and the cop(s) has/have testified. THEN release it ANONYMOUSLY to the press. Quit telling police who to go after. Here in America we have the corrupt neo-cons/tea*, the corrupt DAs and the corrupt police that support these kinds of actions. Most importantly, that gets not just the beating but the lying under oath that the perp AND the supporting police will do.
It is time to take back our nation from these bastards. Out them, but do not give them a target. BTW, assume that the corrupt DA and police union disallow those films. That is ok. The victim can still sue the cop CIVILLY and get the bastards pensions. Do a few of those and watch how quickly cops change their attitude.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Until accountability goes up the chain, police brutality will not stop.
Until a police chief gets fired for his subordinates terrorizing, beating and shooting people, nothing will change.
This is a systematic issue and not one to be addressed by outrage to individual police officers.
The local police chief or sheriff or whoever has an interest to keep their job AND a real influence in many police officers' training and behavior is at the root of the issue.
If they share the responsibility with true accountability, things will change overnight.
"One of four police officers disciplined for the incident on Nov. 27, 2009, Michael Sedergren, has filed an application for a criminal complaint against videographer Tyrisha Greene. Sedergren, who was suspended for 45 days, claims it was illegal for Greene to videotape him without his consent."
I've seen the "Cops" TV program. Do the police get the suspects consent to film them?
I thought we were done with the Nazis. Guess not.
Cops who think they have an expectation of privacy while on service obviously have illegal things to hide. Officers respectful of the law do not fear being scrutinized. Moreover, good officers would understand that they work for we, the people, and they should have no objection to being observed and filmed.
Police abuse of authority is one of the most heinous crimes. If tolerated, we're paving the road towards tyranny. Not that the USA isn't a tyranny already though.
If a civilian beat someone up that badly, he'd be facing a few years in prison.
Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.
How about we just have the law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian?
No. Cops are supposed to be held to a higher standard because they are cops - they're the professionals. If they don't like it, they can get another job.
They like to point out how they're highly trained for the job. If that's so, then they should be treated as such and if they can't live up to it or want to act above the law, then they should be punished severely for violating that station.
Up next, why lawyers should be crucified if they lie in court.
Think about that next time you demand more "privacy" laws.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I've heard so many stories like this lately. Isn't it about time that we pass a law that makes it unambiguously legal to record police officers in the course of their duty no matter what. It sounds like at least a step toward answering the age-old question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
I think it is time for another Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights discusses a great amount about the OUTPUT of citizens, but little regarding the INPUT...mostly because at the time of the founding it was impossible to -record- such things. The only means was to write about experiences, what someone heard, saw, smelled, tasted, or felt. However that equation has been altered greatly in the past 150 years, starting with photography. Yet the citizenry's right to secure backup of the human sensory system (or electronic record that corresponds to the human sensory system) has not been recognized accordingly.
Photographers are still fighting photo bans, and dealing with unconstitutional charges that result. And that is for the oldest form of "record keeping"! There are still outright bans on audio in many states, though video--due to its similarity to still photography--is in a somewhat legal limbo.
This is going to require an Amendment to fundamentally enumerate and incorporate the human right to record the environment. That should not extend to electrical interception (true wiretapping) or electronically-assisted interception (unidirectional microphones and telephoto lenses), but simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception. Although "photos can lie", human beings should not be hamstrung to the subjective judgement of character (he said, she said) when significantly more accurate measurements are available. If the citizen has a 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, they should certainly have a right to provide individualized proof of innocence!
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
...toss all cases like this to the curb with a thorough lecture of all parties who have the audacity to bring charges for this! This should have been denounced long ago as totally without merit and a gross abuse of the system.
He'll win, easily.
It's illegal to record audio of people without their express permission in Massachusetts. Period. Doesn't matter where.
About the only exception is if it's blatantly obvious that you're being recorded, which has been taken to mean "news team" - in other words, an absolutely gigantic, impossible-to-miss camera, or a large microphone, like TV reporters carry with the station logo on it.
Otherwise, it's "wire tapping."
Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!
Incidentally, as far as I know, you're allowed to take video of people in public places. Just not the audio.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
It's more an issue of lazy lawmakers than intent. When you don't clearly evaluate the repercussions of a new law, you end up with crap like 18 year-olds with 10 year prison sentences for having sex with 15 year-olds.
But, that's a sign of the times and not that "politicians are stupid." Bad guys frequently have their rights and due process violated because people don't think bad guys deserve the same justice as the good guys.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The Law should not be applied equally to cop and civilian. Penalties should be HARSHER when the authorities break the law, and the benefit of the doubt should not apply, because law enforcement officers are charged with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This idea is usually expressed as "the color of authority", and it is an essential and traditional safeguard of Liberty.
