Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police

An anonymous reader writes "The Illinois anti-eavesdropping law was cut down slightly. While protecting the average citizen from eavesdropping, it also put in place prohibitions against recording the police as they were doing their jobs. An appeals court sided with the ACLU, saying that it was too great a restriction on First Amendment rights. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, cementing in place the lower court's ruling. In Illinois, you can now secretly record the police."

Comments

caselaw summary

[Trepidity]

With the Supreme Court not yet weighing in, here's a summary of the current state of case law. Every federal appellate circuit to consider the matter has come out in favor of recording being protected, however.

Re:caselaw summary

[immaterial]

It is also worth noting the US Department of Justice also believes recording is a constitutional right and important to "engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety," and they've set forth a clear set of guidelines that can help police departments set their policy and officer training accordingly.

Re:caselaw summary

[Larryish]

You, sir, are my favourite person for this week.

Re:caselaw summary

[TubeSteak]

They didn't charge this guy with recording: http://www.infowars.com/california-man-jailed-four-days-for-recording-cops/
Instead it was "resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer" and not having reflectors on his bicycle pedals.

Police policy means shit if the officers are not trained appropriately.
http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/ is a good clearinghouse for stories about police & private securitywho don't know how to do their jobs.

Re:caselaw summary

[immaterial]

Not sure where you're going with that; it sounds like you're trying to disagree with me (or the DOJ I guess?) but the whole point of my post was that the DOJ thinks officers need to be "trained appropriately." They also address your point that officers tend to go for obstruction/interference charges (since generally recording isn't actually illegal it is a common "workaround"):

...an individual’s recording of police activity from a safe distance without any attendant action intended to obstruct the activity or threaten the safety of others does not amount to interference. Nor does an individual’s conduct amount to interference if he or she expresses criticism of the police or the police activity being observed. ...BPD’s general order specifically suggests that, if a bystander’s actions are “approaching the level of a criminal offense,” supervisors should “recommend a less-intrusive location to the bystander from which he/she may continue to observe, photograph, or video record the police activity.” ... BPD should revise its general order to provide “members” with the same authority. ... encourage officers to provide ways in which individuals can continue to exercise their First Amendment rights as officers perform their duties, rather than encourage officers to look for potential violations of the law in order to restrict the individual’s recording.

Now, it's quite possible for departments or individual officers to ignore this advice (like BPD did basically immediately after getting it, as we PINAC readers are aware) but at least this document will help in any ensuing civil cases should you find yourself targeted unjustly - and one hopes as that becomes more common (and recording becomes more common in general) police departments across the country will start to get it.

Re:caselaw summary

[detritus.]

That depends entirely on who runs the DOJ at any given time - it's not set in stone.

Re:caselaw summary

[detritus.]

The DOJ didn't lock this guy up, California police officers did. DOJ means federal agencies.
Also, you may wish to pick a better source than Infowars. They are not a trustworthy news source.

Re:caselaw summary

[UnknownSoldier]

That is fantastic news that the DoJ is finally help people remember the ancient wisdom:

Authority NEEDS to be balanced with Accountability.
Authority without accountability leads to Totalitarianism
Accountability without authority leads to Bureaucracy.

Re:caselaw summary

[Austerity Empowers]

Sounds like they were trained properly: Bully, Harass and Obfuscate.

Re:caselaw summary

[hairyfeet]

The problem is all your "training" is worth exactly piss as long as resisting arrest and disorderly conduct are on the books, because frankly both of those laws are written so damned vague (on purpose i would argue) that saying "What is the charge?" is enough to get those charges slapped on you, and once you rot in a jail cell for a week or so (remember they can hold up to 5 days without charge in most places) they will have their "chilling effect" and insure that nobody dare not "respect my authority!".

Of course there is a reason why in poor neighborhoods most wouldn't piss on a cop if he were on fire, its because the heavy handed skull cracking jackbooted thug bullshit has been going on far too long. Everyone thinks having a camera to record this thug behavior will help but for all those people I invite you to watch the largest gang in America and to realize that the majority if these, even when caught on camera, did NOT go to jail or even lose their jobs, despite overwhelming evidence of them cracking skulls and being...well gangbangers with badges.

So good luck with your training doing shit friend. I live on the "meth highway" and I had a friend who was a cop that quit in disgust, he said it had gotten to the point that he viewed his fellow officers as more of an enemy than the crooks! He said the few good ones left aren't gonna say shit about the others thanks to the code of silence, and he was surrounded by cops that were in it for the "Training day" style corruption or that were bullies that simply wanted a badge to crack the skulls of those they didn't like. Having a camera won't do shit because the corruption is too deep, too many of them are in it for the money or the ability to inflict pain, and as long as they can walk even after getting caught on camera then all the "training" in the world ain't gonna do shit.

Re:caselaw summary

[Synerg1y]

http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/

Only 318 pages of that eh?

Re:caselaw summary

[Wrath0fb0b]

remember they can hold up to 5 days without charge in most places

-5 Factually Incorrect.

The Supreme Court has said that you are entitled a probable cause hearing in front of a judge no more than 48 hours after arrest, and even then as promptly as reasonably possible.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1817.ZO.html

Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that in a particular case it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.

Re:caselaw summary

[hairyfeet]

You've never actually been poor, have you? those are the laws for the rich folks, I've known plenty of poor folks that have spent anywhere from 3-5 days in jail before just being let go, and good fucking luck finding a lawyer that will take up your case.

