Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @09:55AM from the who-watches-the-watchers-who-watch-the-watchers dept.

stevegee58 writes "Posting videos to YouTube allegedly showing police misconduct has become commonplace these days. Now police themselves are posting their own videos to refute misconduct claims. 'After a dozen Occupy Minnesota protesters were arrested at a downtown demonstration, the group quickly took to the Internet, posting video that activists said showed police treating them roughly and never warning them to leave. But Minneapolis police knew warnings had been given. And they had their own video to prove it. So they posted the footage on YouTube, an example of how law enforcement agencies nationwide are embracing online video to cast doubt on false claims and offer their own perspective to the public.'"

299 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Okay then... by detritus. · 2012-06-12 09:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Then they should stop confiscating the cell phones and cameras of protesters if they have nothing to worry about.
The difference is, the only real attention the media will give will be to the police, and this AP article illustrates this perfectly.
1. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  the only real attention the media will give will be to the police
  That hasn't been the case so far. And it's easy to see why.
  Allegations of police brutality (and the controversy surrounding it) gets eyeballs. Police just doing their jobs is boring. Guess which one "the media" wants.
  See how that works?
2. Re:Okay then... by batkiwi · 2012-06-12 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  There is only one "police", and they all act the same, have the same leadership structures, and the same operating proceedures.
3. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:42 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Yup. And, every time some video sneaks out, it demonstrates criminal sadistic behavior on the part of the police.
  Even with video of cold blooded murder by cops (shooting Oscar Grant in the back while held down by a bunch of cops who showed they were conspirators to murder when they tried to collect every recording device (cell phones, etc.) in the Bart station to destroy the evidence), nothing but a slap on the wrist to the murdering pig, and nothing to his co-conspirators.
  It is hard to listen to the audio (there is poor quality video too) of one recording of 50 pigs in border patrol uniforms torturing a man to death just on the US side of the Mexico border. The man repeatedly screams Ayudame! Ayudame por favor! Help me! help me please! They kicked him, beat him, tased him, crushed him, and finally, after much suffering-- silence as he died-- leaving his children without (what sounded to be a devoted father). So, 50 pigs torture, murder, and (again conspire to destroy evidence by seizing cell phones), and nothing done to the criminal pigs.
  Or, the pigs who murdered a man who was supposed to be the victim of a medical emergency (emergency call pendant went off). Pigs knew it was a medical issue, and the company canceled the call, but the pigs broke in tased, then shot the severely ill, unarmed man dead after calling him a Nigger. All recorded by the device his medical pendant communicated with. Still, the pigs involved identities were protected, and the murderous racist pigs were treated as the victims.
  Police have _far_ too much power for the number of controls on their behavior. They should be recorded at all times (any incident without video and audio should default to the victim's account), and there should be civilian oversight boards from every community they police (that share the demographics of the community). These oversight boards should be empowered to make binding decisions about misconduct claims, and be given a say in the discipline such as recommending murder charges be pressed (the regular prosecutors office should recuse themselves from these cases due to their blatant conflict of interest). And, no cop should ever collect a pay check during an investigation (or, must repay 100% within 30 days + interest if after the investigation, the cop is shown to be in the wrong).
  Victims should be able to make claims against police pensions-- that alone would probably reign in many of the pigs.
  So many incidents where no recorded evidence too. Even harder to get even a slap on the wrist to the murderous sadistic pigs in these instances:
  Pigs in Louisianna, who not only went on a racially charged murder spree, but tried to burn the bodies to destroy the evidence.
  Or, the pig all juiced up on steroids who murdered a worker in a pet shop for not letting him use the stores phone to call in late (for the 20th time).
  Or the pig who shot up the car of a few kids (the bullet holes show he was aiming to kill the kids-- shooting at their heads). The kids were driving down the dead-end rural SD Proctor Valley Rd., and one tossed an empty paper cup out of the window, and it bounced off the off-duty pigs windshield causing no damage, but the pig was infuriated, and tried to murder 3 kids. Then he filed a report that the kids attacked him (assaulting a police officer was the charge). It was just one parent that stood between the truth, and the kids going to prison because of yet another cop roid raging. It came out that the pig considered them trying to drive away from him, an out-of-uniform madman shooting at them, as assault.
  If we treated cops like other criminals, entire precincts would be sitting on death row or at least be in prison right now.
4. Re:Okay then... by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-06-12 11:26 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I would treat your entire diatribe with far more respect and empathy had you not used the term "pig" in every single line. Frankly your name calling to justify a point just shows immaturity. Then the fact that people modded you up as AC makes me wonder what modders are thinking today. While your post is informative, it is also antagonistic.
  
  --
  -Noc
5. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  and they all cover eachother, even when it involves breaking the law to do it. If only they would self regulate we wouldn't have a problem, if only it was ok for a partner to say to the chief i don't think this officer should be running around with guns and clubs because he is in it for the fight not the peace. Which is fine when it's a murdering rapist but what when it's teenager reaching for a handkerchief? If the police department wont try to put a stop to this (which honestly if anyone one should have to follow the law it should be the police) the public will try (or at least want to which makes for lots of ratings on news shows). If the cops want to film themselves then that's great, stick a camera they can't turn off on there head and i reckon you'll see a lot less misconduct, even though most abuse will still be swept under the rug when it can be.
6. Re:Okay then... by girlintraining · 2012-06-12 11:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The difference is, the only real attention the media will give will be to the police, and this AP article illustrates this perfectly.
  So long as people continue to watch media which only gives half the story, only half the story will be given. I go through a lot of effort to seek out alternative media and accounts of major stories, and what I've discovered is that domestic media only provides the appearance of impartiality; Just enough to suspend disbelief. This is most evident in how they give "equal time" to, say, creationism, as they would a scientist, when doing a report on the latest global warming. Domestic media is there to provide just enough facts for each 'side' to continue to perpetuate the idea of a controversy, when in fact, there very rarely is one. The media will even manufacture controversy if their corporate sponsors are paid enough; the recurring gay marriage stories and 'controversy', for example -- if you look, there wasn't much polarization before the general public was saturated with coverage of it.. people were like "Well, maybe I don't like it, but why the fuck do I care? There's about a billion other things more important than that." But the republicans needed a victory, so they pumped Murdock and behold, a polarizing story designed to get their voters to the polls to defeat their democratic rivals.
  So yes, domestic media is totally corrupt, and they will happily splice and cut footage up, take people's quotes out of context, and generally 'spice' things up, but there is a very specific agenda behind such things. Indie media though is even worse... people desperate to get "their side" of the story or portray "the truth" often do such a piss-poor and slanted job of it that only the political activists in their own little microcosm would ever approve of it. I've tracked OccupyMN since they pitched their first tent... they've released hundreds of YouTube videos... all with only a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand at most, viewing it.
  The Occupiers never got organized, they just barfed content onto the internet and made a cacaphony of conflicting statements, all basically saying "See! See! This proves what we've been saying all along!" ... Of course, nobody really knows what it is they've been saying at all... the Occupy movement is sortof a blob of negative emotions projected by the working class onto the rich, and while some of it is justified, the lack of any real cohesion means it basically reduces to a king sized bitch fest.
  And then there's 'Collateral Damage', a widely-watched indie media video produced by Wikileaks, which later led to it being hunted by the 'land of the free' with a zeal that harkens back to soviet-era media manipulation. Indie media had a great potential to show us the actual cost of war, and to underscore how drone attacks and remote bombing may not harm homeland security in the short-term, but it definately creates lasting hostility to this country which definately harms it in the long term. 9/11 was a direct consequence of this kind of media manipulation -- it forced political reactionaries abroad to use bombs to get the general public's attention, because what was going on on Afghanistan was so far removed from public view that few people on the street could even tell you what we were doing there.
  And this is the loci of the problem: No matter which 'side' you're on, the concept of 'sides' is the real enemy in journalism. Democracy absolutely depends on impartial reporting; Democracy fails catastrophically when the population becomes illiterate and misinformed or underinformed (both are equally bad). And that's exactly what's happened in this country -- ever since the vietnam war protests, our government in concert with wealthy private interests have carefully constructed a sort of "glass curtain" around the country. Unlike an iron curtain, like the soviets had, or similar systems which the Chinese have, our form of censorship is subtle and depends on controlling the broadcast media via private corporations and individuals so the government has plausible deniability; But it accomplishes the same basic goal: To mislead the general public about government actions.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
7. Re:Okay then... by interkin3tic · 2012-06-12 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  More often, they just ignore the police brutality that does happen. The only times they actually show police being bullies is in those rare occasions when it's too big to ignore or dismiss as taken out of context. Even then, they move on quickly to less important things, like regurgitating talking points from politicians.
  
  It's rare that you get the media actually investigating police brutality. You heard about the pepper-spraying, but you probably didn't hear anything else about it.
8. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  Great lack of citations. Very big bold claims with no way to back them up, and only one name and one location out of all of that. Found out that Proctor Valley Road near San Diego is believed by some people to be haunted. Fun, but not helpful to anyone. Could only find one of these stories, the only one where you provided a name, and the policeman involved was sentenced to only two years, as it was believed that the shooting was accidental.
  And, yeah, like the other person said, thanks for using the word pig so much. Useless offensive post.
9. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They all do act remarkably similar, state to state, year to year.
  Who taught police departments from Miami, Houston, Phoenix, New York City, San Francsico, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Oklahoma City, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington DC, etc. to all yell "STOP RESISTING!" while repeatedly tasering someone? They all managed to learn how to use the passive voice in any report about their actions-police never shoot anyone, 'shots were fired', 'a gun was discharged', etc.
  Area to area, year to year, you'll probably notice far more similarities among police officers then dissimilarities
10. Re:Okay then... by haruchai · 2012-06-12 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  I would treat your criticism of the AC post with more respect if you'd addressed the actual events listed.
  I can't (yet) find a single comment by you on the actions or crimes of those whom we expect to serve and protect - except that they shouldn't be called "pig" under any circumstances.
  There's some irony in your use of antagonistic as that is the first recourse of the police in too many situations where kneejerk violence or intimidation is not warranted.
  And for you to read that litany of crime and murder by "peace" officers, and to focus only on a single though repetitive pejorative causes me to wonder just how much empathy you're capable of mustering for the victims.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
11. Re:Okay then... by Penguinisto · 2012-06-12 12:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Couple o' things I can think of offhand:
  1) Huge accusations, but no cites. Considering the accusations, some credible and substantiated citations would have been damned useful, at least before you demand that someone form an opinion one way or the other (and no, "Google it" doesn't cut it, given that most of the links that are likely to come up will be slanted one way or the other).
  2) GGP running around calling cops "pigs" at every other breath? It labels him quicker and more effectively than it labels the cops. He just doesn't understand that, and apparently neither do you.
  I figured that someone with a low UID would be old enough by default to understand such simple things...
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
12. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:20 · Score: 0
  
  He didn't say they shouldn't be called pigs, he didn't defend them in any way in fact.
  What he said is that calling them pigs every single time makes a persons arguments sound immature and emotional rather than well constructed and rational regardless of the strength of the arguments. The same could be said for people that only use "M$", "fan-boi", refer to Republicans thugs and plutocrats or Democrats as commies and beatniks. One could have an educated talk on Black culture in America or they could talk about "crack heads in the hood". Antagonistic generalization doesn't do any credit to anyone.
13. Re:Okay then... by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-06-12 12:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  ^ what he said.
  I actually know firsthand what police brutality and antagonistic tendencies are. I open carry.
  (If you do not know what that is, and are commenting on police brutality, then I will now say my first antagonistic comment which is get your head out of your ass and off of slashdot.)
  I however treat them with respect deserved by a fellow human being. You calling every single police officer bad, just states ignorance. That's like saying every black person steals and does drugs, or every Asian is extremely smart, or all Americans are redneck idiots, or all Brits talk in 1 accent(I'd love to see a Brit respond to someone saying that.)
  
  --
  -Noc
14. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:29 · Score: 0
  
  First point is fair enough. Second point: it labels him in your mind, and you accusing everyone who disagrees with you of not understanding labels you more effectively than anyone else in the discussion.
15. Re:Okay then... by ifwm · 2012-06-12 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  Frankly your name calling to justify a point just shows immaturity.
  Strange, I thought it showed an intolerance to mistreatment.
  YOU may personally find it OK to spend time bootlicking, but others don't respond to mistreatment the same way you do. I doubt, for example, if you were the children of the man killed in the proceeding diatribe, that you would find nearly as much fault with his use of "pig" as you do now.
  But hey, you go on raging about people calling cops pigs, that's certainly a constructive use of your time.
16. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:52 · Score: 0
  
  It labels him quicker and more effectively than it labels the cops. He just doesn't understand that, and apparently neither do you.
  No it doesn't. YOU don't like it, but that doesn't reflect on him at all, no matter how many times you cry about it.
17. Re:Okay then... by ifwm · 2012-06-12 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  I however treat them with respect deserved by a fellow human being.
  So you're saying you're a fool? Or ignorant?
  They will get the respect human beings deserve when they start acting like human beings, and by that I mean, the end of the "Blue Wall of Silence".
  When cops police themselves the same way they police you, and when they turn in their offending brothers the way the law requires, and when they stop using collective bargaining and Unions to avoid responsibility for their behavior, THEN they get human status.
  But hey, you want to ignore all that, that's your party.
18. Re:Okay then... by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-06-12 13:09 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  I would like to redirect you to my open carry statement a few lines down.
  Intolerance to mistreatment?
  So if I called a black person a N*gger and they decided to punch me in the face I should accuse them of intolerance to mistreatment.. I do not disagree with anything posted it was wrong thats correct but saying ALL THOSE DAMN PIGS...so your saying every single police officer that you've ever met has had his boot in your mouth? interesting.
  News flash: I have been put on the ground, had my gun taken away from me and been in handcuffs for 4 hours while they decided whether it was legal or not, I did not get up and call them pigs I was respectful the entire time. They apologized profusely, I replied I understand why you did it, THAT'S why I carry a gun, and the officer shook my hand at that point.
  If you were trying to protect the public from a riot, and everyone is throwing shit at you and everything else, and all you do is stand there and tell them to disperse, hey, there are always 2 stories to every incident. If I had to put up with shit being thrown at me for a half hour before finally getting the call to go in, I would probably hit you a bit harder than I should have as well...we are human...calling them "pigs" denotes the fact that they are human.
  
  --
  -Noc
19. Re:Okay then... by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-06-12 13:16 · Score: 2
  
  Id rather have a blue wall of silence than a brick wall in lebanon in the 80's(you know the mass killings by the military). Holy shit you are so ignorant I am actually laughing right now. I am for the occupy movement. I agree with their premise, I am an athiest, an independent, and a member of mensa. So you say other human beings dont deserve respect? You sound like a radical muslim talking about christians.
  
  --
  -Noc
20. Re:Okay then... by ifwm · 2012-06-12 13:36 · Score: 1
  
  So if I called a black person a N*gger and they decided to punch me in the face I should accuse them of intolerance to mistreatment.
  Could you clairfy this? It's a stupid analogy and doesn't apply so I need clarification.
  
  but saying ALL THOSE DAMN PIGS...so your saying every single police officer that you've ever met has had his boot in your mouth?
  They cover for each other, and protect bad apples. That's enough.
  
  had my gun taken away from me and been in handcuffs for 4 hours while they decided whether it was legal or not
  So you're much more tolerant to having your rights violated. NEWS FLASH FOR YOU chief, they don't decide if something is legal, it IS or IS NOT. Your ignorance of this, and demurring to cops opinion of the legality of your (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) legally purchased weapon is NOT a point in your favor, as you attempt to paint it, it's you being a coward and an apologist.
  Had you the sack and knowledge of a proper citizen, you'd have asserted your rights. That you laid there and took it says much about you, and why you choose to defend cops against name calling.
  