Yes, the rules are absolutely different when you carry the awesome power to kill in a split second. They are, and they should be.
Cops shouldn't solicit charitable donations from businesses, because it looks like protection money. Military officers may not sleep with their subordinates, because it looks like "command rape." The FBI shouldn't be assembling dossiers on political activists, because it looks like oppression.
These used to be commonly accepted ideas before we gutted public education and Fox News began blaring propaganda 24/7.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
As the legal definition of a wiretap seems to hinge on covertly recording communications, I wonder how a silent video would fare. As the law seems to permit taking pictures in public places, and taking video without sound is essentially just taking a bunch of pictures very rapidly, it would be reasonable to assume that such a device doesn't fall under the definition of a wiretap.
This would, of course, side step the real issue, but it could be an interesting case nonetheless for bringing about a ruling one way or another.
Tossing out the case and giving a lecture will never make them stop. They'll just keep trying, and occasionally get lucky with an authoritarian judge. The right way to handle this is disbarment for any prosecutor who files such clearly retaliatory charges. Just watch how fast this bullshit stops after a few DAs find themselves on the streets.
the key word there is not "cop", it's "asshole". the beating in the video is a clear case of police brutality. this suit is just a case of a stupid jerk being a stupid jerk. And in all likelihood it will not turn out well for him.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
This idiot cop's name is Jeffrey Asher, and his Facebook page is here:
http://www.facebook.com/jeffyjewjagoff - NO KIDDING!
Such an appropriate "screen name"...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The cop asking for the prosecution should be tossed in jail for 30 days for contempt of court. The DA should be fired and disbarred. The judge that didn't do either of those when the case was filed should be fired and disbarred.
Learn to love Alaska
Why only release it after the trial? By all means stay anonymous, but for the sake of the victim, at least supply a copy to their attorney.
It is capturing a "news event" involving a "public official", thus he has no personal claim since he was employed during, or, acting within the scope of his duties.
Fuck you, Pig.
Why isn't this ass fired? He really should be now.
Sadly, hung juries are no longer permitted these days. Directed verdicts seem to be the order of the day, and if the judge finds out you're the lone holdout, you'll just be removed and replaced with someone more malleable. If you try to do anything about it, like talking to the media, you'll find yourself charged with contempt of court.
Our judiciary is far too corrupt for mere juries to fix...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
The privacy that you have on a public street while carrying out the duties (poorly) of your tax-payer paid job as a public SERVANT?
How much money do you have? If it's billions, then your security detail defended you against a lone rogue officer who violated department policy, and the City offers it's apologies and takes this matter very, very seriously.
If all you did was study hard, work hard and then follow the rules after you served your Country honorably, then criminal lowlifes like you will not be tolerated or coddled...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
The law states that its intention is to aid in reducing organized crime. In this case, the actions of the police fit the law's definition of organized crime very well!
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
He is the law
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Think about the future of your country and vote the right way, even though media will have you believe Ron Paul is unelectable - it's nonsense. He is more electable than Bachmann and she and Pawlenty got all the attention.
Now, I am not saying that Ron Paul would change the laws of Massachusetts, but the federal laws on wiretapping, the entire 'Patriot Act', all of the government sponsored murder - it is at least as important and more so. No democrat and no Republican would do anything about this. It's all bought and paid for. The only person to fight this head on is Ron Paul and they are scared.
You can't handle the truth.
Yep, you heard it from WindBorne. Massachusetts is now a police state because of...wait for it...the TEA Party. Yes, the limited government Libertarians and Republicans have overcome the statist Democrat Party and that is the primary cause of police brutality. Now I understand.
The officer should have lost his job... there should be Zero Tolerance to this sort of breach of trust
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1857623
Abstract:
Threats to national security and public safety, whether real or perceived, result in an atmosphere conducive to the abuse of civil liberties. History is littered with examples: The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the Palmer Raids during World War I, and McCarthyism in the aftermath of World War II.Unfortunately, the post-9/11 world represents no departure from this age-old trend. Evidence of post-9/11 tension between national security and civil liberties is seen in the heightened regulation of photography; scholars have labeled it the "War on Photography" - a conflict between law enforcement officials and photographers over the right to take pictures in public places. A simple Google search reveals countless incidents of overzealous law enforcement officials detaining or arresting photographers and, in many cases, confiscating their cameras and memory cards, despite the fact that these individuals were in lawful places, at lawful times, partaking in lawful activities.