You should really come down to the meth highway and get a nice taste of REAL America, its a place where a couple of guys can get run over on a train track with the engineer saying they were covered in a police tarp at the time only to have the ME rule they had "passed out on the tracks due to marijuana intoxication" (yeah no shit, they actually used THAT as an excuse) or the guy that was shot, stabbed, beaten, and thrown off the bridge...cause of death? Suicide...snicker snicker. And nobody is gonna say jack shit about any of it because its common knowledge the last snitch was handed by the cops to a local brutal drug trafficker who "pulled a Fargo" on him without killing him first.

yeah...really don't matter what your little rule books say if nobody cares about that shit. watch the video i linked to, cops acting no different than the gangbangers and then realize less than 2% of those in the video even got fired for that shit.

Re:caselaw summary

[dywolf]

So much melodrama. So much painting with a wide brush BS.

Re:caselaw summary

[jellomizer]

It is important for us as citizens to have the rights to hold all officials (elected, appointed, hired...) accountable.

Police are here to serve and protect the public. Most of them do this job admirably, however when there is a minority who abuses the extra privileges given to them we as citizens should be empowered to point out the troublemakers, and insure that we don't create a cycle of corruptions, where even the good person can start getting into a case where they have passed the line.

In order for you to do your job, and catch people who are not following the laws, the police do need extra rights beyond the citizen to do the job. If there is a car speeding, the police will need to speed to catch the offender car. However they don't need to speed all the time when they are on patrol, but that is a simple offence. But once they get use to speeding, they will get use bending the rules, and may bend another one. And gradually fall into an ineffective officer. Knowing that citizens can keep them accountable with recording their activities privately, without their knowledge gives most people the need to be more conscious when they have to use their extra privileges.

Re:caselaw summary

[Wrath0fb0b]

You should really come down to the meth highway and get a nice taste of REAL America

Actually 75% of Americans now live in urbanized areas. It's the quaint rural farmer and his meth-cook son that are increasingly non-representative of the REAL Americaâ

In Illinois?

[mcgrew]

In Illinois, you can now secretly record the police."

This is a US Supreme court ruling. Anywhere in the US you can now secretly record the police, even if your state is dumb enough to outlaw it.

Re:In Illinois?

[Millennium]

The SCOTUS didn't make any ruling; in fact, they refused to hear the case at all. That means the previous decision stands, but only within the jurisdiction of the court that made that decision. Thus, it doesn't apply to the whole country.

Re:In Illinois?

[GodInHell]

Correction: This is a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin you can probably now secretly record police officers - but might still get arrest for it and have to fight a protracted Court battle. In the rest of the Country there's this 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that was left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. your lawyer can now cite to if you get arrested for secretly recording police officers -- the judge in your federal Habeas Corpus action might be persuaded by that authority or might reject it.

Re:In Illinois?

[Freddybear]

They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)
And so you will still need a good lawyer.

Re:In Illinois?

[fustakrakich]

Well, they really didn't rule. They just refused to hear the case. I would have preferred they actually stated outright that we have the right to film the cops so as to invalidated all the state laws against it.

Re:In Illinois?

[compro01]

No, the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, meaning the lower court ruling stands, but is only applicable within that court's jurisdiction. Specifically, the ruling was from the 7th circuit court, so it applies to Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

Re:In Illinois?

[sribe]

They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)

And well they should--this country is being overrun with mopery & dopery. The more mopes & dopes we can get off the streets, the better!

Re:In Illinois?

[Stan92057]

And a tape of said event.

Re:In Illinois?

[Stan92057]

There refusal to hear the appeal speaks volumes.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that mopes and dopes got 98% of the votes 3 weeks ago.

Re:In Illinois?

[GodInHell]

No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal. It could mean they agree with the ruling, or that they don't see any need to weigh in because there's no dispute between the rulings and no obvious error of law. Sometimes it means they want to see the ruling in action before accepting a later appeal. Often it means that there's something about the underlying fact pattern which has rendered the issue moot (e.g. if the criminal charges have been dropped - if a criminal action - or there is no claim for damages - if a civil suit. If there is no further purpose to the ruling other than to satisfy the curiosity of the parties about the meaning of the law, then the case is probably moot and the Supreme Court will reject the appeal).

That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect -- we don't know the underlying reasoning behind the Court's decisions and shouldn't assume they agree with the ruling below just because they refused to hear the case. That's not a clear inference.

Re:In Illinois?

[davester666]

Then you better go to the nearest police station and turn yourself in!

Re:In Illinois?

[gnasher719]

They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;) And so you will still need a good lawyer.

The idea is that you record _secretly_. You know, where nobody notices. Especially the police.

Well, it would be a good idea for someone to create an iPhone app that streams video directly to the cloud, so no evidence can be destroyed.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like pamphlets. Refusal to hear a case just means the lower court's ruling stands, and only within that court's jurisdiction. Outside its jurisdiction, this means fuck-all.

Re:In Illinois?

[Senior Frac]

Man. Not only didn't read the article, but didn't read the post either! This is new heights for lazy mother______.

Then, somehow, got Score 5: Informative for it too. ___ you slashdot.

Re:In Illinois?

[RabidReindeer]

The problem is that mopes and dopes got 98% of the votes 3 weeks ago.

You're confusing the mopes and dopes with the bums and scum.

The mopes and dopes did 98% of the voting, thereby electing the bums and scum.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man. Not only didn't read the article, but didn't read the post either! This is new heights for lazy mother______.

RTFS (Read the Fucking Summary) is a years-old Slashdot trope for a reason. Idiots even manage to get that wrong. Perhaps the titles should be more accurate, for those who lack the attention span to even fully absorb the summary prior to chiming in with their contributions to the threads.

Re:In Illinois?

[immaterial]

Pretty much designed specifically for this purpose: http://www.tapin.tv/

Re:In Illinois?