  If I had to put up with shit being thrown at me for a half hour before finally getting the call to go in, I would probably hit you a bit harder than I should have
  So it's the population's fault that cops are unprofessional goons, got it. "YOU PISSED ME OFF SO I'M GONNA BATTER YA!" or somesuch? Why would anyone ever be ok with that like you are?
  I don't know what point you were trying to make, but unless it was to prove you're an unrepentant cop apologist, you've failed.
21. Re:Okay then... by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-06-12 13:51 · Score: 2
  
  Now you attempt to throw insults at me for lack of a correct argument...charming.
  Stupid analogy? No...Its exactly what you said simply the wording was changed...So you are calling your analogy stupid? I see thank you for verifying my point.
  How about this, come to st. louis, MO come to merril lynch in clayton with a huge badge on your shirt that says i dont like people who like cops throw stuff at me, I wonder how many things I could throw at you before I had to file an assault charge. Ill even pay you 10$ an hour to do it. lets see how much frozen yogurt and starbucks you can take shall we? Oh sorry its a area that has a lot of those, and easier to clean up than rice and beans from Qdoba after the social experiment was over. rice is so hard to clean off of cement...
  "they don't decide if something is legal, it IS or IS NOT."
  OH WOW YOU ARE ENLIGHTENING ME I HAD NO IDEA! they enforce the law. Go read a few law books, then quote the entire book back to me, Then look around for the other 500000 some odd law books and remember and quote all of those to me.
  Last I checked the Supreme Court had the last laugh on what was constitutionally a law or not....But I dont see a bunch of old people in robes running around with a gavel attempting to enforce it.
  Tolerant to having my rights violated? My rights were not violated, I got my gun back. I got an apology. No lasting harm, im not gonna scream about how I am damaged for life because I am not. Would you prefer If I were a serial rapist running around the streets with a gun? By your logic, it seems that way, and before the cops stopped me in their eyes i possibly was....I sure as shit would handcuff someone to verify they were allowed to have a gun on their waist in public, you don't see it a lot.
  
  --
  -Noc
22. Re:Okay then... by haruchai · 2012-06-12 14:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This isn't Wikipedia but there's more than enough info provided to find multiple sources, some with video, in a matter of moments.
  If you can find Slashdot, we do expect you know how to Google or that you have access to YouTube.
  There are, of course, many other examples of questionable and criminal activity by police - many obscure.
  But most of the ones above are easy to find although I've not found the stories about Proctor Valley Rd or Lousiana.
  Ones of the benefits of my age-accrued wisdom and my extensive Slashdot experience is that I learned a long time ago to control kneejerk reactions.
  It's clear that Nocturnal Deviant isn't yet at that level or perhaps it's too early in the day for him to be thinking clearly.
  Consider the following:
  "Yup. And, every time some video sneaks out, it demonstrates criminal sadistic behavior on the part of the police.
  Even with video of cold blooded murder by cops (shooting Oscar Grant in the back while held down by a bunch of cops who showed they were conspirators to murder when they tried to collect every recording device (cell phones, etc.) in the Bart station to destroy the evidence), nothing but a slap on the wrist to the murdering pig, and nothing to his co-conspirators"
  Story and video of this is easy enough to find. My opinion is that the officer did confuse the Taser with his pistol but tasering a man who was held down by 6 cops was excessive - surely more than one of them had handcuffs or tie-wraps.
  As this was the 1st use of "pig", let's give this inference a pass.
  "Police have _far_ too much power for the number of controls on their behavior. They should be recorded at all times (any incident without video and audio should default to the victim's account), and there should be civilian oversight boards from every community they police (that share the demographics of the community). These oversight boards should be empowered to make binding decisions about misconduct claims, and be given a say in the discipline such as recommending murder charges be pressed (the regular prosecutors office should recuse themselves from these cases due to their blatant conflict of interest). And, no cop should ever collect a pay check during an investigation (or, must repay 100% within 30 days + interest if after the investigation, the cop is shown to be in the wrong)."
  No insults at all in this paragraph - why no comment from Nocturnal Deviant? Is there nothing here that's Insightful?
  "Victims should be able to make claims against police pensions-- that alone would probably reign in many of the pigs"
  "Pigs" appears only at the end and you could read right up to the word "many" without losing any of the point of this sentence. He does misuse "reign".
  Perhaps that error had a subliminal effect on Nocturnal Deviants heightened sensibilities.
  Okay, now if we skip over the remaining lines where "pig" appears, we get to the closing statement:
  "If we treated cops like other criminals, entire precincts would be sitting on death row or at least be in prison right now."
  This is, at most, an exaggeration but it's not unthinkable if RICO laws, or slight adjustments to them, were applied in cases where police criminal activity or the coverup thereof, was suspected.
  Now, if the original AC poster had, instead of using the insult directly, had linked to videos where friends, family or witnesses had described the events while referring to the cops as pigs, would you (or Nocturnal Deviant) think they were less deserving of empathy?
  I would says that most cops do try to be good officers but there are many who not only fall short but are as bad as, or worse than, the criminals.
  Why they are given so much more leeway than we would grant a soldier?
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
23. Re:Okay then... by haruchai · 2012-06-12 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Pardon me for interrupting a good belly-laugh but you don't have to look overseas for examples of brutality ( which happens everywhere ).
  Cops used to be much worse decades ago but the fact that they are better doesn't mean they should be given a free pass when they're blatantly in the wrong.
  ifwm is a bit over the top but he's not wrong to demand that the laws apply equally to police or that they treat criminals in blue uniforms the same as they do the ones in hoodies.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
24. Re:Okay then... by ifwm · 2012-06-12 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  Now you attempt to throw insults at me for lack of a correct argument...charming.
  Stupid analogy? No...Its exactly what you said simply the wording was changed...
  No, it's a stupid analogy, and appears to be the inverse of what I said. That's why I asked for clarification. Don't get your panties twisted because your analogy is stupid and you can't make your point without one.
  
  Tolerant to having my rights violated?
  Yup.
  
  Would you prefer If I were a serial rapist running around the streets with a gun? By your logic
  No no sparky, not MY logic. I never said or suggested anything of the kind, you're just desperately lashing out because you realize you laid there for four hours and took it. You did the "think of the children" nonsense before, now you're on to "serial rapist" nonsense, which has nothing to do with any of my points.
  
  I sure as shit would handcuff someone to verify they were allowed to have a gun on their waist in public,
  
  That's because you don't realize that is a violation of your rights. Not something to be proud of.
  
  "they don't decide if something is legal, it IS or IS NOT."
  OH WOW YOU ARE ENLIGHTENING ME I HAD NO IDEA!
  
  I can only go by what you say, and what YOU SAID, yes shows you didn't know. I don't think you did, because you also think it's ok to handcuff people for 4 hours to "verify they were allowed to have a gun on their waist in public" despite there being a law that addresses that, the 2nd something or other...
  
  My rights were not violated
  YOU were the one making the claim that you were detained for four hours for a legal handgun. There's really no scenario where that isn't a violation of your rights.
  
  I got my gun back. I got an apology.
  
  Irrelevant to whether your rights were violated. It was YOUR gun, yet you act like they did you a favor giving it back.
  
  I wonder how many things I could throw at you before I had to file an assault charge.
  
  I'm didn't volunteer to be a cop and take an oath to meet the responsibilities of being a cop, so that attempt fails too, but if YOU THREW SOMETHING AT ME, IT WOULDN'T BE ASSAULT IF I STOPPED YOU. See how you try so hard but have no idea what the fuck you're talking about? YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIM was that you'd beat me more than necessary. That's got NOTHING to do with your CURRENT scenario, just like your profoundly stupid, inverted analogy has nothing to do with any of my points.
  
  Go read a few law books, then quote the entire book back to me, Then look around for the other 500000 some odd law books and remember and quote all of those to me.
  So you're saying police are stupid and can't know their job well enough to do it properly. Why are you defending them then?
  In short, you've proven you don't know how the constitution works, don't know the law regarding guns, don't respect your rights, think cops decide what is and is not legal, and are a pretty piss poor citizen in general. You let cops walk all over you and then act like their legal requirement to return your gun was some benevolent gesture.
  YOU are why cops abuse people and get away with it.
25. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 14:52 · Score: 0
  
  All right, I believe I understand now, Nocturnal Deviant is a moron.
26. Re:Okay then... by ifwm · 2012-06-12 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  Strange, I thought it showed an intolerance to mistreatment.
  
  So if I called a black person a N*gger and they decided to punch me in the face I should accuse them of intolerance to mistreatment.
  
  Stupid analogy? No...Its exactly what you said simply the wording was changed...
  See that's funny because I never mentioned force, and the subject we're discussing was calling cops "pigs", which is Constitutionally protected speech, not punching them in the face.
  So not only is your analogy stupid, it's absolutely NOT "exactly what [I] said simply the wording was changed", as I never mentioned using force, but YOU DID.
  Are you so ignorant to the difference between Constitutionally protected speech and force that you actually think they're the same? Really?
27. Re:Okay then... by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-06-12 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  last comment
  YOU are why cops abuse people and get away with it.
  You are why countries think Americans are stupid.
  Do you think I guide their hands? Do I make them do that? No. I personally have no emotional involvement in this, you obviously do, that makes your opinion biased and therefore...well your case utterly useless..Once you involve yourself emotionally, you lose about 90% of your credibility. Also posting as Ac as a reply to something this buried with an insult...makes me wonder about your level of sanity as well.
  You lose, Good day sir.
  
  --
  -Noc
28. Re:Okay then... by Penguinisto · 2012-06-12 15:46 · Score: 2
  
  Now, if the original AC poster had, instead of using the insult directly, had linked to videos where friends, family or witnesses had described the events while referring to the cops as pigs, would you (or Nocturnal Deviant) think they were less deserving of empathy?
  It's not a question of empathy, really. Nocturnal Deviant was only pointing out that maybe AC would've gotten the point across better if it wasn't inflammatory to the point of stupidity. If we were to exaggerate only a smidge, it would be like reading a post about Mideast peace talks while seeing the word "kikes" tossed around every other sentence or so in reference to Israelis. The original complaints and any salient points get drowned.
  Hell, I perfectly agree that any abuse of power is incredibly wrong, and deserving of the harshest punishment in any society. But that really wasn't the point.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
29. Re:Okay then... by haruchai · 2012-06-12 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nocturnal Deviant did state that he (or she) had less empathy because of the rampant use of "pig".
  But there is some irony in calling someone immature when you can't control your own reflexive actions.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
30. Re:Okay then... by datavirtue · 2012-06-12 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of "the second set of books." Google it.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
31. Re:Okay then... by datavirtue · 2012-06-12 16:55 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've known of officers who played it straight and refused the buddy buddy system. The Chief will put them in check. One guy I know got suspended for trying to arrest a fellow officer, or deputy, forget which--he was DUI.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
32. Re:Okay then... by JonJ · 2012-06-12 17:53 · Score: 2
  
  Cops used to be much worse decades ago but the fact that they are better doesn't mean they should be given a free pass when they're blatantly in the wrong.
  This is a strawman, Nocturnal Devian never claimed they should get a free pass.
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
33. Re:Okay then... by haruchai · 2012-06-12 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  If you read his comments above, you'll see he studiously refrains from saying how bad cops should be treated or punished.
  And, even looking at some of his other comments below, I only see anecdotes about him being respectful after being arrested and handcuffed for having a weapon and getting an apology.
  I also see him stating that the behavior of some people is why cops can abuse and get away with it.
  I haven't yet found an example of him calling out cops on obeying the law or facing punishment.
  He pulls a pretty good strawman of his own by talking about murders and abuses by Lebanon's military in the 80s when someone brought up the Blue Wall of Silence. "It's okay for US cops to shield their scumbags-in-arms because they don't act like some foreign cops from 30 years ago"
  At this point, I have to say that I don't buy his story; barring further evidence, I'm going to class him as some sort of police shill. Although,perhaps not as blatant a craven bootlicker as c6gunner
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
34. Re:Okay then... by detritus. · 2012-06-12 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  That hasn't been the case so far. And it's easy to see why.
  Allegations of police brutality (and the controversy surrounding it) gets eyeballs. Police just doing their jobs is boring. Guess which one "the media" wants.
  See how that works?
  I'd love to see the videos that the police took of this: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/have-minnesota-cops-been-drugging-occupy-minneapolis-theres-some-interesting-video/
  The national media didn't hardly even touch it.
  In this case, if the police want to video everything (which they had), fine. I'll accept evidence if they have a defense. However, nothing should ever be erased or destroyed, and all captured video should be subject to FOIA requests if they aren't. Most of all, if these allegations are true, those responsible should be immediately fired and be brought up on multiple felonies. However, history has taught me that 9 times out of 10 it doesn't happen.
35. Re:Okay then... by rtb61 · 2012-06-12 21:56 · Score: 2
  
  Most of the ones mentioned are of general knowledge and don't really need any cites. Some are new but also there are many, many others not mentioned. People get rightly infuriated when justice is blatantly one sided, where corruption is clearly the rule of the day. Some days when people are in better moods then can express themselves more effectively, how ever when they are exposed to a series of criminal abuses by those in power the humour tends to trail off and the express themselves in purely the way they feel.
  Everyone knows what the problem is, a purely for profit justice system, when county, state and federal governments are far more concerned about losing civil suits and paying millions in damages, than in justice, even when their corrupt deceits more often than not drive the civil suits due to the victims of their families only means by which to pursue justice.
  Perhaps one usefull thing can be done is to create an independent, only pursue law enforcement criminal actions, federal agency. Their only job to investigate and prosecute criminal behaviour by law enforcement. Forcing all levels to law enforcement to adhere to the constitution, federal law and state law and publicly prosecuting infringements of the law by law enforcement. I am sure there are plenty of police officers out there totally sick of the corruption who would love nothing more than to be part of a force that does nothing else other than track down criminal law enforcement.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
36. Re:Okay then... by Chris+Mattern · 2012-06-12 22:57 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't Wikipedia but there's more than enough info provided to find multiple sources, some with video, in a matter of moments.
  We're not here to research your claims. You have to do that. Provide evidence, or shut up.
37. Re:Okay then... by Chris+Mattern · 2012-06-12 23:00 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the ones mentioned are of general knowledge and don't really need any cites.
  I haven't heard of any of them. Citations, please.
38. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 23:35 · Score: 0
  
  Sheesh. Here are links to the first three. Lern 2 Google and do the rest yourself.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BART_Police_shooting_of_Oscar_Grant
  http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/24/death_on_the_border_shocking_video
  http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny
39. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  You calling every single police officer bad, just states ignorance.
  No, it states truth.
  You see, the very job of the police is to find and arrest criminals. If one cop commits a crime, they are a bad cop. But, at the same time, ALL THE OTHER COPS WHO DON'T ARREST HIM ARE BAD COPS, TOO.
  The ONLY cops who are really 'good' are those who are completely ignorant of their fellow officers wrongdoing. They aren't covering up for their fellow cops wrongdoing- they don't even know it exists. But if a cop is that dumb, I don't want them as a cop.
40. Re:Okay then... by haruchai · 2012-06-12 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, you're too lazy to even notice that I didn't make any of those claims.
  This is a discussion forum. If you lack the initiative to do even basic fact-checking, it's likely you offer nothing more than rectally-derived opinions.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
41. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  Tolerant to having my rights violated? My rights were not violated, I got my gun back. I got an apology.
  SO, you think illegally detaining you for four hours is not a violation of your Rights?
  Wow . No wonder this country is so fucked up.
42. Re:Okay then... by Joey+Vegetables · 2012-06-13 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  I'd think that pigs of the four-legged variety would be highly insulted by the comparison. GP is not referring to those who genuinely try their best to "protect and serve." He is referring to sadistic, murdering thugs who use their badge to let them commit horrific crimes with impunity.
  Antagonistic? Damn right. Immature? You are free to think so if you wish, but I'll take "immature commenter" over "sadistic fucking murderer" any day.
  Someday the people will rise up and take back their society, and they will take a dim view of the thuggery committed by pigs. They will want revenge, and they will get it. But I will be advocating for the very things that the pigs did not grant the courtesy of offering to their victims: a fair trial and, if warranted, a punishment that fits their crimes. I will not participate in, and in fact will vigorously oppose, any punishment that is any more sadistic or brutal than the crimes they are proven to have committed. I also will not participate in any action that could result in harm to any cop who is *not* proven to have committed serious crimes.
  There are some decent ones; not as many as there should be, but to be a decent cop in a decaying, violent and lawless society, surrounded by thugs with and without badges, is a hard, brave and courageous thing, and we will need such people to rebuild a new society on top of the ashes of this one. In short, I'm with the good ones, but as for the "pigs" - again, with apologies to the four-legged kind - they had better straighten out. God is just, and His justice will not sleep forever.
  
  --
  
  Nonaggression works!
43. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  last comment
  YOU are why cops abuse people and get away with it.
  