This article examines the so-called War on Photography and the remedies available to those who have been unlawfully detained, arrested, or have had their property seized for taking pictures in public places or private places open to the public. It discusses recent incidents that highlight the growing infringement of photography rights and the magnitude of the harm that law enforcement officials have inflicted, paying particular attention to the themes these events have in common. It explores the existing legal framework surrounding photography rights and the federal and state remedies available to those whose rights have been violated. It examines the adequacy of each remedy including: (1) declaratory and injunctive relief, (2) Section 1983 and Bivens actions, and (3) state tort remedies. It discusses the obstacles associated with each remedy and the reasons why these obstacles are particularly hard to overcome in the context of photography. It then argues that most, if not all, of the remedies discussed are either inadequate or altogether impractical considering the costs of litigation. Lastly, this article will discuss the reasons why people should be concerned about the War on Photography and possible ways to reverse the erosion of photography rights.
and start recording police brutality from a distance without the cop even knowing about it, then putting copies on USB thumb drives and leaving them in public places, (like the police dept, public libraries, the post office, etc...) and before you upload it to youtube use a public wifi hotspot and use a youtube account that does not show your real identity
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
What an obviously repressed homosexual.
It's a pity if Mass has archaic laws that prohibit what should plainly be a fundamental right.
The questions I'm left with are:
1. What states have these archaic laws
2. What movements can I support in those (if need be, in MY) states?
All hyperbole aside, those are important bits of information. If they've already been provided, please forgive me for missing them in the haypile. If they haven't, I'd very much appreciate anyone who can provide info - I'm absolutely sick to death of these backward law enforcement laws and I know that this type of thing is something that eventually will not be dealt with by the general public in a rational manner. See London.
"A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
no it wasn't, the law was passed in response to other incidents of police being caught on camera breaking the law.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Damn you horribly biased, agenda pushing slashdot summary writers!
The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating..
No no no no nooooo. The officer who did the beating was fired and is facing criminal charges. It is one of the officers who stood by and watched that got the 45 day suspension.
Just for the record, I think this wiretapping charge is bullshit and I think all the cops involved should be punished appropriately. But the summary makes it seem like a cop only got a 45 day suspension for assault with a deadly weapon, which is incorrect and borderline flame bait.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
Not entirely true:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3067
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
We have our own screwed up laws here in the UK but the saviour, in theory, is the defence of an act being in the public interest.
This trumps most other laws, providing you can afford the lawyer to defend you.( You'll probably need to gamble your house )
If I could grab you off the street, tie your hands behind your back, hold you for 24 hours against your will, and get paid for it, I wouldn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy while walking down a public street wearing a uniform that advertised the fact I could do all that to you.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Let's forget for a moment the law behind the matter.
Do we want to punish this person for something the reasonable person would consider the right thing to do?
Back to the law,
Do the laws around this reflect the will of the people? Do the elected officials who put them in place represent the will of the people?
On a grander viewpoint,
How do we hold legislators responsible to the will of the people again? Do we need to bring out the charge of treason?
but lets not split difinitives
i made a duplicate post without even reaidng the other follow ups
How is one to know whether your video recorder or phone has put sub-protocol information on the recording that identifies you. Ok, even if its a camera, it can put the serial number of the camera there. And if you bought it with a CC, then they can relate the two. Or , if you post other video of your camping trip or whatever, they could relate two recordings.
If recording the audio is a crime, then one should strip the audio before giving the recording to anyone. This would block the seizure of the tape as evidence that the recording itself was a crime.
This is the perfect opportunity to bring back jury nullification into the main stream, but it will be hard with all the brainwashed sheep in the US currently. If this goes to trial, the jury should just acquit because any law that states filming in public without consent is illegal is the stupidest law ever. Also if people actually stood up to cops my throwing out these cases, then maybe the attorney generals would grow a pair and start getting the bad weeds out of the police force
I live south of Massachusetts, in Rhode Island. Fortunately our wiretap law only require ONE party to know it's being recorded and doesn't specify which party. So I can record to my hearts content without fear of SLAP style suits by police officers. And RI has Castle Doctrine while MA has duty to retreat. As fucked up as RI is, at least we get SOME things right.
That's why there is a thing called jury nullification. Too bad if a judge or prosecutor gets a whiff of any juror knowing it exists you won't get on the jury.
There's one hiding on every street. Honest.
Just start spying on your neighbours and report them to the government as Pinkos^H^H^H^H^H^HTerrorists.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
... IF you ever come across a situation where someone is getting the crap beat out of them by the police, for Sagan's sake PUT THE DAMN CAMERA DOWN! I don't want to be filmed! If you're gonna do ANYTHING then get the thugs off me!