[CelticWhisper]

They exist. Qik, UStream, and TapIn are among them. TapIn in particular was designed for protestors and recording authorities, and provides no means to delete footage on the recording device itself - it must be done from the user's account page, by which time the video will have been downloaded and redistributed beyond the user's (or the police's) ability to control.

Re:In Illinois?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.

That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.

Re:In Illinois?

[MaskedSlacker]

You CAN say fuck on the internet. You know that, right?

Re:In Illinois?

[sribe]

I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.

That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.

Whoooosh...

That was the sound of sarcasm flying by your head ;-)

Re:In Illinois?

[zippthorne]

It does, but I don't think it does in the way you mean.

It says that the supremes don't believe this to be obviously unconstitutional enough to warrant hearing at this time - perhaps they think there might be more arguments that other courts might hear or present, and they want there to be a few more cases before deciding anything.

A few more people in a few more states need to be arrested over this to even have standing, and the Supreme court is ok with waiting for that.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

You CAN say fuck on the internet. You know that, right?

Cut him some empathetic slack, man. "Senior Fuck" was taken, so he had to go with "Senior Frac". There is a lot more in a name than people think, and before too long, he was censoring himself in pretty much every communication medium he used. Now, he couldn't stop it even if he tried.

Re:In Illinois?

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal.

According to the Supreme Court website they agree to hear about 1% of the petitions they receive. This case was part of the 99%.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

My favorite is "resisting arrest" What did you arrest them for? Resisting arrest. What were they resisting arrest from? Resisting arrest. Apparently 95% of people only resisting arrest were resisting arrest for their resisting arrest charge (and 83.4% of spastics are made up).

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.

There are two types of cops, bad cops and cops who cover for bad cops. There are no good cops.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect

But it leaves undisturbed the president of the lower court ruling (theoretically binding in the same district and referencial for all others.

Re:In Illinois?

[GodInHell]

I'm not sure who the president of the lower court is of which you speak, but the ruling does stand in the 7th Circuit.

For that matter, its not like we just take caselaw at face value even if it was a SCOTUS ruling -- you just argue around it. "Case X, which is horrible for my client, is innapposite because there the Plaintiff was a nun. No nuns here your honor."

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're levelling a blanket insult at a group of people, and that group comprises 98% of your compatriots, it's time to consider the possibility that maybe you're not perfect.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a lie. You are a liar.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

What, you think there's only one type of cop, the bad ones?

Re:In Illinois?

[Drgnkght]

And that is probably why they refused. If they heard the case they'd have to make a ruling which would apply across the entire country. By refusing to hear it they can contain the "damage" to just Illinois.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

The circuit courts have made the same ruling in the northeast. They didn't hear the case because there's as of yet no conflict to settle. If another circuit rules differently that's when you can expect them to actually hear the case.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are good cops, and you know it. You just don't want there to be.

Re:In Illinois?

[Holi]

No I really want good cops. but if they are not turning in the bad cops then how can you say they are good cops. When they witness a crime or abuse of authority (which, let's be honest, should be a crime) then they have proven they are no better then the ones committing the acts. The thin blue line isn't there to protect "good" cops.

Re:In Illinois?

[lsllll]

True, in that it does not apply to the whole country (even in Illinois it applies to Cook County only), but this literally affirms the lower court's ruling. Pay attention: The lower court was a federal appeals court, thus its jurisdiction is the whole U.S. By the Supreme Court letting stand the federal appeals court's ruling in that the law against eavesdropping is unconstitutional, any other state will think twice (or three times) before bringing a charge against a citizen recording police in the course of performing their duties.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the other lying scumbag AK Marc, you are lying by pretending that literally every single police officer who witnesses other cops committing crimes looks the other way. While this isn't true, and you know it, you tell this lie because it comforts you to believe that the world is a simple comic-book-like place where you don't have to consider the complex nature of things and can instead identify The Bad Guys by easily-identifiable aspects like profession.

There are good cops. They do, when they are able, turn in the bad ones. Were this not the case, there would be literally zero cops ever arrested, anywhere. Since this is not the case, each and every instance of this happening utterly obliterates your dishonest premise.

And you hate that. You pretend you don't, but you shriek and cry and scream with frustrated rage every time a "bad cop" gets caught and punished. Because it forces you to confront the irrefutable evidence that your simplistic "cop = bad" fantasy is nothing but a security blanket for the pathetic little man-child you (correctly) fear that everyone knows you to be.

You will now shriek your inadvertent confession that you agree with every word I just said.

Re:In Illinois?

[dougisfunny]

There are good cops. They do, when they are able, turn in the bad ones. Were this not the case, there would be literally zero cops ever arrested, anywhere. Since this is not the case, each and every instance of this happening utterly obliterates your dishonest premise.

You are missing at least a couple possibilities, the possibility that the cops who were arrested are simply scapegoats. Arrested when the court of public opinion won't let things pass with no one reprimanded.
Like in organized crime, the arrested person does the time instead of a higher up, and come out a made man or something of that sort. Or the flip side, the arrested cop is innocent, and simply wouldn't go along with whatever scheme the rest were up to. Therefore they were gotten rid of / taught a lesson. Not saying those are the only possibilities or that your possibility was wrong though.

Re:In Illinois?

[jafiwam]

FYI, Tapin DOES NOT let you delete AT ALL. You have to contact their staff to do it. It's not a web interface the user can control. While they say it's "to prevent the police from forcing you to do it" it sort of puts that tool solely in the "useful for the Free Shit Army" category rather than something a regular Slashdotter might want.

Getting a video off the phone and into the public eye fast is the useful part. Not being able to delete is only useful in totalitarian regimes that are going to imprison and beat someone for access to a an account.

Re:In Illinois?