  I personally have no emotional involvement in this, you obviously do, that makes your opinion biased and ... utterly useless
  This is by far the dumbest thing I've seen all day. You don't have a heated and prolonged exchange like this without having (or developing) an emotional investment.
  You, sir, are a liar. It is merely unclear whether you are lying to yourself, or only to others.
44. Re:Okay then... by Tamerlin · 2012-06-13 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  "Then they should stop confiscating the cell phones and cameras of protesters if they have nothing to worry about." That's the big thing that this article fails to address. If the police won't let citizens film the police, then the police's own videos cannot and will not be trusted. They can't have it both ways, though obviously they're trying to pretend that they're the aggrieved party here.
45. Re:Okay then... by mcgrew · 2012-06-13 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  He's probably around my age. Back in the late '60s and '70s, "pig" was the hippie word for "cop". Which fit; the cops protect the 1% (listen to the Beatles Piggies) from the 99%. Read Animal Farm. The term fits.
  And when you're criticizing someone who is doing terrible evil, how can you not be antagonistic? Sorry to Godwin the thread, but if you were talking about Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot would you not be antagonistic? Always be antagonistic to evil!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
46. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Just wanted to chime in here and say I am totally fine with police officers. All they shit most people put up with in a month pales in comparison to what a cop has to deal with daily.
  It is hilarious you think police are bad today when back in the 40's they literally had machine guns mounted to their squad cars.
  If any criticism of the modern patrol man is due it is that cops today are too soft and too few.
47. Re:Okay then... by mcgrew · 2012-06-13 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Huge accusations, but no cites.
  Illinois abolished its death penalty when the Innocence Project proved that half the men on death row were innocent of the murders they were convicted of, and massive police and District Attorney corruption (including torture and planted evidence) were the reason most of the innocents were convicted.
  He didn't need to make a citation about the cop shooting at unarmed teenagers; I'm surprised that nothing similar has happened where you live. Just last year there was a similar incident in Chatham (just outside Springfield). Sorry I can't make a citation either, but the SJ-R only archives its stories for a few weeks.
  Then there are the murders (OK, negligent homicides) at the Sangamon County Jail. I knew one of the victims personally, his name was Maurice "Moe" Burris. He died in agony when the jail doctor refused to send him to the hospital, even though he was puking blood. His family recently successfully sued the county for Moe's death. The quack doctor that killed my acquaintence is still working for the county instead of sitting in prison for negligent homicide as he should be. Luckily the IT isn't as retarded as the SJ-R when it comes to data retention (among other things), you can find more about the Innocence Project and the police misconduct that led to the end of the death penalty there as well. I'd link to the SJ-R's take on the quack practicing medicine but they'll probably pull the story before you could see it.
  This was a big deal a couple years ago; detectives lied to a judge about a "trash rip" to get a search warrant, then planted cocaine during the "search". The suspect was freed by the judge, no criminal action was taken against the detectives (but if you lie to a judge you'll go to jail). The detectives were fired, then later rehired after suing the city!
  Those are instances just here in Illinois and mostly local! Multiply that by fifty and you'll begin to see how bad the situation really is. These kinds stories are incredibly easy to find in reputable newspapers.
  You MUST remember Ruby Ridge and Waco, don't you?
  The situation is bad. It's no wonder that poor people ALL fear and loathe the police. I assume the fellow you responded to has probably been personally victimized by thuggish cops.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
48. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  I personally have no emotional involvement in this, you obviously do, that makes your opinion biased and ... utterly useless
  This is by far the dumbest thing I've seen all day. You don't have a heated and prolonged exchange like this without having (or developing) an emotional investment.
  You, sir, are a liar. It is merely unclear whether you are lying to yourself, or only to others.
  This is simply not true in the least. It is entirely possible to have a tedious and long winded conversation such as the two of you had and not have or develop emotional investment. One only need be logical. You seem however to shun logos (logic) and embrace pathos (emotion) in your arguments, which is incidentally the root of the word pathetic. By your reasoning you are required to be emotionally invested in the conversation, and you erroneously assume others are as well. That is the problem with allowing emotion into your logic, it makes a mess of things and ruins your point.
49. Re:Okay then... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  No it doesn't. YOU don't like it, but that doesn't reflect on him at all, no matter how many times you cry about it.
  Aside from being immature, derogatory and poorly communicated, it also makes the poster's bias very clear. That definitely reflects on him. It would be like if somebody was trying to present themselves as an objective critic of Obama based on uncited facts, while dropping the n-bomb a dozen times.
power to the people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:00 · Score: 0

i guess police are people, too...
1. Re:power to the people by Githaron · 2012-06-12 10:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  i guess police are people, too...
  ... that must be held to a higher standard.
2. Re:power to the people by oztiks · 2012-06-12 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  Oh you poor nieve fool... dealt with many police officers in your day?
  You'd realise, they aren't all that smart and not pillars of the community, rather a bunch of trained meatheads that spent a few months at some camp to teach them a set of black and white processes. I think I saw recently a study on low level cases and their percentage rate of success / failure in the court system. The figures looked something like this.
  60% of not guilty pleas are dismissed before a summary hearing or trail is even mentioned.
  Out of that remaining 40%, 3 in 4 cases are dropped due to lack of evidence or a guilty plea.
  Also never forget under criminal law the defence always gets the benefit of the doubt.
  Granted Police have their place for serious crime though its only the really good cops that work on such cases. For the most of it many of them are stuck behind a desk filling out paperwork (badly) ticking whatever governmental boxes they need to get out of the office as quickly as possible. They are grossly underpaid and sit at the bottom of the public servant pecking order with no incentive of doing their job properly or better than say a postal worker or garbage man.
3. Re:power to the people by MacGyver2210 · 2012-06-12 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Statistics and misguided hate do not make all police fit your image of an officer. I know, in fact, many extremely smart police officers. Many of them, even those who aren't that smart, are very kind and easygoing people. The fact is, their job requires them to have a very definitive good/bad policy on virtually everything they encounter, and often leads them to deal with very abusive/belligerent/annoying people.
  Let's consider that the time you most encounter police is when there is some sort of serious problem occurring. A traffic accident, robbery, assault, whatever. They are tense situations, where you have to understand the cops can't crack jokes and act like your buddy - they have a very specific job to do. Consider, also, that you can't fathom the amount of people who harass them, annoying people they need to deal with a-la bums, drunks, etc. Their job really does suck quite often, they don't get paid that much, and they are there to help you when you need it.
  That said, I think it is fantastic that the police are embracing video as those trying to hold them accountable have. Video is a great tool, and for a person charged with upholding peace and establishing the truth of crimes, it is crazy they haven't been using this in every aspect of their jobs already.
  I just hope they respect the boundaries on video surveillance placed on them by the law. None of that "Whoops, my camera happened to look in your second story window without a warrant".
  
  --
  If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
4. Re:power to the people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 13:23 · Score: 0
  
  I'm getting sick of this "cops don't get paid that much" bullshit. In this dogshit economy, especially in the hard hit areas, the cops still make 40k-60k a year (that's without the truckload of overtime they milk from the tax titty), full benefits and a pension they can pad the shit out of. Fuck this cops don't get paid shit.
5. Re:power to the people by oztiks · 2012-06-12 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, I wont disagree with you on that but it certainly comes down to what I mentioned earlier and my reference to "Really Good Cops". A Snr Sarge or Snr Const people who has been decorated, who cares about the uniform and build rank within the system. Ones who engages the local community and care about the place of which they live in, Yes and I agree.
  But there is a reason why we have prosecutors and defence lawyers (a very lucrative business to be in) and that's because police don't understand the granular aspects to the law yet they enforce it. Take it one step further, if you quiz cops on the whole prosecution process they know very little other than the process of providing evidence and showing up in trails to give testimony.
6. Re:power to the people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  Consider, also, that you can't fathom the amount of people who harass them, annoying people they need to deal with a-la bums, drunks, etc.Their job really does suck quite often, they don't get paid that much, and they are there to help you when you need it.
  I call bullshit, police unions have fought (and won) courtcases up to the supreme court in support of the view that they have no obligation to help you.
  They also make way more then average wage, and get to retire early with fantastic pentions
  You're right that they ofen have to deal with a lot of crap, ofc that's a natural consequence of going around hassling people for no real reason (ask most people how often they've been helped by police vs how many times they've stopped/hassled for papers/sobriety/.... check). My personal experience is I've never been helped by the police, I have had a bike stolen from directly in front of a police station despite a quality lock (3 stories of big glas windows overlooking the bike parking with cops at desks) , I've had another bike stolen and managed to recover it myself, no help of the policy. I've been stopped plenty of times for paper checks for no disernable reason (sitting on the train, police gets on checks everybody, if yet to have one answer me the 'why' other then 'the boss told us to')
  We've long past the point where most officers are 'peace officers' they are now almost exclusively 'enforcement officers' and guess what: PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING FORCED
7. Re:power to the people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  This is all completely without basis. I find police officers most likely to crack jokes when they should be taking their job seriously, and some of them *do* get paid quite well. In Oakland and San Francisco, six figures for most of them, and they do not typically live in the communities they police.
  The fact is that the Police are *always* editing footage when they release it, they're fighting a PR war. Oakland police officers have lapel cameras which they are required to have on at certain times, but only when we point our own cameras at their camera and exclaim that it is not on and begin reading the fucking department policy at them do they turn them on.
  They are not accountable, to anyone. They are *almost never* punished for anything they do wrong, and more commonly than not they seem to make situations worse simply by being present.
  All of those things being true, anyone who chooses to associate themselves with this broken part of society is failing to exhibit any intelligence they may have. So if your neighbor or brother in law or whoever is a cop and you think they're a nice person, tell them to get a fucking nice person's job.
They are taping everyone now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

For the Chicago G8 protests, the police filmed every man woman and child who entered the protest area and had dozens of officers filming the entire protest.
A few minutes after the protest ended they attacked everyone who didn't leave. They never showed tape of that.
The police want laws to say they can't be filmed but they want to film everyone. They want maximum transparency of the population and none for themselves.
1. Re:They are taping everyone now by jlehtira · 2012-06-12 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  The police want laws to say they can't be filmed but they want to film everyone. They want maximum transparency of the population and none for themselves.
  Nope. Nothing says it was the same policemen having both ideas. Besides, someone could prefer no filming, but still resort to filming oneself while filming remains legal.
2. Re:They are taping everyone now by cpu6502 · 2012-06-12 10:16 · Score: 2
  
  >>>The police want laws to say they can't be filmed but they want to film everyone.
  While that is true, no State Law can overrule a State Constitution, and not Congressional Law can overrule Constitutional law. The right of the people to report on events (whether using an old-fashioned pencil, or a modern video) may not be outlawed. It's called freedom of the press.
  As for the article itself: UK police have been filming protests almost ten years now. The have a designed officer who does nothing but film, so that they can protect themselves against protester allegations (both in the public view and in the court).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
3. Re:They are taping everyone now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  Remember the sketches on the 6:00 evening news back in the day? I'm sure the police would love if that were the best supporting evidence you could get!
4. Re:They are taping everyone now by serviscope_minor · 2012-06-12 11:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The have a designed officer who does nothing but film, so that they can protect themselves against protester allegations (both in the public view and in the court).
  Indeed. Funny how when Ian Tomlinson was murdered, the only video was posted by a tourist from the safety of his home country.
  The police in the UK have done a good job of looking like clowns recently. They managed to crack down really hard on legitimate, peaceful protestors (how hard is that?), suppressing freedom of speech, but when some real riots and looting actually happened, it turned out that they were bugger all use.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
5. Re:They are taping everyone now by Darinbob · 2012-06-12 12:25 · Score: 2
  
  Police in the US are paid by cities, counties, and states. City councils have stepped up and been the ones to have police carry cameras and recorders. That's because, despite malicious rumors to the contrary, we still have a democracy and the city councils have to answer to the voters and they don't like allegations of police misconduct. Police can not act with impunity unless their bosses let them. If their bosses are not holding police accountable then the voters need to take action.
6. Re:They are taping everyone now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:37 · Score: 0
  
  For the Chicago G8 protests...
  The G8 Summit was at Camp David, not Chicago. Maybe you meant the Chicago NATO protests. Makes I missed the "attack" on the live coverage. I saw
  - a lot of posturing from a surprisingly small number of protesters
  - some frightening images from police (when you thought about it 90% were just standing there, but the images are still startling)
  - some instigation from protesters
  - some overreactions from police who had been assaulted first (not surprising. They are human.)
  - some justified arrests
  - a ridiculous waste of money to pay the police that had to work crowd control
  The news was filming after the event, so who cares if the police were filming.
7. Re:They are taping everyone now by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 13:19 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, the Chicago police owned the tool protestors at G8. They did so with professionalism and treated the protestors better then they would have. The protestors were silly little tools and got dealt with. It was hilarious to watch.
  Nobody attacked anybody. Nobody gave you a reason to be a cry baby. Stop making up malicious bull shit.
About time... by FatAlb3rt · 2012-06-12 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

There's two sides to every story, and frankly, the occupiers usually come off as smug hipsters with a victim mentality - demonstrated through their actions and creative editing. But maybe it's just me.
1. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:02 · Score: -1
  
  It's not just you.
2. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:07 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm sure law enforcement agencies would never resort to creative editing. And I'm sure the media won't be more prone to parrotting the official "truth".
  Then again, I live in a fantasy world where authorities can be trusted.
3. Re:About time... by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-06-12 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  There's two sides to every story. . .
  So putting two different accounts of a story on YouTube is a good way of figuring out what really happened?
  
  . . .and frankly, the occupiers usually come off as smug hipsters with a victim mentality - demonstrated through their actions and creative editing. But maybe it's just me.
  Nah. All the cool people hate "hipsters" these days.
4. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  That's because you make up your mind based solely on what the media tells you. You're a good little propaganda consumer.
5. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:11 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Psh, I was hating hipsters before it was cool...
6. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  You sound like you might also use unauthorized chemicals as well and perhaps need to be locked up and have your career ruined to teach you a lesson about disobeying and rejecting government social engineering.
7. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  At the very least putting both sides of the story shows people that there are two sides. There's a huge chunk of the population that are very easily swayed by media. An occasional reminder that every source of information has bias, usually an agenda, and is providing an incomplete picture (that may itself be a subset of the incomplete picture they were given by a first hand source..) is I think a good thing.
  My specific view on the situation? Police have a hard job, protests are very tricky situations for law enforcement, and protesters arn't always the innocent victims the media loves to show getting hawled off by the forces of evil. Additionally, while we have weeks to tear appart an incident, the cop on the ground is doing that shit in real time. None of that gives them a free pass, but I think it should be kept in mind when watching any "police brutality" video.
8. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:25 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The police don't need to edit. One favorite tactic of the police is to surround protesters, blocking exit routes and then issue an order to disperse. Of course the protesters who want to follow the order can't go anywhere and it they try to break the police line/blockade they get assaulted by the cops. So I'm sure there is footage of cops giving warnings, but I would bet that a lot of those times the protesters couldn't leave. I wonder if the cops film their own agent-provocateurs in action as well.
9. Re:About time... by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-06-12 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Would you at least concede that putting a second side of the story up might actually further distort the facts?
10. Re:About time... by Galestar · 2012-06-12 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Nah. All the cool people hate "hipsters" these days.
  So it's hip to hate hipsters? Does that make hipster haters hipsters?
  
  --
  AccountKiller
11. Re:About time... by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 10:37 · Score: 2
  
  As usual, the fault in these incidents lie with both sides; the cops, for often being quick to move into "riot control" mode, and the protesters, because they believe that nobody will give a shit about their cause if there aren't at least a few of them with blood pouring down their foreheads.
  As for the other 98% of us, we just want to get through the day without being fired, mistaken for a protester or having our stupid ass kids that we've invested so much time, money and emotion into getting involved in these protests.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
12. Re:About time... by Hatta · 2012-06-12 10:37 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Funny, the police always come off as power tripping pigs with a hard on for authority - demonstrated through their actions and creative editing. But maybe that's just me.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
13. Re:About time... by Caerdwyn · 2012-06-12 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  What's your solution then? Only one side allowed to be heard, with the other side silenced? That's indefensible.
  "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to allegations against police too. It MUST. Claiming otherwise is, in my opinion, as evil as committing crimes under the color of law.
  