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
...activists have several ongoing legal battles concerning this nonsense. Here is the blog of one activist who has been fighting a similar charge in court for a while. His blog is also following a bill we have in the N.H. Legislature to fix the wiretapping law here. Slashdot reported on this case too, New Hampshire activists who were charged in Massachusetts and recently exonerated.
Liberty in your lifetime
I'm pretty sure there's stories about cameras doing this. I think some were about the iPhone, but I don't recall the Android situation. Even if some particular iteration didn't, an OS update could change that, so it's never a guaranteed thing.
What ever happened of prosecutorial discretion? I mean really, the DA's office should have seen this as a BS case and not wasted the court's or taxpayer's money in trying to bring it to trial.
When you don't clearly evaluate the repercussions of a new law, you end up with crap like 18 year-olds with 10 year prison sentences for having sex with 15 year-olds.
When a highschool senior boy is dating your highschool freshman daughter, that shotgun ain't for a wedding. When shooting highschool seniors full of rocksalt is frowned upon, you make sure the law says that the wrong thing the 18 year old did is a crime, then there's no need for violence.
There are good cops! It's really policemen like this who give the other 5% a bad name.
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Typical of this administration's view of the American populace. This is why when I'm on a jury I operate under the assumption that the police are lying and any evidence that could have been planted was. Jury nullification is the only thing left when those in power are the criminals.
. . . Do you ever tell the truth?
The public should have the same right the police have (not necessarily accepted by the law enforcement community) to video and record for the same reasons the police use them in their day to day activities. Protection. And to answer the question of why it should be allowed is the same reasoning given by police when they want to search you, your car or house without a warrant. What do you have to hide? Nothing if you didn't do anything. Police are not regular people. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS. And unless there is a compelling reason not to (undercover investigation would be one) there is no good reason for them to NOT be recorded. What are they trying to hide? As a public servant they should be accountable for what they do, just like any other employee. And as an employer (that's right, I pay taxes and so I employ them) I have a right to know what they are doing on my dime. Secrets have no place in government with the exception of the armed forces for protection of the country.
These used to be commonly accepted ideas before we gutted public education and Fox News began blaring propaganda 24/7.
I agree with your general principle, but I don't think you have thought this part through. If you think back, there will be a time in your life where society changed. When you were young, people followed ideals, not fear; politicians did what they believed was right, not what their donors told them to do; law enforcement worked to keep people free, not to control them. When did society change? It changed when your perception changed and it is only actually your awareness that has changed.
Not much of actual substance has changed in our lifetimes. When I was a kid (most likely a fair amount of time before you were a kid), I used to laugh at the one sided, blantant propaganda machine that was American news. I only stopped laughing when I realised that my own country's news was just as bad (just different propaganda). I laughed at the unbelievable ignorance of Americans apparently educated simply to be god fearing, flag worshipping sheep until I graduated high school and as a long time resident of Manitoba didn't know who Louis Riel was.
The problem with thinking that the world has changed is that you will focus on the wrong things. You will waste your energy railing against something that, while being a strong symptom of the problem, is not the problem itself. Instead of looking at what has changed, and trying to find what has spoiled, rather look for things that haven't changed. Look for things that were rotten from the beginning. This will give you a much better insight into the issue, IMHO.
It's because of poorly raised excuses of humanity like you that we need cops.
I do not think you know me well enough to make this statement
I further wonder if you have ever been pulled over when you were breaking no laws at all. I HAVE. I have been stopped for no other reason than that I was out driving past midnight (I was taking my brother back to college). I watched as the cop walked around my vehicle twice looking for anything he could stick me with. Of course there was nothing so he rudely told me not to speed and sent me on my way.
My licence plate numbers and other personal information went out for anyone with a police scanner on to hear. I had people at work the following day (I worked as an x-ray tech in the local ER) ask me if I got the ticket or not.
During that time I lived a block away form the hospital and would frequently get paged out at all hour of the night to x-ray someone. Because I live so close to my work I would walk to the ER. On multiple occasions while walking only a block to work I would have the local cops stop me and ask my business. Let me be abundantly clear about this. I respect cops when they do "keep the peace". However in my life I have never had a cop around when I felt threatened unless the cop was the reason that I felt threatened.
You may have only have had good experiances with cops. Good for you. But do not dare criticize my upbringing. YOU DO NOT KNOW ME!
"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
Wow, it's obvious that you're not only ignorant but stupid and dangerous as well. I suggest you read up on marriageable age, particularly "with parental consent", and quit being an idiot who thinks that every teenage boy should be shot full of salt for wanting to get laid. If you weren't such an asshole, maybe you'd realize that some parents actually DID give their consent to such young marriages.