[Muad'Dave]

I'm not sure if you've fallen victim to the syndrome described in my sig or not. The word is 'precedent', not 'president'.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

Read my posts on the matter. I managed to spell it wrong once. That doesn't mean I don't know the word, and the usage lines up 100% with precedent, so it's obvious what I meant. It's a typo. And yes, spelling errors where the error is not an adjacent character can be a typo. So don't bother telling me I don't know what a typo is.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

Like the other lying scumbag AK Marc

I didn't lie. My opinion, no matter how wrong, is never a lie. You've presented nothing that contradicts my opinion, other than your opinion. Perhaps it is you that's lying about everyone else's lying, after all, you are the only one defending the cooked cops who cover for other crooked cops.

And you hate that. You pretend you don't, but you shriek and cry and scream with frustrated rage every time a "bad cop" gets caught and punished.

The only frustration is that they stopped when they found that one. What about the other 99%?

your simplistic "cop = bad" fantasy is nothing

It's a reflection on the cop psychosis that there are two types of people, cops and criminals. Note, we are taught this from a young age. Nobody plays "cops and innocent bystanders". The cops *do* believe that all non-cops are bad guys. They claim they do so for safety, because you never know when one may be, and if you aren't prepared, you'll get dead. But they repeat it so often, that they end up believing the lie.

What's the matter, are you a security guard who wants to grow up and be a police officer as soon as you get eye surgery or fix your club foot or whatever? Don't worry, they won't take you once your physical defect is fixed, you'd never pass the psych screen.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

I have friends who are law enforcement officers. Most quit within 5 years because they can't handle the corruption. It's like car salesmen. I was one of those. And every single one of them is an evil liar. I made it only a few weeks. The "good" cops are all rookies, and quit before making it to 5 years. So yes, there are some good ones, but nearly all are the bad ones because the good ones all leave.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't lie. My opinion, no matter how wrong, is never a lie.

It isn't your opinion at all. You KNOW that cops are as varied as anyone else. You KNOW that profession does not dictate personality or moral character. You just don't want that to be true, because it prevents the world from being the simple little place you insist that it be.

Yes, you're lying about what you believe, and yes, it IS so obvious that a complete stranger on the Internet can see it.

You've presented nothing that contradicts my opinion, other than your opinion

It's not my opinion that good cops exist. It's an irrefutable fact, and you have no choice but to agree with it. No claim on your part to the contrary can ever be anything except a lie, because it is literally impossible to argue against factually.

Perhaps it is you that's lying about everyone else's lying, after all, you are the only one defending the cooked cops who cover for other crooked cops.

I have not said a single word in defense of crooked cops. And you know that I haven't. You made that up because you are a liar, and you know you cannot refute a single thing I have said.

The only frustration is that they stopped when they found that one. What about the other 99%?

First, they didn't "stop when they found that one". Were that true, there would only have ever been one cop in all of human history who had been caught and punished. The fact that it happens less often than it should does not mean that it never happens, and to pretend that it does can ONLY be a lie.

Second, even if it were just "the one", that in and of itself utterly shatters beyond any possibility of salvage your lie about there being no good cops. And by willfully ignoring that point when I previously made it in the post you replied to, you have explicitly acknowledged the absolute truth of that fact and your unconditional agreement with it. You just hoped that it wouldn't be noticed.

It's a reflection on the cop psychosis that there are two types of people, cops and criminals.

Some cops have this mentality. Not all, or even most. And you know it.

Furthermore, the difference between "there are only cops and criminals" and "there are only bad cops and cops who cover for bad cops" is superficial at most. The motivations behind each are exactly the same, the weak justifications for each are exactly the same, and the dishonesty, laziness, and hostility toward inconvenient facts that each arise from are exactly the same. You think like a bad cop. You are exactly as morally bankrupt as they are. The only difference between you is that they have some power, and THAT is why you hate them. You are jealous of their position and their ability to abuse it. That, not any actual moral outrage over their actions, is where your childish attitude comes from.

Note, we are taught this from a young age. Nobody plays "cops and innocent bystanders".

For the same reason nobody plays "Autobots and Non-Sentient Industrial Robots". More to the point, even the kids who play these games don't interpret the cop/crook dichotomy as something that applies to real life. Again, this is something you know to be true, but you're getting so desperate that you're resorting to implying that kids' make-believe games are part of a sinister cop conspiracy. Such desperation is itself further proof that you know you're lying.

The cops *do* believe that all non-cops are bad guys. They claim they do so for safety, because you never know when one may be, and if you aren't prepared, you'll get dead. But they repeat it so often, that they end up believing the lie.

Some do this. I have never disputed that, your own filthy lies to the contrary notwithstanding. But not all, or even most. The b

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

It's an irrefutable fact, and you have no choice but to agree with it.

Again, it's your unsubstantiated opinion that you disagree with me. I think it's you that's lying. What, you have an uncle that's a dirty cop and he molested you as a child?

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly as I said you would, you have repeated the same lies as before, even after admitting that they were debunked, and even after being made uncomfortably aware of how easily they were exposed and would be again.

Again, it's your unsubstantiated opinion that you disagree with me

It is not my opinion, nor a matter of opinion at all. And I don't disagree with you, because we both know that what I am saying is true. The difference is that you hide from the truth because you don't want to think.

Good cops exist. Bad cops exist. This is because for any possible value you care to assign to "good" or "bad", there are cops (and doctors, and bankers, and plumbers, and roofers, and every other profession) that fit the description. You agree completely, despite your fervent wish to convince yourself that you don't.

I think it's you that's lying.

You don't think that. If you did, you would make an effort to prove me wrong, just as you're now making an effort to find a way to repeat your lies that will make them seem believable. But you won't prove me wrong - or even attempt to - because you know you can't, because you know I'm right.