  --
  Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
14. Re:About time... by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-06-12 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  YouTube is not trustworthy forum, regardless of how many sides of the story it hosts. Moreover, the police are not subject to any sanction that would be enforced solely based on the one-sidedness of YouTube videos. They can not be "proven guilty" in any meaningful sense by losing a YouTube propaganda pissing match. At worst, they could be subject to scrutiny by a real authority, which will give them ample opportunity to defend themselves.
  The solution is for police to focus on enforcing the law (inc. WRT their own conduct), and for guilt or innocence to be determined in the courts.
15. Re:About time... by jxander · 2012-06-12 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I think your fantasy world is much simpler than who to trust...
  Simply put, the media will play whatever story gives them better ratings. Truth ("official" or otherwise) has been irrelevant in the news cycle for a while now. They could have two videos of the same altercation, each drastically edited to show their respective film'er in the positive light, and the news wouldn't hesitate to play them back to back.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
16. Re:About time... by interkin3tic · 2012-06-12 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  the occupiers usually come off as smug hipsters with a victim mentality - demonstrated through their actions and creative editing
  Bullshit. Show me the context where the occupiers' actions justified pepper spraying.
  
  You simply don't like the occupiers, and are trying to justify the other side.
17. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe after they destroy private property and shit on police cars?
18. Re:About time... by Darinbob · 2012-06-12 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  The media reports what makes good viewing, they are not controlled by the police or governments in most countries. The idea that media are just lackeys is most a myth in first world countries. They may not focus on the important stories all the time which is true. But it makes for good counter-culture media reporting to claim that the other media won't report the truth.
19. Re:About time... by Darinbob · 2012-06-12 12:34 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is that someone had to invent the word "hipster" before you could properly hate them. Until then you're stuck saying things like "All those guys with their iphones 7s who drink mochacappulattechinos and talk about the new restaurant that is so out of the mainstream that it has only one table, you know the sort I'm talking about, right? Well those are the guys I hate." You need the label so that you can properly focus.
20. Re:About time... by Anrego · 2012-06-12 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  That works for legal standing, not for public standing.
  When these things are looked into, and after all the evidence is considered the police are found to be justified... you hear words like "slap on the wrist" and "old boys club" thrown around a lot.
  This is true not just in cases of law enforcement, but in just about every civil matter. When you are accused of something it is all over the news. If they decide to paint you as a monster, you are screwed.. because when they find you innocent, it will be a tiny subnote somewhere if mentioned at all.
  Legal and PR are two seperate arenas. You fight legal with legal. You fight PR with PR.
21. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:44 · Score: -1
  
  Way to go, hating on the only few people who actually fight for YOUR side.
  And so TYPICAL of US citizens.
  It's funny and sad to watch. Like a huge army, working for their own enemy, building u-turn missile launchers and ordering artillery attacks on their own positions...
22. Re:About time... by HornWumpus · 2012-06-12 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC 'Hipster' the term was invented by Hunter S. Thompson during the 70s. I think the column is in 'Campaign trail'. Been a long time sense I read it.
  He used it to describe someone who wasn't 'hip' but was desperate to appear so. Meaning hasn't changed.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
23. Re:About time... by HornWumpus · 2012-06-12 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Only if they put it on like a '49ers fan putting on a packers jersey when they have a bad year.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
24. Re:About time... by HornWumpus · 2012-06-12 12:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When they block a public right of way and refuse to dispurse (e.g. UC Davis), same as the right to life protestors who block abortion clinics and get pepper sprayed.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
25. Re:About time... by Darinbob · 2012-06-12 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not hip enough to have read Hunter S. Thompson.
26. Re:About time... by HornWumpus · 2012-06-12 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  It's never hip to read. It's sometimes hip to be seen with a book.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
27. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 13:02 · Score: 0
  
  The "creative editing" on the part of the police seems to be limited to 'we lost the tape', 'the machine failed to record', 'there was a technical problem' and other variations of "the dog ate my homework". They're not that creative. I even doubt they could rise to the level of creative editing seen in Homer Bad Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAe3FpLGvBY).
28. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 13:24 · Score: 0
  
  You are either one of the stupidest fucks on the face of the planet, or biggest Fox-addicted Limpballs-sucking liars.
  The area they sat in was not 10-feet across, in the middle of an open walkway twice that width, in an open-path area THE SIZE OF HALF A FOOTBALL FIELD! The only people even being inconvenienced by their PURELY SYMBOLIC protest where the deans who were embarrassed about it, so they gave the order and that fucktard Pike carried it out while the rest of the local gestapo backed him up.
  Now don't you fucking DARE coming back with some regurgitated bullshit lie, trying to claim I do not know what I am talking about. I happen to LIVE IN DAVIS, and have for years. I know the kids who were there, I know some of the kids who took video, and I even know that fucktard Pike. The only thing that surprised me about the situation was that the local PoDunks didn't start shooting people.
29. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  You must be high on tyranny.
  Pepper spraying is legally no different from beatimg them with a stick. Blocking a public right of way and refusing to move is groinds for arrest, and if they resist arrest, then the cops are justified in usimg forcible means to subdue them. Not before.
30. Re:About time... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-06-12 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  As usual, the fault in these incidents lie with both sides; the cops, for often being quick to move into "riot control" mode, and the protesters, because they believe that nobody will give a shit about their cause if there aren't at least a few of them with blood pouring down their foreheads.
  As for the other 98% of us, we just want to get through the day without being fired, mistaken for a protester or having our stupid ass kids that we've invested so much time, money and emotion into getting involved in these protests.
  That would be the other 98% that can't be gotten to take an interest in public affairs until they see blood, right?
31. Re:About time... by dkleinsc · 2012-06-12 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  If blocking a sidewalk in a public university campus is a crime, then the police may arrest those who block the right of way. That would probably mean lifting and carrying each protester off the sidewalk one at a time, which is a big pain-in-the-ass but not police brutality. If one of them had tried to punch one of the cops or something, then the police would be within their rights to use non-lethal force against the guy who had tried to fight them (but not anybody else). The basic rule for police, though, is that they are not supposed to use force, including pepper spray, against those who aren't physically resisting them. And yes, the rules are the same for abortion clinic protesters too.
  If you just plain don't like protesters, your choices are (A) deal with it and accept it as a part of living in a free country, or (B) move to a country that doesn't have freedom of assembly as part of its highest law of the land - which means you're outside of the US, the EU, the British Commonwealth countries, or most anywhere else with a semblance of political freedom.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
32. Re:About time... by Uberbah · 2012-06-12 16:59 · Score: 1
  
  As usual, the fault in these incidents lie with both sides; the cops, for often being quick to move into "riot control" mode, and the protesters, because they believe that nobody will give a shit about their cause if there aren't at least a few of them with blood pouring down their foreheads.
  Ah, another person who's bought the "police clash with protesters" framing from the media. Because exercising your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly is totally asking to have your head cracked open.
33. Re:About time... by MightyMartian · 2012-06-12 17:05 · Score: 1
  
  Exercising your right to protest is not the same thing as basically setting up a hobo camp.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
34. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 18:43 · Score: 0
  
  They weren't blocking just the sidewalk, the protesters completely surrounded the police and told the police they could not leave unless they would release the stupid fucks they were arresting. This is dangerous to everyone involved, and physically prevents the police from leaving or the situation from diffusing.
  They encircled them and linked arms, it would not be possible to "carry each protester off" without physical altercation and most probably injury. Not sure why you're deluded into thinking that this is somehow more justifiable.
  The police waited and issued warnings and told them exactly what was going to happen several times over the course of several minutes.
  If you just plain don't like police, your choices are (A) deal with it and accept it as a part of living in the real world, or (B) move to a country that doesn't have police - which means your outside of any sustainable society of any non-trivial size, most anywhere with a semblance of reality.
35. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 20:35 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you making up facts?
36. Re:About time... by Dr+Damage+I · 2012-06-12 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, when video of a single incident from seven separate dash cameras manage to go missing, I'd say that's pretty creative :)
  
  --
  "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
37. Re:About time... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 00:14 · Score: 0
  
  That's because you make up your mind based solely on what the "alternative" media tells you. You're a good little propaganda consumer.
38. Re:About time... by VAXcat · 2012-06-13 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  Lenny Bruce used it in the 60s, before Hunter S. Thompson did. His famous line - "There's nothing sadder than an aging hipster".
  
  --
  There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
39. Re:About time... by Uberbah · 2012-06-13 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nevermind the vast majority of OWS protesters were middle class and not homeless. And nevermind that many of those that were homeless got that way due to bank fraud.
  Next fascist talking point?
Nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:01 · Score: 0

The pigs will fit in well with the rest of the worthless human trash on YouTube.
I'm okay with this by Dice · 2012-06-12 10:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

If we can film them in public places then they can do the same: liberty is a two way street. Let the information flow and justice prevail.
1. Re:I'm okay with this by afidel · 2012-06-12 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  My thoughts exactly, this is the proper response to police being filmed, not confiscating cameras and arresting people who dare to disrespect their authority. The only issue left now in my mind is mandatory retention and access under sunshine laws.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
2. Re:I'm okay with this by DirkBalognapantz · 2012-06-12 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  I understand the instinct to call for balance in these situations. However, when it comes to the government or government institutions, liberty is not a two way street. No one oppresses the government. Liberty is an individual matter. While I believe in and would defend a police officer's individual liberty, I do not believe that is the same thing as granting them equality as an agent of the state. My other concern here is that a law enforcement agency or officer would post video that may be used as evidence in a future legal proceeding. I am not a lawyer, but I find this to be an impropper use of potential evidence and possibly a violation of procedures or laws. Anyone with some knowledge of the law want to give their thoughts?
3. Re:I'm okay with this by houghi · 2012-06-12 10:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If we can film them in public places then they can do the same
  No, they can't. They are there to enforce the law. They are not a news agency.
  If they have issues on how people behave, they should go to court. Then a judge can decide if it was illegal or not.
  In no way should they be able to start posting these. Very specific exceptions might be given by a judge, not even by themselves. And only if it could help solve a case.
  Again, they are not the bringers of news.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
4. Re:I'm okay with this by jxander · 2012-06-12 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  They're American citizens, same as anyone else filming these protests. They don't lose the right to own/use a camera when they put on a badge.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
5. Re:I'm okay with this by TapeCutter · 2012-06-12 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Again, they are not the bringers of news.
  They are often bringers of news, such as knocking on your door and informing you your loved one died in a car crash. Like a lot of police work it's a shitty and thankless task but someone has to do it.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
6. Re:I'm okay with this by flimflammer · 2012-06-12 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  How did this trash seriously get voted up? Police don't lose their rights the moment they put on their badge. They have just as much right to film something happening as anyone else.
7. Re:I'm okay with this by haruchai · 2012-06-12 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  Putting on that badge does seem to give them the right to prevent others from using cameras.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
8. Re:I'm okay with this by jxander · 2012-06-12 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  That part I'm not OK with, personally.
  Unless there's some other existing rule preventing video in a certain location or a certain very specific activity (i.e. no cameras in courtrooms, no pervy upskirt-cams) then cops, civvies and anyone else should be free and clear to record the days activities. Be it on a Polaroid, cell phone, high tech news camera, or with watercolors.
  Then again, a cop has never told me not to record something. I've captured audio from every traffic stop I've been a part of, and never been stopped.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
9. Re:I'm okay with this by haruchai · 2012-06-12 17:37 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pleased to hear the police where you live are civilized. That's not always the case.
  I assume you don't live in Maryland, where a motorcyclist who was stopped for speeding by a undercover cop who drew his gun before identifying himself, spent some time in jail for posting the video from his helmet cam online.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
10. Re:I'm okay with this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  Police don't lose their rights the moment they put on their badge.
  No, they should probably lose some of their rights.
11. Re:I'm okay with this by gd2shoe · 2012-06-13 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Mandatory retention, yes. Access to the video...trickier.
  I agree with the sentiment, but if (exaggerated example:) anybody could sit down at their computer and pull up footage of the last few months of any cop in the country, it'd be really hard to get cops to wear always-on recording devices. The police unions would throw a hissy fit, and rightly so. It would make it much harder for cops to do their jobs, because they'd have to assume that they were always being watched by little brother, and any tiny perceived slight could get them written up, or sued. They'd never be honest with each other, and it would close off communication.
  There should be laws permitting access to the recordings (to ordinary citizens, without hiring lawyers), but there must be a balance or they won't be recorded at all.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
12. Re:I'm okay with this by gd2shoe · 2012-06-13 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  My other concern here is that a law enforcement agency or officer would post video that may be used as evidence in a future legal proceeding. I am not a lawyer, but I find this to be an impropper use of potential evidence...
  I don't have any specific legal knowledge, but I'm having trouble following your logic. This isn't like checking out an uzi to have fun at the firing range, or wearing an tux from evidence lockup. Posting to the Internet doesn't involve altering the original copy, making it any less likely to be valid in court. They'd probably need to go through some kind of digital "check out" procedure to get a copy, but I can't imagine that being very hard for the officer carrying the camera.
  One could make the argument that they were inducing bias in the jury pool, but I think the worst that is associated with that would be a change of venue, which would probably happen anyway in a public-emotion super-charged case.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
13. Re:I'm okay with this by rilian4 · 2012-06-13 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. Liberty is not a 2 way street. Liberty is about freedom from government...one direction. The US Constitution (your country's laws will vary) was written to limit government to the powers stated within. There is nothing, repeat, nothing in the constitution that allows government to limit the liberty of the individual without cause and due process. Conversely, an individual police officer *is* a free citizen as well as a law-enforcement agent. If said officer is charged with a crime (in this case using more force than is allowed for the situation, etc), then they have the right to defend themselves in court as would any other citizen.
  
  --
  
  ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
14. Re:I'm okay with this by flimflammer · 2012-06-13 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why?
15. Re:I'm okay with this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  Because we're paying them, and if they don't like to be told what to do on the job, well, tough. Because that badge gives them so much power that normal citizens can't begin to compete. Because cops perjure themselves constantly and are believed anyway. Citizens need recordings to have a chance in court against any officer's lies, whereas any inconvenient recording made by an officer will mysteriously disappear, leaving the officer's story impossible to refute.
Fuck the Police by morari · 2012-06-12 10:03 · Score: -1, Troll

I don't care about their story. They're all corrupt, limp-dicked imps that couldn't handle being picked on in highschool.

--
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
1. Re:Fuck the Police by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Apperently you were not the Prom King... Too bad, so sad...
2. Re:Fuck the Police by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:06 · Score: -1
  
  -1: Troll, or maybe you're retarded, hard to tell.
3. Re:Fuck the Police by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  I don't care about their story. They're all corrupt, limp-dicked imps that couldn't handle being picked on in highschool.
  I hope you don't live in Arizona: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/04/1640215/arizona-attempts-to-make-trolling-illegal
Post it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:05 · Score: 0

The police should make ALL of their video/audio available to the public.
1. Re:Post it all. by Githaron · 2012-06-12 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. It should be a legal requirement.
2. Re:Post it all. by CannonballHead · 2012-06-12 10:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What?
  So cops come to your house in response to a call and film it, for whatever reason. Turns out you didn't do anything but someone said it was a domestic abuse case. You want that film if you answering the door at 2am public? Even though you didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?
  I agree the police side should delete the film, if it was kept, but making it public ... not so much.
3. Re:Post it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  No, it shouldn't. Listen, if someone has a problem with the way cops treat them and want to do something about it, fine, make all the relevant data available via subpoena.
  But what you and the GP are suggesting would only result in an army of lawyers combing through data trying to turn even innocent police actions into multi-million dollar lawsuits and suing our municipalities to the ground.
4. Re:Post it all. by morari · 2012-06-12 10:24 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  There are no innocent police actions. They are unquestioning enforcers for an inherently immoral system. They all need strung up.
  
  --
  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
5. Re:Post it all. by philip.paradis · 2012-06-12 10:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Here, I packed your philosophical suitcase for you. Whenever you're done saying your goodbyes, I'll gladly wave goodbye as you depart to live in another country. People who spout pseudo-philosophical tripe like your post should have stayed in college for a few more years.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
6. Re:Post it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  If you didn't do anything, I'd imagine it would be a very boring and bland video. I don't think there is much to worry about in that particular case.
7. Re:Post it all. by geekoid · 2012-06-12 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  I have no problem with the police filming. I think they should only become public under certain circumstances. IF the police are going to film, then there shouldn't be any cuts in the film, ever.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
8. Re:Post it all. by Hatta · 2012-06-12 10:35 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It should, AND losing any video should be a crime in itself. Severity of the punishment should be the same as that for the crime for which the video is needed as evidence.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
9. Re:Post it all. by Beerdood · 2012-06-12 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Your house is a private residence, so they can't film that and make it public. A protest generally takes place in the public, where anyone is permitted to record
  
  --
  Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
10. Re:Post it all. by chmod+a+x+mojo · 2012-06-12 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Fucking better believe it! Then you don't have neighbors gossiping about how the police where there and blah blah blah, and rumors about WHY and who did WHAT ETC.
  With video evidence proving that the suspicions had been unfounded, everyone would be like "hmm whatever, he didn't do anything wrong... nothing to add to the rumor mill today".
  