By the way, your daughter's a slut. But for some reason you're not shooting her. Wonder what's up with that?
However in my life I have never had a cop around when I felt threatened unless the cop was the reason that I felt threatened.
This is the sad truth. I am more afraid of being shot by a cop than by anyone else.
I'd feel more comfortable around a pimp or pusher with a gun in his belt than with a cop. Because the crook at least values business and doesn't feel an urge to shoot potential customers. There's a good chance he has that that gun to protect himself from the police or organized criminals who sponsor the local donut brigade.
IANAL, but I'm willing to put a nice cold beer on this law being unconstitutional. The right to gather "news" and freedom of expression, stuff like that. Anyone here knows the details? If it comes to it, I hope groklaw will step in and Streisand this cop all the way to supreme court if he doesn't give.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
It should be legal to record criminal activity if you're an eyewitness. Anyway, laws don't have to be enforced if it's not in the public's interest. Would the people who made phone calls on airplanes during 9/11 have been charged with the federal offense of disobeying FAA rules? It's called prosecutorial discretion -- look it up, if a law is broken for the sake of clear public interest, the person doesn't have to be charged.
This is combination of what psychologists call the "foot in the door" technique and the "Milgram effect."
If you are sick and tired and seeing police officers beat people up and have them and the watch that WATCH it and do nothing get away, then please petition the federal government for a Federal Law: petition2congress.com/4898/kelly-thomas-law/ It is a start of the beginning of a whole lot of pain for officers who think they are in the sopranos while on the tax payers dime.
Any cop who doesn't like being filmed while on the job needs to be forced to quit. The very reason we have cops is to drag all things into the light of day in order to catch criminals and commit crimes. It is reasonable to insist that cops, who are trained in law enforcement, should be arrested and convicted for far smaller offences than the general pubis does.
shot? what about tasered? tasers were supposed to be ONLY an alternative to deadly force (used in place of shooting an armed or otherwise deadly assailant), but cops use them regularly to "put people in their place". after they were introduced in that manner, authorities quickly put in place use of force guidelines that give them license to use them pretty much whenever they want to. a conversation with a cop should NEVER allow for the possibility of saying "but..." leading to a partial electrocution.
...because the numbers say they have. My political awareness began with Watergate. In 1972, concentrations of wealth in this country were radically different. Unions still had some sway. Textbooks in public schools were not a rare and precious commodity.
I didn't get strip-searched to board a plane. I carried a pocket knife to school, and my science teacher borrowed it to open a box of reagents. We had the capability of putting a man on the moon. Engineers made good money and their sole income could support a family in affluence. "Stay in school" was a reasonable plan for success, not a bitter joke.
Prisons were run by the government, not for-profit corporations. Using prisons as a way to make money was thought of as immoral, so much so it was a major plot point of "Gone with the Wind." Jimmy Stewart was a national hero, not a filthy socialist.
Two reporters caught a president in a felony, and it cost the president his career. Today, Woodward and Bernstein would be reporting from Gitmo. I went to church and sat on bare wooden pews while a conservative Christian pastor taught that God loves all men. Today, the sons of those pastors appear on Jumbotrons and talk about church marketing and working the demographics. From the sermons I've heard lately, they've never even seen the New Testament, and have only a few pages of Cliff Notes on the Old.
You make a good point, but I'm pretty sure things have actually changed.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
I live in South Africa, a country with a reputation of having one of, if not the worst crime in the world.
About 10 years ago, these stories happened about as often as I read about them in now the US. Now stories like this happen daily, and it’s taken for granted here that if you see a cop you’re either; going to have to pay him to go away, hope he’s too full of doughnuts, spotted a richer looking target or you’re in deep shit.
Disclaimer I’ve had a 50 / 50 split of dealings with the cops here, and have some very good stories to tell about them. However when I do tell them, people look at me as if I’m telling them about a UFO sighting, and even I get nervous just seeing one.
What happens now though, is for every story hitting the news about Cop brutality, there is one about a cop been killed, which makes them even worse. The chief of police here has issued shoot to kill orders for the Cops, and a lot of innocent people are dying.
I know the US isn’t SA, and things are different, just letting you know that the same signs are there, and what may be in store if not enough people don’t act now.
Similar for me in the UK. I was pulled over recently because my passenger was black. I have never in my forty years witnessed racism like I did that day. The looks they gave him could have killed.
"What's your name?"
"What is your name?"
"You name please"
I know why the copper asked me three times - to see if I was lying. But was it nessecary?