What, you have an uncle that's a dirty cop and he molested you as a child?

Not only is that another repetition of the same lie about me wanting to be a cop (being a variation of "anyone who exposes my bullshit lies must be acting out of ulterior motives"), it doesn't even serve your purpose. It fails as an argument, as a joke, and as an insult. And you were trying to make it act as all three, despite the "I wasn't trying" excuse you were about to make.

I told you that you would repeat your lies in the futile hope that repetition would lend them credibility. You did that, and you will now do it again. It is your only possible course of action, because you are too stupid to conceive of another.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

Exactly as I said you would, you have repeated the same lies as before, even after admitting that they were debunked, and even after being made uncomfortably aware of how easily they were exposed and would be again.

You are wrong and lying on everything. I never lied. You never debunked any lies. You are exposing yourself over and over, like your uncle did to you.

Re:In Illinois?

[Muad'Dave]

No worries, AK Marc - I'm wasn't being critical - that's why I mentioned the possibility that it wasn't a violation of Tiller's Rule. FWIW I don't consider correctly spelling a near homonym a 'typo', but you can call it whatever you want.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

A typo is a mistyping. A touch typist with dyslexia will make typing errors that are counterintuitive. I'll verbally spell out "p" "i" "n"g" and my fingers will hit dind (d for p because they are the same shape, orientation is irrelevant) and (d for g because, well, I don't know, maybe they sound similar or something). Just because a set of letter swap-typos result in a homonym doesn't mean that they aren't typos. Even if they are typos you'd never make.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are now trying to convince yourself that you are just trolling me. You are not. The reality is that you had the terrifying realization that you had no possible way to refute me, and you are trying to excuse your failures by pretending you are not making an effort. It isn't working.

If I were wrong or lying, you would have shown it. You desperately wanted to, and racked your tiny, dysfunctional brain trying. But you were forced to conclude that it was impossible. And once again, just as I keep saying you will, you fell back on the only thing you can think of doing: lying.

There are good cops. This is a fact that you agree with, and always have despite your efforts to pretend you don't. You openly said so yourself. It was one of the few things you've said in this thread that was even partially true.

You still haven't learned. You're going to keep lying, even though you can't even convince yourself that your lies are credible.

Re:In Illinois?

[AK Marc]

You are not. The reality is that you had the terrifying realization that you had no possible way to refute me, and you are trying to excuse your failures by pretending you are not making an effort. It isn't working.

I didn't excuse any failure, as I had made none. Cops have sued many times to win the right to never have to protect or serve. But they put that on their doors as a lie to convince people otherwise.

Re:In Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have failed at every turn. You continue to do so now, by telling further lies. You say "they" in a way that suggests that all police were one monolithic entity. They are not, nor are members of any other profession. You know that they are not, and you deliberately, willfully choose to say that they are. This makes you a liar.

You are liar and a failure. You will now prove that again.

Just in Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the decision has been, effectively, upheld by the Supreme Court, why wouldn't it apply nationwide?

Re:Just in Illinois?

[Trepidity]

The problem is it hasn't actually been upheld by the Supreme Court. If the SC heard the case and upheld it, that would be nationwide binding precedent. But they just chose not to hear the case at all, which has no precedential effect.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

See Millenium's post here for the explanation.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[Stan92057]

Sure it does ,they are saying the events were handled correctly. They just don't pick an appeal out of a hat they have read the whole case already and decided no constitutional laws were broken or no constitutional questions need to be answered. They in affect have upheld the lower court case no need to waste the taxpayers money on a non case.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[Trepidity]

No, they refused to hear the appeal entirely. They did not either affirm or overturn the decision; they just left it in the hat and didn't pick it out at all.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Legally, not hearing the appeal has no effect as far as setting a national legal precedent. If they took the case and upheld the ruling, it'd be precedent set for the entire country. Since they didn't hear it, it's moot. The law still stands for the 7th circuit, but it hasn't been upheld nationally. I don't think you get how this works. To uphold a law, you have to hear the case and rule in favor of the lower court's decision - you cannot uphold a law "in affect", that doesn't mean anything.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[cdecoro]

No, no, no. Not at all. The Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly clear that a refusal to grant certiorari (that is, a refusal to hear an appeal) has no precedentiary value *whatsoever.* But you're not the first to make that mistake. See, e.g., United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923) ("The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times."), quoted in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989).

If the Court wishes to express that a lower court case is a "non-case," as you put it, they will make what is known as a summary disposition.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it does ,they are saying the events were handled correctly. They just don't pick an appeal out of a hat they have read the whole case already and decided no constitutional laws were broken or no constitutional questions need to be answered. They in affect have upheld the lower court case no need to waste the taxpayers money on a non case.

Admit it; you're just trying to validate your sig, "Jack of all trades,master of none," because clearly you don't know jack shit about how the law works.

You're wrong, though. You're a master of talking out of your ass when you're clearly out of your depth.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[Anonymous Coward]

Precendent for whom? Because the Supreme court itself isn't bound by precedent.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[AK Marc]

The choice to not hear it does have precedential effect. The previous finding, de-facto upheld by the court (much like a mistrial is a not-guilty result of a trial, as the defendant is not found guilty), is non-binding on the Supreme Court, but is binding in the 7th District, and referential in the other districts. It is not a Supreme Court precedent, and bears no official standing over any other action before the court, but should reduce the chance the Supreme Court will hear the issue, especially from any case coming from the 7th District.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[cdecoro]

No. You're misusing the words "precedential effect," or at least applying them to the wrong thing. The Seventh Circuit decision of course has precedential effect, and is binding on the district courts within that circuit, as well as other three-judge panels of the Seventh Circuit -- though NOT of the Seventh Circuit sitting as a whole ("en banc"), an admittedly rare circumstance. But this would be the same effect as if the losing party in the appeal never applied for certiorari, and if the Supreme Court never touched the issue -- the denial of certiorari, in and of itself, means NOTHING in terms of binding law for future cases. It is completely irrelevant, and if you attempted to cite the denial in court, you would get in response the same cite to Justice Holmes from 1923, probably along with an admonition that you've have 90 years to have figured this out.