  --
  To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
11. Re:Post it all. by CannonballHead · 2012-06-12 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with this, especially the editing part.
12. Re:Post it all. by pkinetics · 2012-06-12 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Note to self, register a website ala Smoking Gun to get all the video footage... Then people's stupidity can be immortalized in the InterTubes...
13. Re:Post it all. by Falconhell · 2012-06-12 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Very appropriate flamebait mod you got there Phil, For a new user that s pretty quick. Keep at it and you will post at-1 very soon. Personally I am horrified by the way we see US police treat citizens even on camera in a show like cops. Arrogant irresponsible dumb violent cowards just about cover it.
14. Re:Post it all. by jxander · 2012-06-12 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Actually... that would be EXACTLY the reason I want the video kept public.
  When a nosy neighbor or prospective employer asks about that 2am visit, I can direct them to the video. The boring, tired, 2am video of my wife and I in our PJs, answering the door and looking very sleepy.
  Plus, cameras following the cops around on their patrols in much preferred to cameras posted up all around the city.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
15. Re:Post it all. by TapeCutter · 2012-06-12 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  They all need strung up.
  In other words, take the moral low ground off them and and start digging.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
16. Re:Post it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:41 · Score: 0
  
  There are no innocent police actions. They are unquestioning enforcers for an inherently immoral system. They all need strung up.
  Yes. Please eliminate law enforcement. That would be wonderful. Then you could enjoy living out the remainder of your days subject to the whims of me and other persons like myself. You might be lucky and live to a ripe old age working the fields. If unlucky... that's something you'd not want to happen.
17. Re:Post it all. by philip.paradis · 2012-06-12 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nice to see you're as ignorant as the GP. Sorry man, I've actually been on /. since about 2001. New times, new nick, with the specific objective of using my actual name.
  Did you actually bother to read the GP? If so, I take it you're advocating "stringing up" all law enforcement officers? That seems a bit, well, extreme. Some might say such a view would indicate either extreme immaturity, sociopathic tendencies, or a combination thereof.
  You can review the rest of the posting history under this account if you'd like to get to know me a little better. You'll find I often have a bit of an off kilter sense of humor, but there are certain things I just don't joke about. In the meantime, enjoy your idiocy and comfort in applying gross generalizations to populations (which is, in a very real sense, what you're advocating), and please be sure to have a nice day.
  
  --
  Write failed: Broken pipe
18. Re:Post it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  There are two problems with this view.
  
  Problem one: When you run for political office, the video shows a two-second clip of policemen knocking on your door, then another 3-second clip of them talking to you about the complaint (NOT their observation of your actions.) Then, there is a freeze-frame of you looking angry or upset that is shown with a running commentary by your opponent saying what a horrible person you are.
  
  Problem two: What if you're NOT in your PJs when they show up. What if your wife and you were doing a little role-play when they showed up, which was misinterpreted by the neighbors? You may not have done anything illegal, but you sure as hell don't want that video becoming public. Both you and the police may be totally polite and agree that nothing wrong happened, but that doesn't mean the video should become public just because there were police there. Now, in this case I have no problem with the police RECORDING the video, I have a problem with them RELEASING the video. Storing the video for an extended period is more tricky, if only because it increases the risk of either inadvertent or malicious release of a video that should not have been made public.
  
  The overall principle here is this: You have a right to your private life. For good reasons, we have given the police the right to invade that private life, and there are also legitimate cases where the police, in the course of their duty, will invade that private life with limited consent on your part. This should not mean that whatever information the police happen to find while invading your private life will be made public.
19. Re:Post it all. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  IF the police are going to film, then there shouldn't be any cuts in the film, ever.
  Editing is ok, as long as there is a screen with big red text on it which says "1minute 33seconds REDACTED" to make it clear when you're watching edited video, and exactly how much time was lost.
  Any redacted video should also be available via court order.
20. Re:Post it all. by Rakarra · 2012-06-14 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  I always wondered how Cops was able to get footage of police kicking in doors and running through backyards and such. Did the residents actually give permission for that footage to be released?
That's fine by me by pegasustonans · 2012-06-12 10:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

Next, we should give the protestors guns, handcuffs, and bullet proof cars.
Sounds fair.

--
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
1. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:12 · Score: -1
  
  I protest you being a complete limp-dick moron.
  Give me a gun now, I'm counter-culture and Occupying.
  Shithead.
  Try thinking for half a second before you open your mouth.
2. Re:That's fine by me by kenh · 2012-06-12 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you live? Police don't have "bullet-proof cars" in my town...
  
  --
  Ken
3. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  I will bet you a pretty penny they have bullet-proof glass.
4. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  That's right. FUCK the protesters. I love and trust the police and my government. I get down on my knees and supplicate before them. Glory hallelujah!
5. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:20 · Score: 0
  
  I'd take that bet if it wasn't a crime in my jurisdiction.
6. Re:That's fine by me by CannonballHead · 2012-06-12 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  I believe you would lose your penny. link one, link two
7. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure the local police don't have anything beyond standard automotive glass in their Chargers.
8. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  Fair? Increase the # of cops so that it is 1:1. Now it's fair.
  Idiot.
9. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Ah well in many states it is legal to carry a gun. Some states require a permit if you want to carry it concealed. That would apply to protestors too, I suppose.
  Same for handcuff ownership, and selection of vehicle.
10. Re:That's fine by me by pegasustonans · 2012-06-12 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Fair? Increase the # of cops so that it is 1:1. Now it's fair.
  Idiot.
  Sounds fine by me. Make everyone a citizen policeman.
  What was the point you thought you were making?
  
  --
  And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
11. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  There are very few countries where I'd rather see armed protesters than armed police officers, and you don't live in one of them.
  I trust the police and your government more than I trust a mob. I trust the police and your government more than I trust you.
12. Re:That's fine by me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  You don't have a SWAT team in your area? Try moving to the city farm-boy.
I find it hard to believe the police these days. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:11 · Score: 3, Informative

I find it hard to be on the side of the police these days. I live in Montréal, and I've seen and read about a lot of police abuse. They always have an excuse, a reason or some lie. I would be more inclined to believe them if they would show us what they are doing against inappropriate conduct by their own officers, or if they would publicly acknowledge any wrongdoing when it happens. When they constantly protect the ass of their officers, they lose credibility. When the press is constantly attacked by the police while trying to capture what is happening, they lose credibility. When they hide their badge number so we can't report them, we know they are up to no good. When they kettle a group of people, and then tell them to disperse while not letting them, well they probably think we're stupid about believing that they gave the people a way out. And when they detain and arrest people for no valid reason, or to issue them a traffic ticket because people were protesting peacefully, well they should consider themselves lucky we're not acting like the miners in Spain and all we do is put a video of their wrongdoing on the net.
In contrast by TubeSteak · 2012-06-12 10:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Police Unions are resistant to reviews of dash cam footage
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20120422-officers-complaints-prompt-dallas-police-to-suspend-units-reviews-of-squad-car-video.ece
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-police-union-opposes-random-reviews-of-officers-dash-cam-videos-20120105,0,451142.story
/And don't get me started on retention policies for dash cam footage.
//Without any specific laws in place, most police departments more or less do what they want.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Shenanigans by tobiah · 2012-06-12 10:14 · Score: 1

The linked article (yahoo) doesn't link to the youtube channel, which I can't find. All it has is a couple stills distributed by the police and posted in similar articles on other news sites. I call shenanigans.

--
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
1. Re:Shenanigans by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-12 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.youtube.com/user/minneapolispolice?feature=results_main
2. Re:Shenanigans by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  The linked article (yahoo) doesn't link to the youtube channel, which I can't find. All it has is a couple stills distributed by the police and posted in similar articles on other news sites. I call shenanigans.
  Took me all of 3 seconds to locate from the stills on the Yahoo news story. Just search "MinneapolisPolice" on youtube.
We had occupy protesters in San Antonio too... by 6ULDV8 · 2012-06-12 10:15 · Score: 1

Just a bunch of dirty hippies trashing up the park. Most did leave when told to move on. Other than the litter it was peaceful. Nobody got beat up or abused by police and none of the protesters caused a major fuss, but several were arrested when they refused to go. Cartman could have handled them.
People here generally clean up after themselves, but it only takes a few to make a mess.

--
Pull my finger for my public key.
1. Re:We had occupy protesters in San Antonio too... by tobiah · 2012-06-12 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose you know this from first-hand experience observing the entire protest, or was it the 10-second news blurb on Fox?
  
  --
  "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
2. Re:We had occupy protesters in San Antonio too... by TapeCutter · 2012-06-12 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Other than the litter it was peaceful.
  Yes, to me this demonstrates that the occupiers as a group have as much respect for their fellow citizens as your average CEO.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
3. Re:We had occupy protesters in San Antonio too... by 6ULDV8 · 2012-06-12 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  I live near downtown and ride through those parks frequently. This wasn't some event outside my normal stomping grounds. The first things we noticed was the amount of trash strewn around.
  
  --
  Pull my finger for my public key.
4. Re:We had occupy protesters in San Antonio too... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 18:56 · Score: 0
  
  Your sig is rather ironic given how you try to force reality to mold to your preconceptions.
Blue Code of Silence by saibot834 · 2012-06-12 10:16 · Score: 5, Informative

This is fine, they should present their own point of view. The evidence suggests however, that police brutality exists and that often there is no persecution of the perpetrators – sometimes they even drop investigations against police and instead charge the victims with resisting arrest.
There is a Blue Code of Silence in the police that will protect a violent minority of policemen. In Germany there was a famous case of police brutality at a demonstration "freedom not fear", where the CCC released a video of the incident. First of all the policemen had to be identified, which was only possible because it was a HD video, since despite Amnesty's calls for a identification tags for policemen, there is none. When the accused police officers were questioned, they were provably lying, because the CCC had another unpublished video disproving the statements by the police. They were later convicted, but only had to pay a few thousand bucks.
1. Re:Blue Code of Silence by russotto · 2012-06-12 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  This is fine, they should present their own point of view. The evidence suggests however, that police brutality exists and that often there is no persecution of the perpetrators â" sometimes they even drop investigations against police and instead charge the victims with resisting arrest.
  Sometimes? That's their first move, to charge with resisting arrest. Sometimes they'll argue that covering your head with your hands to ward off their blows counts as resisting... and the judges buy it.
2. Re:Blue Code of Silence by Tom · 2012-06-12 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think a formal "code" exists, but obviously, groups of humans tend towards defending their members against outside attacks - that is a vital survival trait so we should not be surprised in the least to find it.
  While police brutality is regularily reported, brutality against the police is usually a sideline ("ten police officers were wounded").
  The point is that yes, police brutality exists. And also, brutality against police exists. And people with an agenda wrongly reporting or suppressing information on either also exist. Everyone presenting their point of view, with evidence, is the best thing that could happen.
  
  --
  Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Unblinking eye blinking by Citizen+of+Earth · 2012-06-12 10:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

What's this, social activists edit their posted videos to hide the truth? Shocking!
Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by kenh · 2012-06-12 10:18 · Score: -1, Flamebait

The police should absolutely do this - the perfect example of this was when the Occupy protesters in one city were sittig across a walkway, arms interlocked (as I recall), and te first video was of a policeman casually pepper-sprayig the protesters where they sat. The horror! The shock! The brutality of it all!
Ten the un-edited video came out, and it showed the police office walking up to each protester, telling them that if they didn't move they would be pepper-sprayed, and to a person they all sat ad waited for the officer to do what he said he would do.
They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".

--
Ken
1. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Dan667 · 2012-06-12 10:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  police officers should have to wear personal recorders that stream their actions to the police station. This video should be available to the public on request.
2. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by MrBigInThePants · 2012-06-12 10:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Errr....
  And so you think spraying large amounts of pepper spray into people's face because they are protesting is ok then?
  riiiigghhhtt....
  Is democracy completely dead in your country or what?
3. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-06-12 10:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".
  The narrative remained "non-violent protesters, undeterred by threat of violence from police, ultimately met with violence by police".
4. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:32 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, because a warning that a police officer is about to use a chemical agent on peaceful protestors certainly removes all hints of brutality, and dismisses our outrage at seeing a policemen casually strolling around spraying a chemical agent at peaceful protestors.
5. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by realisticradical · 2012-06-12 10:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".
  Just because they were given fair warning doesn't make it even close to a proper use of force. The police could have arrested everyone for trespassing or illegally blocking a walkway (if that's illegal). Any protester who didn't simply allow himself to be arrested could then be charged with resisting arrest. Only if the protesters fought back would the use of force be reasonable.
  How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?
6. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by geekoid · 2012-06-12 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice"."
  False choice. Do what we say, are you will be in immense pain.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
7. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-12 10:37 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It's not legal to use pepper spray on peaceful protesters in the United States.
  http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/11/16/211132/23
8. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by geekoid · 2012-06-12 10:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No..not available on request. That can turn someone from having a really bad day, to destroying them. Ye,s they need to be available, but you should need to go through the courts to get them.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
9. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Hatta · 2012-06-12 10:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Ten the un-edited video came out, and it showed the police office walking up to each protester, telling them that if they didn't move they would be pepper-sprayed, and to a person they all sat ad waited for the officer to do what he said he would do.
  Yes, he said he would violently repress their right to peaceably assemble, and then he did. Who could find fault with that?
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
10. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Hatta · 2012-06-12 10:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yes, democracy is completely dead in the US.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
11. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Xaedalus · 2012-06-12 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  That's fine. These people get arrested. Then what? They stay put? Until what, their goals are met? They defecate in their pants? No, at some point force will be used. The protesters are deciding when that force gets used in the hopes of garnering sympathy with the public. It's a gamble.
  