When he'd finished his 20 questions and looked inside my car and out, he proclaimed that my car was dirty (it was) and that I should clean it. Yes, the police in the UK now protect us from dirty cars.
"Just a routine check sir" came the reply after I asked why. If I had a pound...
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
A grammar-nazi has a dual-personality on /., with wrong-one making the errors and write-one making the corrections.
Very Interesting
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
The right to bear arms was put into the constitution specifically to protect the people from a corrupt government, militia, or police force. Now we need a new right, specifically the right to bear cameras (and full protections on what we record, including the right to share it.) Sure, there's some details to work out; no recording classified stuff, etc., but anywhere a police action occurs, the public should have the right to record it, and to use that recording as they see fit.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
This is not an isolated incident. The site below has many articles about this incident as well as many others.
http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/carlosmiller
I hope this goes to a jury and the jury decides that the law that makes taping police in public a crime should be struck from the books.
If you film somebody being beaten, then wait until after the trial and the cop(s) has/have testified. THEN release it ANONYMOUSLY to the press.
One problem with your plan is that the defendant may otherwise be without evidence exonerating himself. In that case he will experience a great temptation to plead guilty. If he does then there may be no trial in which the cops have testified about the beating.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
I get mad when someone bust me for doing something wrong too.
With a sensible jury, the bystander can get away with it. Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller recently won just such a case.
It was a close call, though.
leading to a partial electrocution.
Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Cops, aside from MPs, *are* civilians.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Sounds like evidence tampering to me, or at least it could if I were on the other side of the table. As a juror, that sounds like you edited the results somehow, or at least someone could make the argument.
I would suggest that any editing or tampering or modification would be potentially damaging to your cause. Yes, the anonymous video-only leak might sway public sentiment.
Recording government of any kind in a public place, in any manner, should be just as legal as government of any kind recording private citizens in the same context. That's quite simple, and quite obvious.
But to get anything actually done, someone needs to be able to stand up and say that yes, that is the unmodified video that my camera recorded, while I watched the very same thing. In that case, the video cannot be ruled inadmissible due to it being potentially edited or photoshopped or michael bayed. You have a real live person, and no amount of anonymizing will hide you when someone has the right to confront their accuser.
Recording audio is not the crime, cops beating people is the crime. Do you civil disobedience duty, ask for donations to your legal fund, and appeal the law until either it goes away, or you at least get enough visibility that groups can pressure police departments into publically stating that they will not pursue charges like this. "Good luck with that" you say sarcastially. But thanks, because someone is going to need it.
Or to look at it another way, right now it is a very effective tool to intimidate people into not recording things. They won't want to lose that tool. It's going to be an ugly fight. You can get the law overturned by the judiciary, rewritten by the legislature, or announced unenforceable by the executive branches. But the push has to come from civilians. Having to hide behind anonymity in order to avoid prosecution is not a free country, especially when the law is so obviously flawed.
I find it amazing that a police officer who is caught assaulting someone and is so clearly out of line even HAS a job in law enforcement. Its really sad to see how little emphasis some of our justice departments put on the whole "to protect and serve" part of their jobs. For Christ sake, its the citizens who employ these people – our communities shouldn't allow this kind of behavior even once. He should be terminated and barred from public service permanently.
"Good Samaritan" type laws are pretty rare. You generally have no obligation at all to stop or report crimes. So if you witness a crime in progress and simply choose to ignore it and do nothing, that is your right and you don't get in trouble for it.
To be an accessory you have to provide support for the crime in some way. For example if someone else tried to go stop it and you intervened and stopped them from helping, that would make you an accessory, or if you were watching for the cops or something. Just witnessing it wouldn't do the trick.
Now it should be noted that if called upon to testify about what you witnessed, you'd have to do that. While the law doesn't require you to interfere, you are required to testify, if asked. Since you aren't on the hook to be charged for a crime, you can't refuse and you can be charged with a crime if you do refuse.
Some states have what I consider to be a really stupid law and require "both parties" or more correctly everyone involved to give consent to a recording. If you record audio without permission, that is wiretapping. This then can be, and is, abused by people like the police who do not wish to be recorded.
The more sensible system, which many states have (like mine) is a one party system. That means that one party of a conversation/event has to be aware of the recording, and then it is legal. So you can put a tap on your own phone, that's legal, and not tell anyone else because you are a party to the conversations. You can't tap your neighbour's phone though. You can carry a digital recorder on your person and record what happens around you, but you cannot sneak a digital record in to someone else's handbag. It allows for people to record what happens to them, but not to covertly record someone else. Works quite well.