Of course, the Seventh Circuit was ruling on this particular law. It does not mean that any analogous laws in states other than Illinois are automatically invalid, nor does it mean that Illinois could never pass a narrower law that would pass constitutional scrutiny.

Moreover, if you mean to say that the denial now binds the en banc Seventh Circuit to the decision rendered in this case, you're absolutely wrong.

As to whether it reduces the chances that the Supreme Court will hear the issue in the future: the only thing that decides which cert petitions are granted, is how 4 justices feel on the days that cert petitions are reviewed. You might be able to come up with some conditional probability of future acceptance given past denials, but it's not likely to be very clear one way or the other.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[cdecoro]

They do claim to be bound by precedent -- right up until the moment where they decide to overturn it. Essentially, to say that something is a "Supreme Court precedent" means two things: In addition to the more common meaning that it is binding on the lower courts, it also means that it can be cited back to the Supreme Court in a future case, as persuasive authority that one's interpretation of law is the correct one. "Non-precedential" decisions such as this cannot be cited back to the court (at least, not without a lecture from the court, as in the Carver case I cited above). While, ultimately, the Court can go any way it likes, it strongly prefers (as do all common law courts) to side with previous cases, than to overturn them. In fact, the courts will often jump through hoops to avoid explicitly overturning precedent, even when that's effectively what they're doing. Favorite strategies are saying that the case was "limited to its facts," or that the bar and the lower courts simply misunderstood for a century or so.

The optimist would say that the courts attempt to preserve the stability of the law; the cynic would say that they can't admit they were wrong. Take your pick...

Re:Just in Illinois?

[AK Marc]

As to whether it reduces the chances that the Supreme Court will hear the issue in the future:

You misunderstand. I *never* said it would have any effect on whether the Supreme Court would decide to hear it or not hear it if it were presented again, but that a standing court decision (or any kind, even by a "peer" court, rather than superior) would reduce the variability in findings, and properly set expectations of those raising the issue in lower courts, which is what would affect the chance of the issue making it to the Supreme Court.

No. You're misusing the words "precedential effect," or at least applying them to the wrong thing. The Seventh Circuit decision of course has precedential effect, and is binding on the district courts within that circuit, as well as other three-judge panels of the Seventh Circuit -- though NOT of the Seventh Circuit sitting as a whole ("en banc"), an admittedly rare circumstance.

You are apparently taking "precedent" to mean "binding precedent". The problem is I mean "precedent" when I say "precedent" and that includes "persuasive precedent" not just "binding precedent."

Re:Just in Illinois?

[cdecoro]

Let's cut straight to the point: the denial itself means nothing. To anyone. Not even to the parties in a future case, certainly not to other courts, not to the same court, not to anyone. It means zero. Zip. Zilch. It is as if the Supreme Court hadn't spoken. In fact, that's EXACTLY what it is -- the Supreme Court refusing to speak. The denial is no more persuasive than it is binding. It is nothing. A favorable denial of cert and $2.49 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

If you are trying to say that the denial of cert means that the Seventh Circuit decision is now binding in the Seventh Circuit -- yes, you are certainly correct. But the denial does not add or subtract to the weight of that precedent. It means nothing.

Re:Just in Illinois?

[AK Marc]

Let's cut straight to the point: the denial itself means nothing.

Lets cut straight to the point: because the Supreme Court did not hear it, the lower court decision stands as a precedent.

If you are trying to say that the denial of cert means that the Seventh Circuit decision is now binding in the Seventh Circuit -- yes, you are certainly correct. But the denial does not add or subtract to the weight of that precedent. It means nothing.

That's what I've been saying the whole time, and being told, repeatedly (by multiple people) that I'm wrong.

It's also non-binding persuasive precedent for *all* courts in the US (including the Supreme Court).

The problem is presentation, not recording.

[concealment]

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

Realizing the significance of his footage, Holliday phoned the local police station, but claims that the person who answered the phone 'blew him off'. Next, he tried CNN, but no one was there to take his call. Finally, Holliday took his tape to local Los Angeles station KTLA. They edited out the blurry first 13 seconds of the tape showing King charging Officer Powell, and broadcast the last 68 seconds of the beating. The next day CNN and NBC obtained copies, and the tape was seen around the world.

http://www.seeingisbelieving.ca/handicam/king/

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Mononoke]

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

So the beating was justified then? Wow.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[hypergreatthing]

Yes, because 13 seconds of lunging requires a 68 second response of multiple people beating someone. Your premise is that if they showed the first 13 seconds people would of regarded the reaction as reasonable. I think you may want to reconsider that premise.
Regardless of how it looks it should be made public if it took place in a public area. Having police harass you and break/confiscate your equipment and arrest you while recording a public event is mind boggling. If they're not doing anything wrong then they have nothing to hide.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[ShanghaiBill]

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown

The obvious solution is for the cops to make their own recordings of any interaction with the public. Cameras in police cars are already common, and some police departments are now using headcams as well. Then if the media show a misleading snippet, the police can counter with a recording of the full event.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[dcollins]

The site you link to actually says this, prior to the supposed, unseen "lunge":

"By the time Holliday started videotaping, LAPD officers were already beating King."

