Slashdot Mirror
NY Couple On "Wanted" Poster For Filming Police
Hugh Pickens writes "Ben Fractenberg and Jeff Mays write that the NYPD has created a 'wanted' poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube — branding them 'professional agitators' who portray cops in a bad light and listing their home address. The flyer featuring side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez and the couple's home address was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room in the 30th Precinct house and warns officers to be on guard against them. The couple has filmed officers stopping and frisking and arresting young people of color in Harlem and around New York City, which they post on Gonzalez's YouTube account. They said their actions are legal. 'There have been times when it's gotten combative. There have been times when they [police officers] have videoed Christina,' says Swaye. 'But if we were breaking the law they would have arrested us.' Swaye was part of a group of advocates including Cornel West who were detained at the 28th Precinct in Harlem in October for protesting the stop-and-frisk policy which Mayor Bloomberg strongly defends. "
It's amazing what we let what amounts to State employees get away with.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well obviously the Harlem residents must be guilty of something, otherwise the police won't stop and frisk them...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Seriously, why would the police care if the police are doing nothing wrong? Are the videos revealing operational secrets that will make these "stop and frisk" actions less useful? Whatever their reason is, I would like to use that reason against them when they are requiring the same of me.
Which brings me to a question: How is "stop and frisk" not a violation of rights? It seems to be CLEARLY a violation of the 4th and perhaps even the 5th.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.
Maybe because police are public servants and private citizens are not.
IMHO public servants should be publically scrutinized.
If they want to record the cops doing what they believe is wrong, I honestly don't see why the police cannot publicly post a warning to other officers
Unfortunately, for your simplistic, naive 'fair and balanced' BS, the relationship between police and non-police isn't symmetrical - the police have governmental backed power and effectively unlimited financial resources (taxpayer dollars).
The way I look at it, the police have video cameras in cars and you routinely see traffic stop and arrest footage from these cameras on tv shows such as Cops. Turnabout is fair play.
WTF, no! It is not a "two way street". Police officers are equipped with privileges that allow them to use force and detain people. That's why public scrutiny of their actions is not just acceptable but necessary. This does not apply to other people, who do not have these privileges. Putting them on a "wanted poster" implies wrongdoing, so this is particularly unacceptable.
Are you seriously arguing that posting a wanted poster that includes the home address of two dissidents is funny?
In other words, it's the kind of joke a sociopath might enjoy. And why is it that any jurisdiction would want such individuals in their police force, or even being allowed to carry a gun?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There's a big difference between what people do in their capacity as private citizens and as government employees. Police are acting as government employees; that gives them both specific powers, and it imposes additional responsibilities on them.
For example, I have a constitutional right to discriminate against you based on your race or religion in my private life; police violate the law if they do the same in their work.
Pics are on thing, home addresses are another, and you are at least bordering on asshole territory by implying that the two can be treated as equivalent. But maybe you're merely confused about the situtation or haven't thought it through properly, so I'll hold off on assigning you any motives. :)
Posting pics is perfectly reasonable for both sides, as long as they're taken in public, and aren't being exploited commercially. A little more reasonable for the couple, since the cops are public servants, but no big deal on either side, really.
Posting home addresses by either side is way beyond the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Even in retaliation for a similar offense, it would have been morally questionable. As a retaliation for the perfectly reasonable behavior of posting pics? Utterly contemptible! The cops were way out of line here!
Isn't the saying that law enforcement likes to use, when spying on citizens... something like "If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about?"
Looks like the police are hiding something to me. Perhaps the police should start leading by example instead of being corrupt fuckers?
That police are simply thugs. If they are doing no wrong, then they should welcome public oversight like this.
Any cop that is against being recorded is a dirty cop that needs to be removed and put in jail.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Actually, each party is happy to raise taxes on the other party, they just don't call it raising taxes.
Democrats are happy to raise taxes on rich people who are unlikely to vote democrat. The individual mandate is an example, as well as the fight over raising taxes during the budget struggles last year.
Republicans are happy to raise taxes on poor people. This is what ending welfare and reducing EITC do. They call it ending subsidies or socialism or welfare instead of raising taxes, but they're happy to do it.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
If it were up to me, police would *always* be recorded while on-duty. Cameras, or at least microphones, in the car and on the person, both recording to a tamper-resistant medium and broadcasting online (with a time delay).
Why? Because the police are supposed to work for the government, and the government is supposed to work for the people. The people have a *right* to know what they are doing, to ensure that they are actually working properly.
And if the police are doing their jobs properly, it will actually help them. They'll have video evidence of any crime they witness. That would be more than a little helpful.
Of course, if it were up to me, we'd have nuked North Korea flat decades ago, so maybe it's good that I'm not actually running the country. But I still think my "record the police" idea is a good one.
Easy. Just try to do a "stop and frisk" on another private citizen and see how well the police respond to that. Oh or try to issue traffic tickets. Or pull people over and perform searches of their body or their car. Or go into people's houses searching and seizing their property. I could go on with the powers and privileges afforded to police officers by their position that an ordinary private citizen doesn't have. One can only hope you're retarded and not actually that dumb by choice.
Pics are on thing, home addresses are another, and you are at least bordering on asshole territory by implying that the two can be treated as equivalent.
Nobody implied that they were equivalent, you inferred that all on your own. The statement as it is written is a bit vague, though; it would better say "or". The statement as written is completely true, and further, it's what the cops have done; post pics and home address, which amounts to where to go and who to harass. Further, the flyer implies that they are criminals and makes unsupported statements about them and thus definitely amounts to deliberate libel, not that this is surprising.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The cynic in me wonders if this couple is just trolling for an arrest for a big payout in a civil rights lawsuit.
As long as that is a valid tactic, that's a valid action. If you are so likely to get arrested for doing something that is not illegal that you stand a good chance of being able to do it, and it is so illegal that you stand a good chance of getting paid, then actually doing it is an act highly useful to society.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...is good for the gander. Law enforcement is always telling the citizenry that they have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide.
In the US, there is a separate division of the police department called "Internal Affairs," whose job is to monitor police actions. The IA is small, subject to bias, and monitors few events. The public is large, independent (subject to innumerable biases), and monitors many events. Police are already recording events and making selected recordings available. How those recordings are selected is an issue with substantial insider bias. Unless the right is taken away by law, the public already has a legal and even moral right to record those same events.
Nobody wants to be watched, the chilling effect is well known. When the police make the recordings, their superior or IA is in charge of releasing the video. When the public is making the recording, the availability is more independent. Usually, the "nothing to hide" privacy argument falls apart easily; when monitoring police action, as demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment, independently watching the watchers is a necessary hardship. Thus citizen review boards and citizen videos. There are, of course, endless special cases; so like most everything in society, laws and policies can at best be general guidelines requiring community oversight.
With cheap recorders comes the ability to watch the watchers with fewer "he said, she said" problems. Fewer but not none, as with the selective editing of the Rodney King video. The above applies to police actions, not to the general public going about their daily activities (the recording of which is a different topic).
Agreed.
You can not have authority without accountability.
Wait, no call for putting the cops in jail for posting this couple's home address? No complaints about the harassment they could get or potential innocent family members that might reside there? Just a "I stand corrected"?
Are you a retired/active LEO?
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
A lot of the problem stems from the 'good majority' silently abetting the bad few. If police were more willing to, dare I say, police their own, rather than holding the thin blue line, I think a lot of the animosity would go away.
Also, there's a fair amount of basic human psychology at play. 'Us and Them' always becomes 'Us Versus Them.' See the Stanford Prision Experiment. Abu Girab for a more recent example.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.