The two party thing is the reason that support centers warn you that the call may be "monitored or recorded". Their employees know that, of course. However in two party states, they are breaking the law if you are not informed. If you disagree with the recording, you can hang up.
So, my suggestion is to find out what the laws in your state are. If you live in a one party state, you've nothing to worry about, your state has a sensible law (in this area). If you live in a two party state, then you need to chat with your representatives about getting the law changed. Remember this is a state issue, not a national one, so it is your state reps to talk to.
I wonder if the laws against witness intimidation are written so they might apply to the officer(s) and DA(s) in question.
Here's the deal the Fourth Amendment specifically guarantees the right to privacy. The First Amendment guarantees the right to speak out about the government, and bear witness against it, specifically because the United States of America is a representative democracy. Also, there's a long standing tradition that persons acting in the role of public office have no expectation of privacy while executing that office. This is always true. The only instance when the general public is barred from an exchange is when the subject matter is sensitive. Even then there are only two instances, to protect those in a judicial interaction from excessive exposure, and those in an active military action, to protect them from enemy attack.
What we need is one of these cases to make it to SCOTUS for final review. If police officers cannot be video recorded while executing official duty, then the public may not be video recorded by the police while in public either, however this is very common. SCOTUS could be very specific, and limit these laws, saying that once an officer identifies himself as such, he has no expectation of privacy, they could even codify what actions include identification.
My $0.02...
Try that second sentence again without using the words "bad" and "good" to differentiate the "guys" involved.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Please instruct the court stenographer to stop recording the audio in this courtroom, or else have him/her arrested for violating the very statute in question in this case."
Does it matter if audio is recorded by a pen on paper or by bits in flash memory? Is it only wiretapping if the physical waveform is recorded? I think the right lawyer could make a strong argument that it doesn't matter, or at least that the law as written is ambiguous.
Steal their wallet?
This is a textbook example of "I knew it all along" porn. Once you understand the premise of mistaking the accessory who received a mild suspension for the perpetrator who was fired and is now facing criminal charges, it makes more sense.
The human social order is a more complex beast than a toddler's mine/yours calculus can circumscribe. Of course in any stable society the power elite is protected by the power apparatus, it's practically a chicken and egg problem: which came first, the elite, or that which protects them?
We have a mixture of dirty cops who know where their bread is buttered, and we have selfless cops who deal with a lot of crap so us peons don't have to.
The pornographic conclusion is that there is this other system where there are no dirty cops ... and a different social elite. The only social systems minus the dirty cops known to archaeology (according to my diligent populist gleanings) are isolated tribes with fewer than 200 people. These societies also tend to have a strict (I would say oppressive) moral code, and conduct their internal class warfare with a good shunning (generally deadly), often directed toward a smart-ass who thinks there's a better way, and won't shut up after he's been politely tolerated for a few seasons, until some old man interprets a routine set-back as a dark omen, and gives the loud-mouth the crookered finger.
It's the same in the world of sports. Some guy is the dirtiest douchebag living when he plays for the other team; but then when your team adds "sandpaper" by acquiring the same notorious douchebag, the message instantly shifts to, "he might be an asshole, but he's our asshole". In this lingo, an asshole is a righteous douchebag fighting for a just cause. Around puberty, mine/yours graduates to us/them.
I never get on that wagon: the asshole is still the same old douchebag. To my mind revolutionary rhetoric never makes much sense. Most of the time, the new douchebags are worse than the current douchebags, with less of their rap sheet known around town to keep them cautious. If you can saw off, from time to time a housecleaning is a good measure. I don't have a problem trading douche for douche.
Politicians are like public transit: it really doesn't matter a lot which bus arrives. Some are cleaner than others, and don't rumble as much, or the driver doesn't do the herky-jerky with the power train every 30 seconds for the entire trip.
There are no political systems yet discovered minus the ugly buses. In democracy, the buses run on time and get washed clean every so often. It's a big advance by historical standards.
Nice fishline. Taxes are universal in modern society. We're nowhere close to being "sucked dry", though we complain as if it were true (until the corn fiasco, food prices were the lowest in human record). Our politicians govern themselves with an ear cupped daily to the opinion polls, and every bill to change the tax rate is mired in controversy and obstruction.
It's true the other ear is cupped toward insanely wealthy power brokers, but even having one hand cupped in the general direction of the public interest is said major accomplishment by historical standards.
With all this camera phones out there, politicians might soon have to crane an eye stalk, as well, to the public interest.
Unfortunately, with the staggering advances in image manipulation, every photograph will soon be mired in JFK controversy, and then the polarizers of discontent can go back to not hearing each other inside their fuzzy wombs that "make sense" once you know the pornographic secret about that which oppresses you.