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[mcgrew]

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use.

His 100 mph chase, drug use, priors, and lunging don't give the cops an excuse to beat a suspect. Ever. Punishment is supposed to come from the courts, not the police. Punishment isn't a cop's job, solving crimes and arresting people are.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Baloroth]

Yes, because 13 seconds of lunging requires a 68 second response of multiple people beating someone. Your premise is that if they showed the first 13 seconds people would of regarded the reaction as reasonable. I think you may want to reconsider that premise.

I think you completely missed the OP's point. The point is that a video recording (any video recording, for that matter, not just of police) can and almost inevitably will, given the generally sensationalist bent of the media, be taken out of context. In the case of his example, that doesn't mean the beating would be justified, not by a long shot. But it would certainly make a lot more sense, and be far less grievous, than a beating for no reason whatsoever. It's pretty easy to edit video footage to show whatever the hell you want it to show (reality TV shows exist because of that fact).

Does that mean the police can ban recording them? No, not by a long shot. But the concern is valid. The response would be to record every police encounter themselves, although that is technically challenging in some cases (already done, IIRC, by most departments for traffic stops). Something like Google Glass would help considerably. Even then, their response wouldn't get as widely published as initial "shocking" footage, but it would help a lot.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Stan92057]

How would you reacted? Justified maybe not but how mush like god do you think the police are?

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think cops are for? It is 'to keep the peace'.

Their job is to make sure that I feel safe and I pay good tax money to make sure that they can do their job.

Currently I'm not sure if I should feel safe or worried when in proximity to the police. I'm also not sure if they deserve my tax money.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[HornWumpus]

It's not like the cops don't edit selectively themselves. Lose tapes etc.

This just levels the playing field.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that a video recording (any video recording, for that matter, not just of police) can and almost inevitably will, given the generally sensationalist bent of the media, be taken out of context.

This only happens when the original isn't widely spread.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[gatfirls]

"...But it would certainly make a lot more sense, and be far less grievous, than a beating for no reason whatsoever.....". No, not really. Well not for most people who take an objective look at what was seen. The "just world" juries give police a very high benefit of the doubt in the first place, and usually "you don't know what happened before or after the recording" is their biggest defense should they find themselves in trouble. It's definitely the mating call of the apologist.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[interkin3tic]

But in the example, Rodney King, the context was irrelevant as far as the police go. It explains WHY the cops were so mad that they beat on him after he was down. Realistically, I don't expect cops to be saints and immune to anger, but as far as standards for law enforcement, "He was being a complete asshole and endangering everyone" is not a valid reason.

It's poor journalism though, you're right. And that extra context might have provoked less of an angry response from the community. The riots were at least partly the media's fault because of that. But the context does not excuse the cops. We must have high standards for law enforcement. Especially in Illinois.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[jrmcc]

100+mph?? hah - He was in a Hyundai Excel and as a former owner I'd say he found some pretty big hills to go down to get that speed.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is what they did right? No. Was it expected? Very much so.

Wait... WHAT?! Are you saying that we should *expect* the cops to do something that isn't right?

No.

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! We should *expect* the cops to obey the law.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Stan92057]

Cops are Humans not Emotional shells we expect them to be.Every person has a breaking point so do cops

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[M1FCJ]

What misleading snippet? The Police cameras never record anything that shows the Police doing something wrong since they have an automagical bit, the camera automagically breaks down just before the Police smashes the brains out of someone. Or the tape disappears. Or the camera would be looking to the wrong place. Or the policeman himself would have had turned it off himself accidentally by tripping the off button as he was getting out of the car... Never...

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[spire3661]

Reductio ad absurdum

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

<Devil's Advocate> We're talking about force used to subdue a suspect, not "punish" them. Where did you even get that idea? When a possibly drugged-up suspect with a seasoned criminal history leads you on a car chase and lunges at the cops, that's all going to factor in to whether or not force is going to have to be used to subdue him - if the guy is assaulting the police officers, you're probably going to need to use some. It has nothing to do with any kind of "justified punishment". </Devil's Advocate>

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apples and oranges much do you?

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[idontgno]

Then if the media show a misleading snippet, the police can counter with a misleading snippet of their own.

FTFY.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it had nitrous and 24in rims

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally, cop recordings would also be publicly accessible with an exception for time sensitive activities (stings, raids, etc). These exceptions would be released once the time sensitive element becomes irrelevant.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used the word 'expect' as in 'you do X then Y happens'. Not as in 'I expect you to do X'. I was being a bit to subtle for you, sorry.

I mean "you come at a cop do not expect him to shake your hand"... He is going to act like a circus master and the tiger is eating people.

Cops have a saying. "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

Unlike in 1991, that extra information would be much easier to access today (in particular, the whole video is on YouTube now). So that's no excuse.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case, it is the cops' responsibility to try to stop the attack and potentially arrest the man for processing. They would be in the right to shoot back. If the attacker dies in the processes, he dies. The lethal retaliation was about disabling the attacker not punishment. If they somehow managed to disable the attacker without killing him and then a cop walked up to the attacker and shot the him in the head, said cop should be arrested for murder. The cops are not meant to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[hoxford]

As long as cops are given the authority to use force above and beyond what ordinary citizens are they expected to behave differently than ordinary citizens. They are supposed to follow the law and follow their training. If they cannot behave better than a typical goon when confronted with an emotionally charged situation then they should not be given any more authority than a typical goon. Ultimately, though, you are correct which is why the idea that only cops should be allowed to carry guns is silly.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[dkleinsc]

The rules are actually not all that complicated.