  --
  Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
12. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Zakabog · 2012-06-12 10:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  From just his comment it sounds like they were sitting in the middle of a street blocking the crosswalk, which is not only illegal it's also dangerous (especially in NYC.) Most of the OWS people I've seen who are the "victims" of police brutality put themselves into situations where they know they will be forcibly removed just so they can claim brutality. They're not protesting they're being douchebags enticing violence so they have something to point to and say "Look we're victims!" And yes pepper spray is probably the best option considering the second option is beating them with a nightstick till they unlock their arms so you can physically move them one at a time.
  Unless of course you have a much more effective method to use in that sort of situation that doesn't put the officer in harms way...
13. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-06-12 10:46 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?
  Well, "stop making me feel threatened regardless of how reasonable that perception of threat might be or I will shoot you with a gun" is fair play in some states.
14. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  A really bad day with a gun, pepper spray, and blanket immunity from most prosecution is grounds for destroying them.
  If they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.
15. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by PeanutButterBreath · 2012-06-12 10:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  From just his comment it sounds like they were sitting in the middle of a street blocking the crosswalk, which is not only illegal it's also dangerous. . .
  They were sitting across a paved foot path that crossed a larger grassy area on a college campus. Just see for yourself how scary and threatening these protesters were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4
16. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  I'm genuinely curious, what should they have done?
17. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm genuinely curious, what should they have done?
  Go solve a crime?
18. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  No. That doesn't work. It doesn't matter whether or not he told them he was about to spray them with pepper spray. If he had told them he was about to hit them with his club, that wouldn't have made it acceptable to hit them with his club. Anyone who has been properly trained in the use of pepper spray fully understands that what that officer did was gratuitous and grossly excessive. Pepper spray served no necessary or useful purpose in that situation. Telling them he was about to violate law and protocol did not make it okay to do so.
  That having been said, it is a step in the right direction to have police putting more video online. Yes, it might (will) sometimes be selected and edited in unethical ways. Protesters sometimes do the same things. Still, the best response to bad information is good information, not reactionary legislation (designed for anyone's benefit) of physical force.
19. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  Eh, I used to agree, but I head from relatives that go to UC Davis, what actually happened:
  1) After receiving a 1 night variance, the protesters refused to remove their tents.
  2) Police were called to enforce the law.
  3) Some protesters were arrested in violation of the law.
  4) Second (larger) group of protesters encircled the police officers, chanting "we won't let you leave with the prisoners".
  5) Police warned second group of protesters to let them remove their prisoners.
  6) Protesters sat down and linked arms
  7) Police then warned that they would use pepper spray if they didn't let them leave.
  8) Protesters refused to move
  9) Pepper spray applied to protesters.
  10) Story about police brutality hits news -- real issue of insane increase of college tuition ignored.
20. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by GrumblyStuff · 2012-06-12 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and that force could (should) have been cuffing the protesters and hauling them away. What do you think should happen after "these people get arrested"? They should be abused because of that?
21. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:27 · Score: 0
  
  Let's modify that to politicians.
22. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  so if i come up to you and say "if you don't move your car i'm going to shooot you", you don't move your car, and i shoot you... you're in the wrong? because i warned you?
  bullshit
  it doesn't matter if i gave you fair warning i was going to abuse you. it doesn't matter if you didn't get out of the way. if i abused you, that's what is wrong. the warning of the abuse or not is immaterial
  furthermore, you didn't "choose" to be abused. anyone can threaten anyone with violence. that in and of itself is a crime. to follow up on the threat with actual violence simply means you've compounded the crime. the person who initiates the violence is in the wrong, period
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
23. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think you understand what the purpose of protesting is, it isn't respecting authority, nor is it voicing an opinion without stepping on toes or trampling the hedges. The entire point of protesting is to make a scene, to be heard by making the lives of everyone else inconvenienced by it, change doesn't happen when you're corralled into a pen somewhere with a sign on the door labeled "Free Speech Zone". If you honestly think that the purpose of the first amendment is to protest nicely without causing problems, then you have no idea why the first amendment, or any of our other rights and freedoms for that matter, exist.
24. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  The way I understood geekoid, he was not talking about the police officer having a bad day.
  I think he meant someone having a bad day, as in getting a ticket for speeding, turning into his employer knowing he is "irresponsible" by the next morning.
25. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?
  Well, "stop making me feel threatened regardless of how reasonable that perception of threat might be or I will shoot you with a gun" is fair play in some states.
  Name one. (I've emphasized the clause you'll have trouble matching...)
26. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  Well, "stop making me feel threatened regardless of how reasonable that perception of threat might be or I will shoot you with a gun" is fair play in some states.
  Oh yeah?
  I have taken several "use of force" classes, including one taught by Massad Ayoob, and I call bullshit on you.
  The actual standard is: Use of a gun (or any other potentially lethal force) is only permitted to stop an immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. And the usual legal standard is the "reasonable man" standard: would an imaginary "reasonable man", knowing what the defendant knew and in the same situation as the defendant, consider the actions reasonable?
  Example: you see a guy splashing gasoline on the wall of a wood building. You know there are innocent people inside the building. The guy pulls out a cigaret lighter. You call out "Don't move!" but he moves anyway, to use the lighter on the wall. Can you shoot him? Damn right you can, if that is the only way you can prevent him from lighting the building, because he is posing an immediate danger of death or grave bodily harm to the people in the building. If you are two feet away from him and a football player, should you tackle him instead of shooting him? Yes, that would be better than shooting him... although it would kind of suck if he pulled out a knife and started stabbing you. Well, I guess you would just shoot him then.
  What if he moves fast, lights the gas, and runs away... can you shoot him? No, because it's too late to prevent the danger.
  What if he shouts "I'm off to light another building, one full of widows and orphans, on fire"? You could maybe shoot him, but I doubt it, because the danger isn't "immediate" and might not be "unavoidable".
  Also! Even if you find some place in the USA that has the generous standard that you claim ("if you feel slightly worried, go ahead and start shooting people"), that would only mean that you would not be charged with a criminal case. You could still be charged with a civil case, and if you aren't rock-solid on your circumstances you will lose everything you own to the person you shot or their heirs. (The standard of evidence in a civil case is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt"; it is "a preponderance of evidence". If the evidence is 51% that you were irresponsible and 49% that you did the right thing, you gonna lose and owe a huge sum of money.)
  By the way, if anyone ever gives you the advice "a dead guy won't sue you, so shoot him a few extra times to make sure"... that's basically suggesting you murder the guy. Not legal. It's all fair to do the classic double-tap to center of mass plus one to the head, if that's what it takes to stop the guy... but if you shoot him once and he keels over, stopped, you need to stop shooting him. You are only allowed to shot to STOP, not shoot to KILL. You never get to shoot to kill. Cops don't either. (Even a police sniper shooting someone in the head with a high-powered rifle... he's shooting to stop, not shooting to kill. Odds of a kill are high, but not 100%, and he isn't allowed to shoot again after the target has been stopped.)
  Some people will tell you "never pull the gun unless you are going to shoot someone." Not quite. The actual rule is "never pull out the gun unless you would be legally in the clear to shoot someone." If the mere sight of a gun stops the aggressor, and he is meekly willing to cease his agression and wait for the cops to come pick him up, then you hold him at gunpoint and wait for the cops. You don't shoot him if you don't need to. (And by the way, people use guns to hold bad guys for the cops a lot more than you ever hear about. "If it bleeds it leads" but someone holding a bad guy for the cops is boring; it might make the local news, but never more and probably not that.)
  Note that I am not a lawyer and I am not giving you legal advice here. You should assume that I am completely insane and a total liar, and you should read up on this stuff
27. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Xarvh · 2012-06-12 14:38 · Score: 1
  
  Cool, who gets to decide whether they are peaceful or not?
  Because as far as I know, neither clubbing peaceful protesters is legal.
28. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Zakabog · 2012-06-12 15:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I totally see your point the police overstepped their bounds, I can't believe the hell these protestors went through. You see how they're rolling around holding their faces and screaming after the pepper spray hits them. Oh wait they're not, it actually seems like none of them are the slightest bit phased by the pepper spray. So either these are super protestors who eat nails for breakfast, or whatever they're being sprayed with isn't nearly half as bad as you think it is. Plus, after the video when the police manage to finally make a hole you can see at least a dozen officers walking through with a few protestors bound with zip ties.
  So basically the protestors were blocking the police from going where they needed to go, the police asked repeatedly for the protestors to move, the police warned the protestors they will be pepper sprayed, the police sprayed the protestors (which again, didn't seem to phase them) and then the police managed to pull one of the protestors out and make an opening to allow the blocked police to make their way through.
  Should they have waited longer? Should they have asked nicer? Would you rather have seen the night sticks come out?
  Imagine you were carrying a couch out of your house (or any sort of dead weight which would be the detained protestors the police were trying to get through) and you find your entire block is surrounded by OWS protestors holding arms together. You have to get this couch past them eventually and there's no way around to do it. You can't throw the couch cause it'll break (or it'll pretend to be broken, upload a video of you "breaking" it on Youtube and have you suspended), you can't step over the protestors cause the couch is too heavy and you already tried asking them to move but they told you they'll only move if you put the couch back. What do you do?
29. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by MrBigInThePants · 2012-06-12 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  But clubbing WITH protesters is just awesome.
  Maybe all the problem here is semantics?
30. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by ChinggisK · 2012-06-12 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  So basically the protestors were blocking the police from going where they needed to go
  Bullshit. At the very beginning of the video the cop steps *over* the line without trouble, clearly the rest of the cops could have done the same if they just wanted to get somewhere.
31. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by haruchai · 2012-06-12 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't pepper spray a weapon? Would it also be acceptable if the threat was to move or be beaten with a nightstick and the protestors chose to stay put?
  It's not civil disobedience if you're obeying.
  I suppose you defend the use of pepper spray or mace by "Tony Baloney" here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM4QM6BUQI4
  And it took Anonymous to expose him as the Blue Wall of Silence went up quickly.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
32. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by MrBigInThePants · 2012-06-12 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or they had their eyes closed and were given instructions beforehand on what to do. Which I believe is what happened.
  Had they opened their eyes however...
  Also the guys that typically run around with water bottles to flush people's eyes out.
33. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by MrBigInThePants · 2012-06-12 15:56 · Score: 2
  
  It was apparently not legal to wiretap without a warrant in the US also.
  How is that working out for you?
34. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 16:26 · Score: 0
  
  If you didnt want protesters, then you shouldnt have done what they were protesting about. You make a choice to do that. You have protests to worry about. How about some chemical agents, sticks whacked against your body, and being imprisoned instead?
35. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  I, for one, would not want the public knowing that I was arrested for soliciting a prostitute (or some other potentially embarrassing crime).
  However, if this video was available only to the subjects of the video, the courts, and the police, I would be in favor of this suggestion.
36. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 18:22 · Score: 0
  
  If I were carrying a couch out of my house and found myself blocked by protesters, I'd be pissed, but I wouldn't commit assault. If I did, I'd go to jail. Should we apply any lesser standard to the police force?
37. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  You have complete mis-represented what actually happened. This might clear things up for you.
  They were in no way pepper sprayed because they were protesting. They were pepper sprayed because they surrounded officers, not allowing them to leave unless the officers released the few that they had arrested. This is dangerous for the police and for the protesters and those arrested, and the protesters in no way have a legal right to interfere with police arrests. You don't get to surround a police car to prevent it from taking your buddy to the station to be booked for a DUI and call it protesting, the police sure as hell aren't going to put up with it, nor should they.
38. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  Here's a full account of what happened, no, it wasn't just the walkway they were blocking. They surrounded the police.
  Just stepping over the people sitting on the ground isn't an option for the police because of the chance of injury, especially when trying to carry out people who have been arrested who are probably not being entirely helpful.
  linky
39. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  what do you do?
  you start at the outermost protester use 2 or 3 officers to pry him loose and pick him up, cuff him and put him in detention
  then you rince and repeat.
  that way nobody ends up in the hospital (as several people did with that pepper spray incident), yes it takes longer, and takes more effort, tough shit, man up or turn in your badge.
40. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  the person who initiates the violence is in the wrong, period
  That's a happy world you live in. Now reality.
  In situation one, you are blocking a city street. In situation two, I am blocking the entrance to your legally licensed and lawfully operated business.
  In either situation, one of us would have a valid complaint against the other to the people WE pay to enforce our laws. When the police arrive and tell me I cannot block access to your business or you cannot block my street you and I are both presented with a choice (most of the time). Usually, that choice amounts to "stop being a douchbag, or bad things will happen."
  When we continue our aberrant behavior and bad things happen, we as douchebags, should accept responsibility.
  That said, I believe there is a special place in Hell for those endowed with special trust and power with the purpose of defending the very basis of our civilization who later abuse that very trust and power for personal gain.
  For transparency, laws should protect a citizen's right to record public interactions with the police and the police should record all on-duty activites. In the event of a complaint, any film of the incident and the events leading up to the incident should be a matter of public record.
  If it turns out the cop rolled up to the event and said to his partner "Watch me teach this nigger a lesson", then I think we should add a decade to whatever sentence he earns and insure he spends it in general population.
  I'd like to believe that in the vast majority of cases, the law enforcement officer was not in the wrong and just trying to do what we asked of him or her to do - enforce our laws.
  Lacking serious evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to live in my happy little world, not yours. Our country was founded on violent revolution. Our laws are ultimately enforced either peacefully or violently, with the decision on use of force most often exercised by the criminal not the police.
  In many decades of interaction with the police of many countries, my experiences have been 99% neutral or positive, even when I was the "bad guy". The 1 particularly bad experience had nothing to do with a criminal act on my part, and most likely a bad day or need to get laid on the part of the offending officer. I kept my calm, de-escalated the situation, and left without being shot, tazed, beaten, or maced.
41. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Zakabog · 2012-06-12 23:24 · Score: 1
  
  The police had detained protestors inside the circle and walking them over isn't an option (they wouldn't go willingly.)
42. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Zakabog · 2012-06-12 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  So your answer is "The cops should have sat around pissed off at protestors"? If the police arest someone who just threw a brick through your window, and some OWS guys surround the police, the police should just sit around and do nothing because the protestors are being peaceful?
  Lots of people claim the police overstep their bounds all the time but never provide a practical alternative. And yes lots of times the police overstep their bounds but I don't think this is one of those times.
43. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Zakabog · 2012-06-12 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  That would put the police in danger, getting in that close while you're surrounded by people who may or may not want to hurt you. The police are trained to avoid putting themselves in that sort of situation. Plus the amount of physical force required to pry them apart might have sent people to the hospital with real injuries (bruises mostly but more than "owie my eyes sting".) There were two people sent to the hospital treated and released, I'd be willing to bet that they had absolutely no need to go to the hospital. They likely only went because they know if they go and ham it up, claim brutality and can fake some injuries well enough they can sue the police department for using excessive force. It doesn't seem like anyone has done that though so likely no one was injured.
44. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 00:35 · Score: 0
  
  I actually heard a police officer talk about some protests by a large US university. He said they were dumb enough to click the cross walk, they warned them three times, and then arrested. He was impressed because the protestors contacted the police first, worked with them to minimize traffic impact, they then alerted the media so they would get the attention, and when informed they were under arrest, they immediately queued to get in the paddy wagon. He said he respected they were trying to make a point but that they were willing to do so while be co-operative. He also was a bit upset as some of the protestors get roughed up and at least in his opinion they were perfectly fine. Technically, they were breaking some law, but the agreement made before hand was as long as they didn't try to block the streets the police would leave them alone. In the case, I'd completely support action against the cops who caused issues with the sideawalk protestors and would otherwise be grateful to the police who struck a deal to allow the protestors but to try to minimize their disruption while still allowing them to make a statement.
45. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by T.E.D. · 2012-06-13 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  OK. Now let's see your links for all the people (I'll avoid using government titles) who sprayed occupy protesters for "resisting" by linking arms or going limp or somesuch who have been convicted of assault or of violating anybody's rights. Let's see it.
  If the courts never enforce it any more, it is now effectively legal.
46. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 06:20 · Score: 0
  
  You say "put themselves into situations where they know they will be forcibly removed", we say "give the state an opportunity to illustrate how much violence it will use to silence dissent".
  Arguments like yours lack any connection to real fact, and you've clearly confused NYC with UC Davis, an agriculturally focused university in California's wine country, where a police officer used a canister of pepper spray which is illegal for anyone outside of the military to possess, and explicitly told the Chancellor that he would use it.
  When a handful of people sit in a place that someone in power does not want them to be, it creates an opportunity for us to examine the entire power structure. Noone knew that the Chancellor of UC Davis was incompetent until detailed records of the planning process which led to these protesters being pepper sprayed came out.
  The most interesting thing is that the University of California has its' own police force *specifically* because it wants its' campus and students policed in a manner that is consistent with the values of the University. One might think that means things like, not violently jabbing student and faculty who are protesting, but it turns out, that's not the case.
  It's a complete failure and without the individuals who sat on a grassy area which they had informed the University they would be doing, we would know less about how much of a clusterfuck the University of California is.
  Which, frankly, you would probably prefer.
47. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  Police officers cannot just make threats, and the entire situation was a mess. There's a great detailed report you can read on it.
  The chain of command was entirely broken on the scene, because the UCPD is literally not aware of how to properly do their job - they aren't called upon to, their primary function is to issue alcohol-related citations at frat parties and to ticket people for riding their bike across the quad.
  They wanted to remove the protesters for "camping', but they did it in the middle of the day instead. Why? Because the Chancellor wanted it done before 3pm. There's a complex legal structure which should have limited the University's behavior here and with faculty and not just students involved in the protest, there is some intent to draw attention to that.
  The University of California markets itself as a bastion of free speech. As long as it does that, people should test it at every campus, every year, because if they can't live up to their promise, that should be in the minds of prospective freshmen.
48. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  The question was not how scary and threatening these protesters were.
  The question was how to get a group of non-compliant young adults to comply with the legal order to get off the footpath. They could have protested legally in the grass just fine but they choose to block the path and created a public disturbance. Am I to suppose that had the cops just asked politely then the protesters would have moved? Hahaha! No.
  So many people think that they have a right to block foot paths and roads rendering them inaccessible to the public. That the public should walk in the grass to get past them. This sense of entitlement is absurd. Protesting has always been and always will be an at-your-own-risk endeavor. You have the right to protest, and you have the right to a trial of your peers that you forced to walk in the grass.
49. Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters by Dan667 · 2012-06-14 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  the are public servants with extraordinary powers that are constantly abused by bad actors in their ranks. The more transparent the better.
I hope this is adopted by the entire free world by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:19 · Score: 0

Here in Portugal the portuguese communist party controls and manipulates a group of social movements which are, in name, anti-fascist but their only purpose is to provoce and incite police reactions so that their little agents armed with video cameras can strategically record and edit their videos to use in their pro-communist, anti-establishent propaganda. These criminals employ tactics such as vandalizing everything that they cross, random attacks on people who happened to be in the street where they pass, pelt the police with rocks and paint bombs, and even form gangs to assault police agents doing the rounds. Yet, mysteriously they may get everything on film but they only manage to publish the part where the police reinforcements arrive and start to disperse these criminals. Sometimes they do such a bad job at it that they unintentionally upload videos that include their own agents attacking the police and civilians, but they either subsequently edit that out or deny what happened.
I hope the portuguese police also adopts this method, to show the world their side of the story instead of only being exposed to what the criminals want us to see.
Online journalism is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:19 · Score: 1

A story about two youtube videos, posted online, and instead of linking either video, it comes with screencaps of the video page... I'm not sure AP "gets" the internet.
1. Re:Online journalism is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. I just scanned this entire thread for videos. Not slashdot nor the AP can do the research so we can see what is actually in these videos.
2. Re:Online journalism is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 14:27 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus, thank you. I was thinking the exact same thing. Reminds me of when I'm searching for recently released sex tape videos and sites will only mention it has been released, but never links to the actual content.
They should be forced to release video by saibot834 · 2012-06-12 10:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

In case of a legal dispute, the police should be forced to release their video, as to provide the clearest possible picture of the case. They should not only release them when it suits them. Unfortunately, presumably incriminating police videos often end up "missing", with little or no consequences for the policemen.
1. Re:They should be forced to release video by Sooner+Boomer · 2012-06-12 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  In case of a legal dispute, the police should be forced to release their video, as to provide the clearest possible picture of the case. They should not only release them when it suits them. Unfortunately, presumably incriminating police videos often end up "missing", with little or no consequences for the policemen.
  This is called "discovery", and is part of the legal proceedings. The problem is that the authorities ("the police") have the power of a warrant which allows seizure, whereas the public in general only have the power of subpoena (give it to us, pretty please...).
  