So why were they pounding on this guy? Did he shoot a cop? The links I've followed don't say anything about how the encounter came about.
I want add that taxation is a smokescreen issue, a public outcry which the power brokers incite to serve their own interests.
Better regulation could have averted the recent bail-out of the luxury yachts by the work-a-day SUVs. It had nothing to do with the tax code. The power brokers do their magic tricks by inciting a mass protest on the western front when they are up to tricks on the eastern front.
I mean really, railing about taxation in modern society (it goes up, it goes down) is about the stupidest forum of protest out there. Maybe when the boomers are another decade older, they will organize a last ditch protest against human mortality, as their democratic clout is reduced to digesting the hair and bones of the fat little piglet in the python of human population growth.
If we capped retirement at five years (after which the retired person steps into the retirement booth) all of our tax problems would magically vanish. Turns out we tax less than previous societies, after longevity adjustment.
Here's the other profound secret: money goes around in circles, if the right sort of douchebags are running things. When money stops going around in circles, you've got real problems. Tax is just one of those circles. Do bail-outs to the wealthy count as circular? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
The full video being available in the second link, but it looks it's being taken on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy.
Yes, that's what everybody expects, but it's not what really happens. I have a friend who's being prosecuted under the same type of statute in New Hampshire. He recorded a traffic stop using his cell phone and an answering service. This wasn't prosecuted for almost half a year, but charges were filed just days after he recorded the public hearing in the State House of a bill to defeat such abuse and posted his video with some critical comments. In my opinion, he was targeted for engaging in the political process. (n.b. he's a videographer who's recorded scores of other House and Senate hearings, which is allowed, and this wasn't unusual).
Under the NH law, this can be prosecuted as a felony. That means, you lose your right to vote, you lose your right to own a firearm, drive a truck, etc. It's not a traffic violation by any means, this is serious business and the new favorite tool of gestapo-minded police across the country.
He's committed to fighting the charges and the law, so if you'd like to see an end to this kind of abuse, please consider throwing a fiver into his legal defense chip-in.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
So from that statement we can assume that you think that a 10 year, life-ruining prison sentence is an appropriate punishment for teenagers a few years apart in age having sex?
I smell a puritan. If you have daughters, I'll bet they'll be freaks in college.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
She can always claim that she was filming an empty street and the cops themselves entered the picture without her consent.
They violated her right to film an empty street.
He's 15, she's 18. Same shotgun response?
However in my life I have never had a cop around when I felt threatened unless the cop was the reason that I felt threatened.
This is the sad truth. I am more afraid of being shot by a cop than by anyone else.
I'd feel more comfortable around a pimp or pusher with a gun in his belt than with a cop. Because the crook at least values business and doesn't feel an urge to shoot potential customers. There's a good chance he has that that gun to protect himself from the police or organized criminals who sponsor the local donut brigade.
Sadly...that makes sense. If the pimp kills you he faces decades in prison, or a date with the Chair. If the cop kills you, all he has to do is say you were a threat to officer safety, and after his two month paid vacation, he gets his gun and badge back.
However I'd feel even safer around an honest citizen who carries a gun for self-defense (like me).
I would have told them that they were interfering with a medical emergency, and that they were free to proceed with me to the ER where they could continue the conversation with me and the rest of my emergency staff after the medical emergency has subsided. I would have followed up the incident in writing, pointing out very bluntly that the officer (by name and badge number and very specific timing) attempted to interfere with a medical professional who was responding to an emergency.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Sure, on the 15 year old. Strange how all three of my responders think I'm 100% serious.
45 day suspension for beating a man until his face breaks and he suffers permanent damage to his sight????? WTF is wrong with the world when this guy not only isn't in jail but gets to go back to his job??? Then he has the nerve to sue the person catching him on tape? He should get a year in jail just for having the audacity to try that since it is a form of harassment and intimidation.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
>but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed."
He is only sorry he got caught....and that there will always be proof of his abuse of power.
Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
It's about YOU. Even if she gets off after a lengthy and expensive trial, the next time you see a cop beating the shit out of someone you're going to turn away because you're a coward who doesn't want to get involved. Either that, or your're a terrorist and there are cameras on every stoplight.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
Several states have laws against filming police (for any reasons). One doesn't have to think to hard why.
Unfortunately too many of our police are crooked. I did not say all but a high number.
Each state is different of course, some states it is worse than other states, sigh.
I can only speculate as to why but my current favorite is that police are not held in high enough esteem (for a good reason?).