Slashdot Mirror
Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
i guess police are people, too...
... that must be held to a higher standard.
Agreed. It should be a legal requirement.
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.
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!
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 -
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.
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.
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.
What's this, social activists edit their posted videos to hide the truth? Shocking!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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
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?
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!
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
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
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!
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
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
I agree with this, especially the editing part.
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!
Yes, democracy is completely dead in the US.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
I seem to recall a show called Cops that would disprove your claims.
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...
shouting STOP RESISTING to an immobile victim...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories
And why not?
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.
Cool, who gets to decide whether they are peaceful or not?
Because as far as I know, neither clubbing peaceful protesters is legal.
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.
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?
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.
But clubbing WITH protesters is just awesome.
Maybe all the problem here is semantics?
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.
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
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...
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.
It was apparently not legal to wiretap without a warrant in the US also.
How is that working out for you?
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
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.
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.
That's absurd. Police officers are public servants and are held to a higher standard than private citizens.
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.
The police had detained protestors inside the circle and walking them over isn't an option (they wouldn't go willingly.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the are public servants with extraordinary powers that are constantly abused by bad actors in their ranks. The more transparent the better.
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?