  --
  Chaos maximizes locally around me.
2. Re:They should be forced to release video by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  it would have to be a cloud back up to a private company, because exactly what you talk about happened to me. Police officer yelling at me, threatening me, and making stuff up about my car all on his audio recorder, but when i file to take it to court apparently the recorder was broken outside a night club latter that night and couldn't be used as evidence (and of course his partner wouldn't be any help in the quest for justice). freaking hypocritical little bitches.
3. Re:They should be forced to release video by gd2shoe · 2012-06-13 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  The other problem with relying on discovery is that this presupposes an ongoing court case. Good luck requesting a public defender to prove you didn't make a civil-code infraction, and really shouldn't be ticketed. You could always sue for it, but that involves hiring a lawyer. The cost of the lawyer versus the price of the ticket is a calculation they make gladly. You're going to come quietly, and pay that ticket. Aren't you?
  The same applies (to a lesser extent) to most criminal cases.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
This. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:46 · Score: 0

On one hand, I'm ideally down with the police slapping their own videos up on YouTube. For every dancing idiot being crushed by a jackboot at the Jefferson memorial, there's undoubtedly some angry arrogant ass who's done something to actually deserve being stepped on.
The problem, of course, is one that has long plagued our justice system: Who are you going to believe?
Some dirty, smelly hippy could be perfectly in the right. A few minutes with Premiere Pro and it appears that someone is being untruthful. Who is that someone? Is it our fine, upstanding officer, who's video clearly shows his side of the story is correct? Or is it some dirty, smelly hippy, who probably did some creative editing, because he's a dirty hippy, amirite guys?
Anyone with a clue, of course, won't immediately side with the cop. But the court of public opinion - which is largely what our justice system has been descending into - isn't made up of clueholders.
Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 10:48 · Score: 0

There's lots of bullshit Occupy DC Police Brutality! videos out there. Stuff where people resist arrest and SURPRISE get pepper sprayed, but of course the people uploading try to make it look like the protestor didn't do anything wrong.
Predictions by realisticradical · 2012-06-12 10:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think this is an entirely reasonable response. Instead of trying to shutdown speech the police are offering another side of the story. Good.
Of course some of the broader implications are pretty interesting. An individual can basically edit a video to show the part where the police are beating the crap out of him and ignore the earlier part where he's spitting and throwing rocks. The police, on the other hand, don't get the luxury of using video simply as a PR mouthpiece. If this sort of response to protesters becomes commonplace it will be interesting to see what happens the first time an edited video comes out from the police. More interesting will be the cases where people start requesting these videos as evidence against the police at their trials.
1. Re:Predictions by T.E.D. · 2012-06-13 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  The police, on the other hand, don't get the luxury of using video simply as a PR mouthpiece
  Really? Since when?
  And how exactly is this weird prohibition enforced today? Do they have rules preventing hiring cops capable of working video editing software?
What about cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Allegations of police brutality (and the controversy surrounding it) gets eyeballs. Police just doing their jobs is boring. Guess which one "the media" wants.
I seem to recall a show called Cops that would disprove your claims.
1. Re:What about cops? by jxander · 2012-06-12 11:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I seem to recall that show focusing on the "fun" stuff (for varying definitions of fun). I never saw a single episode where a cop rolled around his beat for 30 minutes, and cut to credits. I don't even recall seeing a routine stop. Imagine that episode: cop flashes his lights, car pulls over, speeding ticket issued, no drama, motorist apologizes for the violation and goes about their business. That's boring, doesn't get airtime.
  Every episode had some form of chase, either on foot on in the cars, or they had cops tackling drunken rednecks or breaking up fights, getting shot at, etc. That's exciting, that's what airs.
  Fast-forward to the current situation: protests. We-the-people don't want to see video of cops politely asking 15 times for someone to clear out. We get bored watching police standing around while protesters peacefully demonstrate, which is what's actually happening 95% of the time. We want the videos where someone gets punched, or slapped in cuffs and dragged away from their tent... even if you have to cut out the previous 6 hours of the cop telling people that they're not allowed to take a crap in the grass.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
2. Re:What about cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Besides which, that's entertainment programming, not news.
3. Re:What about cops? by ChrisMP1 · 2012-06-12 13:04 · Score: 2
  
  "Cops" isn't about cops. South Park was right when they parodied it as "White Trash in Trouble". "Cops" is about rubbernecking other people's trouble with the law, not displaying the job of police officers.
  
  --
  <sig> </sig>
4. Re:What about cops? by forkazoo · 2012-06-12 14:22 · Score: 2
  
  But, they got easy access to shoot the "fun" stuff by making sure they only showed stuff where the criminals were acting like idiots. If Cops had made a habit of showing police brutality that actually made the cops look bad, they wouldn't have gotten permission to make the show any more. That fact influences the way the police are shown by the media. Even subtler things like who the cops are friends with effecting who hears about breaks in a popular case effect the way police are portrayed in the media. As much as violent cops are a sexy story, there is still a huge positive bias in coverage in favor of the police.
5. Re:What about cops? by Nursie · 2012-06-12 14:33 · Score: 2
  
  It's supposedly a show that supposedly showcases the cops in situations where it should be easy to come across as the both the bigger man and the good guy.
  You know what I see about 50% of the time when I flick past it on the tv? Some cop acting like a complete dick to someone for no reason at all.
  If this is positive propaganda for the police in the US then I dread to think what it's like when you come across a US cop having a bad day.
6. Re:What about cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 15:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Aye. When I was younger, like everyone else I used to watch videos of violent demonstrations on TV. Then the G20 summit came to town and one day I went to watch the protest. I followed the peaceful march to downtown then watched the protests from a footbridge for 2 hours. The demonstrators peacefully chanted slogans, beat on drums and waved signs, much to the dismay of the watching bystanders who'd occasionally yell "come on do something!" Sure once in a while a bored cop would fire something into the protesters who'd simply retreat and advance back cautiously asking for peace, again much to the dismay of the bored spectators...
  Later when the crowd had dispersed, I ran back home and excitedly turned on the News to see the coverage of the first peaceful G20 protest ever. What did the media say? "Protesters were out again today during the summit, they smashed the windows of a McDonald's and Starbucks and police had to repeatedly fire warning shots at them." No mention of the hours of peaceful protest, none, zip, nada.
  The media today isn't the press of 1890s. They're not there to report the truth, they're simply trying to make a buck like the rest of us. If they reported the entire truth, it'll be either boring and people would switch to another outlet, too shocking and people would switch again, or start a revolution that might make the media lose their comfortable home and present way of life. So they don't lie, but they sure as hell don't tell you the entire story. Beware.
7. Re:What about cops? by jxander · 2012-06-12 16:35 · Score: 2
  
  Besides which, that's entertainment programming, not news.
  Nail - Head.
  Cops was an entertainment show. It was popular because it was fun an entertaining. The problem lies in the fact that news seems to be emulating that style these days. More entertainment, more fun, less facts.
  
  --
  This signature is false.
8. Re:What about cops? by datavirtue · 2012-06-12 16:40 · Score: 1
  
  With fiction and news the same formula applies: no conflict == no story
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
9. Re:What about cops? by datavirtue · 2012-06-12 16:43 · Score: 2
  
  I always thought Cops was propaganda to condition people to acquiesce to authority.
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
10. Re:What about cops? by datavirtue · 2012-06-12 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  It sucks. I got stopped by a redneck cop with a serious attitude problem. This guy kinda scared me as he was very unstable. When he went to sit in his car to fill out paper work his dog would bark and he kept screaming at the dog to shut up. Very freaky, his face was all red and seemed extremely stressed out. Somehow I was able to convince him to let my friends come and pick up my motorcycle (I had fictitious tags, no license, and no insurance). Funny thing is, I got stopped earlier that day in a nice neighborhood doing 70 in a 35. The cop was super nice and we just talked about my bike. He didn't check insurance, license, or my tags! He just said, "Be careful." The redneck pulled me over because I was sitting at a stoplight with my goggles pulled up onto my forehead. He said I didn't have eye protection. WTH!?
  
  --
  I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
11. Re:What about cops? by gknoy · 2012-06-12 19:14 · Score: 2
  
  I would really love to see videos of cops doing their jobs as models of proper police behavior. It's much nicer than police footage that disappears, is lost, is confiscated, or otherwise isn't admissable.
12. Re:What about cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The media today isn't the press of 1890s.
  Ever heard of the Spanish-American War?
13. Re:What about cops? by wynterwynd · 2012-06-13 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Besides which, that's entertainment programming, not news.
  This is the funniest comment on here - you haven't been watching much news lately I take it?
  Boring news doesn't get watched, so even the most trivial, humdrum, day-to-day news gets jazzed up with alarmist angles and misleading headlines. The line between news and entertainment has been almost fully erased.
  
  --
  "Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
14. Re:What about cops? by Raenex · 2012-06-13 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  The media today isn't the press of 1890s.
  Hilarious. You guys think that the same pressures to sell news didn't occur in the past?
15. Re:What about cops? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-06-13 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  There's actually a whole lot of this. A lot of police vehicles have cameras in them, and some states require video of all arrests.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
16. Re:What about cops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  The media today isn't the press of 1890s. They're not there to report the truth
  I hate to break this to you, but the press of the 1890's wasn't there to report the truth, either. "You Supply The Pictures, And I'll Supply The War". Yellow journalism, and agenda pushing has always been the norm.
17. Re:What about cops? by Zcar · 2012-06-13 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  The media today isn't the press of 1890s. They're not there to report the truth, they're simply trying to make a buck like the rest of us.
  Spanish-American war, anyone? "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war," and all that? Yeah, journalism in the 1890s was ALL about "truth".
18. Re:What about cops? by Raenex · 2012-06-13 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Classic story. So you got busted for riding a bike with "fictitious tags, no license, and no insurance", and your biggest complaint is about the "redneck" cop who was yelling at his dog? And you admit to doing 70 in a 35? You're such a dick you don't even realize it.
19. Re:What about cops? by PhxBlue · 2012-06-13 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  The media today isn't the press of 1890s. They're not there to report the truth, they're simply trying to make a buck like the rest of us.
  The "press of the 1890s" started the Spanish-American War. I'd say today's media isn't too far off.
  
  --
  !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
20. Re:What about cops? by lilfields · 2012-06-13 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  "Cops," also never showed raids that were at the wrong house, killed innocent people, destroying people's property for small amounts of drugs, racial profiling, calling a SWAT team for a granny, killing animals needlessly, arrested innocent people, forged evidence, planted evidence and otherwise abusing police powers, etc...The list goes on...the police units had full discretion of what aired and what didn't air. There are similar police shows now like "Cops" and it's total propaganda. The media is just in love with action, and their journalistic integrity goes down the tubes because they are on such a high from tagging along...never questioning (or airing) the bad stuff.
21. Re:What about cops? by lilfields · 2012-06-13 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  "The media today isn't the press of 1890s. They're not there to report the truth, they're simply trying to make a buck like the rest of us. If they reported the entire truth, it'll be either boring and people would switch to another outlet, too shocking and people would switch again, or start a revolution that might make the media lose their comfortable home and present way of life. So they don't lie, but they sure as hell don't tell you the entire story. Beware."
  
  I'm pretty sure the media in the 1890s was still trying to make a profit...when was "yellow" journalism coined? In the 90s? No. This is a delusional look at history.
22. Re:What about cops? by gd2shoe · 2012-06-13 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know, the one episode of COPS I saw last year left a bad taste in my mouth. It was a drug sting operation where undercover cops approached cars, sold them something that looked like drugs, and then seized the vehicles (I think they were to be sold at auction). It didn't matter if it was the "perps" car or not. It didn't matter that it wasn't actually drugs. It didn't matter if the "perps" tried to hide the "drugs" in the car or not. It didn't matter that the cops initiated the sale (entrapment).
  I think most police do a lot of good, and get bad coverage for a few bad apples. But the bad ones are sometimes systemic, and that's a scary thought.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
23. Re:What about cops? by sohmc · 2012-06-13 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  Just to clear the air, entrapment is when the police cause a person to do something illegal when that person had no intention of doing so in the first place.
  Example: I'm walking down the street and an UC tells me that I need to buy drugs so that I can save the life of his grandmother. If I buy the drugs, I can say entrapment because my concern was for his grandmother (real or not) and not for the drugs (as I have no history with it.)
  If some junkie strolls down Drug Dealer Blvd. looking for a score and happens to buy from a UC, that's not entrapment since they were out to buy drugs in the first place.
  The key to this is would the person committed the crime if the police were not there to begin with.
  
  --
  We don't live in Shouldland.
24. Re:What about cops? by gd2shoe · 2012-06-13 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  The key to this is would the person committed the crime if the police were not there to begin with.
  Exactly. The argument can be made that they'd buy anyway, but there's no way to prove that. Whether this flies or not depends on jurisdiction.
  And this didn't look like "Drug Dealer Blvd". I think it was a gas station or parking lot.
  
  --
  I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You forgot about... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:12 · Score: 1

shouting STOP RESISTING to an immobile victim...
What good does lying do? by noitalever · 2012-06-12 11:16 · Score: 1

I don't think I'll ever understand when people post misleading videos on things like this. Why would we as a society WANT people to hate the system we put in place to maintain law and order? I completely understand if they are actually being abusive... but what purpose is served by making people think the police are MORE abusive than they really are? It just breeds more mistrust, more hatred, more problems. No one would ever want that to happen to them, but it seems so commonplace anymore for people to do it to others.
Open Source Prosecution and Defense by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:21 · Score: 0

The idea of posting evidence to the world could make court cases a lot more interesting (ignoring the awful privacy implications). It'd be fascinating to see the public find things that the prosecutors or defense attorney's may have missed.
that's absurd by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 11:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

so a demonstrator is allowed to present their side of a story to the court of public opinion, and the police can only present their side of the story to an actual court?
one or the other: both police and demonstrators can engage the court of public opinion, or both police and demonstrators must keep their footage for an actual court of law. you choose
i don't understand this point of view that only demonstrators can engage the public. the police are not alien beings, they are our neighbors, tasked with a job we want them to do, keep the law and order. if they abuse someone, we want to see the video and we want to have them judged. if someone LIES about them abusing someone, we want to see that video too and the liar to be judged. as a citizen, i want to hear both sides. you will not tell me i can't hear or see the policeman's side of the story, just as much as you or the government can't tell me i can't hear the demonstrator's side of the story. transparency is the only way justice can work, and that truth works BOTH ways. shrouding one side, or the other, is when abuses get perpetrated, whether by police, or demonstrator

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:that's absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 21:05 · Score: 0
  
  Clearly you don't understand. Public officials using their public role and public resources to engage in political action is a blantantly obvious route towards corruption and destruction of democratic function. Let me put it this way. "Knock, knock, knock....Hello ma"am. We are here on the public"s dime in uniform to explain how things will go much better for you if you vote in a particular manner." The solution to this problem is to make sure that political speech using public resources is considered corruption and prosecuted as such. Self-interested political speech on the public's dime is obvious corruption. If an officer is off duty and asks someone who was filming at some event to post the parts of a video showing an action that the off duty policeman would like to have known to the public then it might be acceptable.Eternal vigiilance.
2. Re:that's absurd by hacksoncode · 2012-06-13 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  The basic problem with this is that cops' job is to collect evidence of crimes and arrest those they think are responsible. It's not the public's job to do this.
  When they release their evidence, they taint it for any future court proceeding. Even if it were allowed, it probably shouldn't be in general because the public (including the jury) can be presumed to have seen it.
  Of course, if they aren't planning to use it for evidence, it's technically ok for them to release it (though there are the same concerns about everyone's privacy as when the public releases it), but it doesn't seem like a good idea...
  Because it sends the message that there is no chance that they will be prosecuted for any misconduct regardless (otherwise this would be tainted evidence for *their* trials).
PigTube by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 11:41 · Score: 0

Bacon on Youtube? There's already plenty of that.
posts like this make me laugh by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 11:44 · Score: 0

"the police" are not alien beings hell bent on abuse for the fun of it. they are employed by us, the citizens, to enforce the laws we write
they are accountable to us, they are accountable to YOU
but as long as you have this "us" versus "them" mentality you have posts like yours that imagine police to be feral predators out to swing nightsticks, when they are just employees doing a good job or bad one, and deserving promotion or punishment, depending upon their performance, just like you and me. are there bad cops? yeah, there ARE predators out there. so they should be FIRED. not the entirety of the police force painted with the image of these few bad apples. see how that works?
when a cop goes home at night, he kisses his kids, watches tv, and goes to sleep, just like you and me. stop talking about them like they invasive inscrutable species out to hurt you for no reason and maybe you'll actually get something accomplished about their behavior

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:posts like this make me laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 12:50 · Score: 0
  
  they are accountable to us, they are accountable to YOU
  lol
2. Re:posts like this make me laugh by ifwm · 2012-06-12 13:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  but as long as you have this "us" versus "them"
  
  You mean the exact mentality the police ADMIT they have?
  
  they are accountable to us, they are accountable to YOU
  No, this is a lie. They are accountable to their supervisors, and to accountability boards that are staffed by ex-police, and to Internal Affairs, who are also police.
  NOWHERE in that process can a citizen bring accountability. Qualified Immunity prevents lawsuits except in the most egregious, and rare, circumstances. If IA and the accountability boards don't hold a cop responsible, you're out of luck.
  You can't elect them out, you can't vote them out, so this "they are accountable to you" tripe is just blatantly false.
  
  not the entirety of the police force
  The entirety of the force colludes in protecting the bad apples. And you make excuses for them because they "kiss their kids at night" or some other "think of the CHILDREN" sappy bullshit.
  
  stop talking about them like they invasive inscrutable species out to hurt you for no reason
  I will when they stop living up to the description.
  http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18722525/2012/06/06/prince-georges-county-police-officers-under-criminal-investigation?obref=obinsite
  FTFA "WALDORF, Md. -Two Prince George's County police officers are under criminal investigation in Charles County for allegedly handcuffing, detaining and assaulting a teenager in order to teach him a lesson."
  Now, that's two cops plus every other cop who covered for them. You forget, they have a responsiblity to uphold the law, so every single officer who knew about that incident and didn't turn those cops in is legally culpable. But you ignore that in your rush to paint a portrait even more distorted than the one you're crying about.
  
  maybe you'll actually get something accomplished about their behavior
  No, the current "Fuck the Police" attitude has done more to bring attention to these issues than the copsucking you're suggesting ever did. That, and ubiquitous cameras. However, I don't fault you, collaborators always suggest collaboration, it's easier than resistance and you collaborators tend toward laziness and cowardice.
  I appreciate your opinion, but as you can see, you really have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Frankly, you take a startlingly similar line to cops themselves, and I have to wonder if you have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome.
  You're a citizen. It's your DUTY to resist tyranny. Not sit by and defend it because it kisses it's kids forehead at night.
old problem by circletimessquare · 2012-06-12 11:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

every single demonstrator should have a camera. every single cop should have a camera. now you have a proper adversarial situation. when something goes bad, whether the fault of demonstrator or cop, now we will clearly know
the more cameras, on either side, the better. who cares if someone loses something? the incriminatory evidence should be available from the side that wants to present the abuse that was perpetrated

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:old problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  I'll add a caveat: if the demonstrator's camera goes missing (and the demonstrator claims the cop destroyed it), then the cop should be forced to provide their own camera footage to disprove the accusation.
2. Re:old problem by RivenAleem · 2012-06-13 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  And hopefully, if everyone is busy staring eachother down with their cameras in hand, they won't be so easy to start anything violent. That is, of course, until someone gets camera envy.
3. Re:old problem by Sigg3.net · 2012-06-13 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Problem seems to me to be that there is a perceived divide between police and people. To protect and to serve.
  Need to address that fear that allows this to happen.
  Locate who is benefiting from it.
  
  --
  Defining Statistics and Social Research
Who wins? Nobody, really. by Cazekiel · 2012-06-12 12:23 · Score: 1

When it comes to the protestors, I'm always on the fence. We have the right to protest, but even if only one guy or girl is causing trouble, police have to take some action. The way I see it, you'll have 99 good people and 1 bad; 45 people see that 1 bad doing stuff wrong, while the other 54 don't. The police step in; the 45 step aside, but the 54 think that police brutality is going on when they see them trying to apprehend the 1. They jump in, those trying to get out of the way knowing the police are justified get hurt anyway, chaos reigns, the whole story isn't said. The people against the protestors claim they're dirty hippie bastards, the protestors (there or not) use the perceived brutality as a weapon.
But the story's never going to be straight without clearly unedited, time-stamped footage. With many protestor's vids, they start when the shit goes down. If the police can produce something better and get the details correct, good. The problem when it IS the police's fault is that like hell they're going to reveal the videos they may have taken.
But I think the police are justified in taking video, and that people have to understand that there's some differences when it comes to filming them. The regular Joe or Jane captured on film at a protest are less likely to receive death-threats or face other dangers than a cop whose badge number, car, etc. is visible. If the cop is acting out of order or illegally, film them; if they're just standing there, there's no reason to film them.
This can be argued over and over until the end of time, but no one really wins.

--
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
1. Re:Who wins? Nobody, really. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 14:20 · Score: 0
  
  Anon because of earlier moderation. Unfortunately I ran out of points to mod up this post. This is the problem with the police and the protestors alike. There are a lot of protestors that just want to represent their view and there are a lot of police that just want to do their job. There are a few protestors that are out of control, there are a few corrupt cops that destroy people because they can.
  That said, supporters of both sides need to stop denying the existence of their bad eggs. The police covering for their troublemakers widens the rift and increases conflict. Kudos to that journalist in the Occupy movement who was willing to film protestors vandalizing police cars even in the face of threats and adversity.
2. Re:Who wins? Nobody, really. by dkleinsc · 2012-06-12 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  The regular Joe or Jane captured on film at a protest are less likely to receive death-threats or face other dangers than a cop whose badge number, car, etc. is visible.
  Since when are uniformed police officer's identities in any way protected information? They're public officials engaging in official acts, and absolutely should expect public scrutiny. Whereas the regular citizen is not a public official and is not engaging in official acts.
  The standard of behavior should always be *higher* for those placed in positions of authority. If they don't want that responsibility, then they shouldn't have the job of police officer.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
3. Re:Who wins? Nobody, really. by Cazekiel · 2012-06-12 15:29 · Score: 1
  
  I never said we shouldn't expect higher standards from them, that's not the issue presented (at least by me). Their behavior should be top-notch and respectable. Have I said that's not true, or even bring it up?
  My reasoning when it comes to officers not being videoed resembles why an FBI officer or informant shouldn't be exposed to the media. Yes, it's different, but it's the idea that cops are more reviled than respected, unfairly in many ways. They're prone to attacks, along with their family and friends, by someone wanting revenge for whatever reason (their son getting arrested, etc.). The less you bring up their name and image, the better. In that, I'm not saying that any unlawful actions made by a cop and captured on video shouldn't be hidden or thrown under the rug. I'm talking generic filming, wherein the cop isn't doing anything wrong--perhaps sitting in a restaurant, standing on the sidewalk, filmed specifically to expose him/her.
  Maybe I've just watched 'Red Dragon' too many times, but...
  
  --
  You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
4. Re:Who wins? Nobody, really. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  Google, really.
Good! by MobyDisk · 2012-06-12 12:24 · Score: 1

Yaaay! This is how it should work! Slashdot often reports on poor police response, which taints our thinking. But based on personal experience, when someone tells me the police acted inappropriately it usually turns out that there are other details they were hiding. Let the truth be told and let us make decisions with full information. I'm glad to see the police embracing this technology instead of hiding it.
re:Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-06-12 14:09 · Score: 1

Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories
And why not?
Videos? by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-12 14:51 · Score: 1

So the summary goes on and on about these back-and-forth videos, so where the hell are they?!? I even checked the article, and guess what I found? Screenshots of youtube! I kid you not.
1. Re:Videos? by bongey · 2012-06-12 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  Police video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgvhfJYKVLQ
So Gandhi was a douchebag? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 15:28 · Score: 0

Most of the OWS people I've seen who are the "victims" of police brutality put themselves into situations where they know they will be forcibly removed just so they can claim brutality. They're not protesting they're being douchebags enticing violence
"The function of a civil resistance is to provoke response" - Mohandas K. Gandhi
You have perfectly described Gandhi's personal actions in South Africa. Do you really believe that Gandhi was a douchebag and never a victim of police brutality?
1. Re:So Gandhi was a douchebag? by MrBigInThePants · 2012-06-12 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  He does. He comments are very explicit in this regard.
  He will probably not admit to it open but he is (and to be fair many others are also) actually saying that the laws governing the correct behavior by pedestrians on a roadway are more important than democracy.
  Because democracy is voting once per term for the party you find least reprehensible. (or not bothering to as is all to common nowadays)
  Apart from that you should just shut up, lube up and bend over and brace yourself.
  Nice. Can't see why your system of government is so broken...
calling General Dwyer to Amritsar.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 15:36 · Score: 0

"They've had their warning" - General Dwyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
Apparently "they were warned" doesnt let an officer kill over 1000 people including women and children anymore
Accountability-Cams by davegravy · 2012-06-12 15:45 · Score: 1

There should (one day) be "Accountability-Cams" which are legally required to be operated by police anywhere they are performing protest-related-duties. The devices must be supported by a portable "pole" mount at a certain height, and consist of an array of HD video cameras which record a 360deg panoramic video. The video and realtime GPS coordinates of each device must be live-streamed to a publicly accessible server. There are requirements for how many of these must be present and how they are distributed, to ensure that all activities (from police and protesters alike) are recorded from multiple vantage points.
no, that's called sue for defamation by Uberbah · 2012-06-12 16:54 · Score: 2

If a video is selectively edited to portray a cop as a racist when he's not (like was done to Zimmerman's 911 tape by a network affiliate) then go ahead and sue for defamation.

one or the other: both police and demonstrators can engage the court of public opinion, or both police and demonstrators must keep their footage for an actual court of law.
That's absurd. Police officers are public servants and are held to a higher standard than private citizens.
Re:I find it hard to believe the police these days by gmack · 2012-06-12 18:43 · Score: 1

One of my first memories of Montreal was wandering town around with my friend and running straight into a riot squad. The police directed us to the far side of the road and we were curious about what was happening so we had a chat with the protestors. The protestors claimed to be there for a peaceful protest regarding the lack of affordable housing in Quebec but the reality was quite different. Some woman (probably the leader) was going on about how this was a peaceful protest but a good number of the crowd was were arming themselves. They weren't there because they cared about the cause, they were there because they wanted a fight.
Quite frankly, it seems to me that if the protestors of Montreal really wanted less problems with the police the protestors would stop CLAC and Black Block from using them as cover when they attack the police, or the office of whoever they can vaguely justify as being an acceptable target.
At least your police force does SOMETHING by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 21:20 · Score: 0

I'm sitting here reading these comments and I just have to laugh.
You should all try living in a place like South Africa, where the police do pretty much NOTHING all day long and don't protect anybody from anything, don't control anything and pretty much have no authority anymore, at all.
Over here, we don't even bother calling the police for help anymore because they take so long to respond, if at all, that's it pointless.
And even worse, they are often far more corrupt than the criminals they are supposed to be dealing with. Even our police chiefs and high ranking officials are getting arrested and prosecuted for fraud and various kinds of criminal activity every 5 minutes. It's a complete circus and an absolute joke.
At least YOUR police force is doing something and trying to maintain a degree of control and making some kind of effort.
"save face" is so +86 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-12 23:36 · Score: 0

"I don't think it's for transparency," Richards said. "I think it's for them to save face and maybe even intimidate us."
What is the first thing that comes to mind when one hears the expression "save face". I am thinking of a culture that has no concept of the individual except when there is shame to be doled out. Even better, the culture that gave the world the expression "The nail that sticks up gets hammered flat." I'm talking about a people so different that they CANNOT METABOLIZE ETHANOL PROPERLY.
--
Go ahead, waste your mod points.
I'm glad at least we have their side of the story by nhat11 · 2012-06-13 00:06 · Score: 0

I always believe in hearing both sides of the story regardless of the situation then based my opinion at that point. It's way too biased if a person only gets to listen to one side of the story. By hearing both sides of the story you can see holes and issues with consistence with the issue especially if you have a video to verify the claims.
Bring it on! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-06-13 00:33 · Score: 1

I'm convinced police should tape even more of their own activities. Trying to hide it is stupidity on their part -- they should revel in it.
And, while there are, of course, legitimate horror stories of police abuse, one could expect these protesters to fraudulentize (?) their claims even more as they suffer from martyr disasterbation syndromes.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Seeing Blood by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 01:51 · Score: 0

I'm going to admit to being a real person here, and not the hero I'd dream myself to be.

The other ninety percent of us are like Switzerland. When we see blood we make darn clear that we are NOT taking sides. This is true in large geopolitical struggles where there isn't a clear right or wrong. Studies show that it is also true in small-scale personal interactions where there is an obvious morally correct side.

MY life and MY family's lives are more valuable to me than yours. I'm pretty sure you feel the same way about the relative value of your life. If you think seeing pictures of police brutality is going to do anything besides make me keep even further from the police and treat them with even more "respect" then you're sorely mistaken. If you want me to take action, you have to convince me there is imminent danger that the boot is about to kick down MY door, and even then my most likely action is going to be to run.
Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-13 02:33 · Score: 0

This is what SHOULD be happening! The civilians should be protecting themselves with video/audio recordings (which we'll call 'evidence' from here on out) of themselves and the police; if no one is doing wrong, then everyone is happy. The flip-side should ALSO be true! The police should be protecting themselves by recording and collecting evidence and outwardly fighting that they are doing the right thing.
I think the biggest problem is that there ARE crooked cops out there who are not recording their misdeeds, and they are upset that the public is allowed to. If civilians "have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide", then the flip-side to that coin must also be true, right? Record everyone in public, put offenses on the internet, let the courts figure it out.
Web page without links? by hkmwbz · 2012-06-13 05:31 · Score: 0

I may be missing something, but I was amazed to find out that the article doesn't contain a single link to the videos in question. It seems somewhat rude and misplaced to leave out key information/links on the web, where people expect to be able to follow links and see for themselves.
I finally looked at the pictures, and used Google to search for the video title in one of them. But this should not be necessary on a web page!

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Skepticism FTW by hicksw · 2012-06-13 10:57 · Score: 1

Don't believe anything someone else has videoed. You have no idea how it was cropped or edited. Or whatever the video equivalent of 'photoshopped' might be.
It is a very weak form of evidence, next to hearsay.
--
Everybody lies; but it doesn't matter if nobody listens.