Police can legally use force:
- To subdue a civilian who is physically resisting arrest. If that civilian is using or threatening to use deadly force, such as shooting at cops, then the cops can shoot back.
- To protect another civilian. If a bad guy is attempting to kill somebody, the cops can shoot him. If the bad guy is trying to beat someone up, the cop can use non-lethal force to stop him and arrest him.

Police cannot legally use force:
- Towards a civilian that is not physically resisting them.
- Towards a civilian that is unable to resist them (e.g. handcuffed and pinned on the ground).

Police cannot legally use deadly force towards a civilian that does not present a lethal threat to the officer or another civilian. For example, a cop encountering a fistfight is supposed to use non-lethal force only.

The Rodney King beating was a crime (in my view) because the cops continued to use force after Rodney King was unable to resist.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Cali Thalen]

If you dig a big hole in your end of the field, because the other team dug a big hole on their end of the field...I'm not sure that 'level' would be a good description of the playing field.

IMO, if the cops doctor evidence, they should be held accountable, by law. And if the 'news' or anyone else doctors evidence, they should be held accountable as well. I think that by publishing this sort of footage, you're effectively presenting evidence, albeit not in a court of law in the case of the news, but there should still be punishment (assuming there isn't some libel law already in place for this...IANAL by any stretch of the imagination).

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Law enforcement could address this by requiring mandatory, ubiquitous, publicly-accessible video of all uniformed peace officers while on duty. The tech is here and has been for several years. What better way is there to deal with the seemingly endless recordings and complaints presented by the public? Spokespeople regularly say such incidents are the result of "a few bad apples" and are taken out of context, edited to reflect unfavorably on security and law-enforcement personnel. Yet police departments in the United States seem very reluctant to adopt a standard that would act to protect their officers and their reputations as they carry out their duties?

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

The 24 inch rims would of been rubbing up against the wheel wells, rubber would of been ripped to shreds assuming by some miracle the wheels where stuffed in before inflating the tires. Sparks would of been flying out as each rim grinded against the unrelenting pavement. Skidding down the road as he injected the NO2 into the fuel injectors, the extra pressure would of ripped the bottom end of his daily driver spewing hot oil across the road. Cylinder 2 and 4's crankshaft, because of the dangerously low oil pressure would of been seized. Due to the opposing motion of the crankshaft, the rods connecting the cylinders would of been ripped clean off.

Shall we try again?

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[moeinvt]

"So the beating was justified then?"

No, but when you have all of the information and see the complete video (as opposed to an excerpt), it puts the incident in an entirely different context than that which was portrayed in the news media.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[hypergreatthing]

No actually i didn't miss the point. I already know anything can be used to create a viewpoint. I don't think it was media's fault that the riots occurred, i think it was the police's fault as well as the rioter's fault it occurred. I don't believe that comparing Rodney King's video to reality tv in terms of how real it was is a very strong comparison.
The concern is not valid. You yourself said that any video can be edited to show a number of viewpoints. If that's already a known factor then why concern yourself with that? If the response is to only allow police record themselves, then somehow given the history of police losing tapes and key evidence that points out wrongdoing of themselves seem like you're placing your trust in the wrong party. Public things like this needs to be recorded by multiple parties from different viewpoints and be made public.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Uberbah]

I think you completely missed the OP's point.

Nope.

The point is that a video recording (any video recording, for that matter, not just of police) can and almost inevitably will, given the generally sensationalist bent of the media, be taken out of context.

Good thing sentences are handed out by courts and not the media, then.

In the case of his example, that doesn't mean the beating would be justified, not by a long shot. But it would certainly make a lot more sense, and be far less grievous, than a beating for no reason whatsoever.

Ah, the "he was a bad guy so he partly had it coming" defense, which should be blocked on sight by any judge. Case in point, this video of cops kicking a suspect in the head - after he dove face-first into the ground in surrender. Lots of comments saying it was either less-evil or outright okay because the suspect was in a high speed chase, but that's all bullshit. Nothing justifies such excessive force.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Rakarra]

The 24 inch rims would of been rubbing up against the wheel wells, rubber would of been ripped to shreds assuming by some miracle the wheels where stuffed in before inflating the tires. Sparks would of been flying out as each rim grinded against the unrelenting pavement. Skidding down the road as he injected the NO2 into the fuel injectors, the extra pressure would of ripped the bottom end of his daily driver spewing hot oil across the road. Cylinder 2 and 4's crankshaft, because of the dangerously low oil pressure would of been seized. Due to the opposing motion of the crankshaft, the rods connecting the cylinders would of been ripped clean off.

This sounds like one of the more amusing traffic stops in history.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Reductio ad absurdum

Wingardium leviosa!

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. ...

Only the minds of racist motherfuckers turn that justification for a prolonged violent beating of a prisoner on the ground, clearly under control, in custody, racist motherfucker.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

That's why cop cars have cameras. We the people can record the cops doing their job. The cops can record themselves doing their jobs. If a news network broadcasts the citizen's footage without specific segments, the police can release their own footage with those specific segments included to show their side of the story.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[rubycodez]

no, in illinois (and many other states) the courts have ruled the police have no implicit duty to ensure your safety or to protect you.

In most places, the actual function of the police is to maintain the order. They may protect and defend and help you, and I'm very, very thankful for those that have done so for me, relatives, and friends. But, expect to be disappointed.....

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Altus]

these days it would be on youtube in seconds.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[AK Marc]

In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

So, if someone uses drugs, it's ok to beat them? Were the officers on the scene aware of the criminal record at the time? All we know is that there is no justification for the beating he received. 13 seconds of lunging doesn't justify 68 seconds of brutal beating.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[AK Marc]

No, it doesn't. It's still unjustified, and every cop on the scene should have, at a minimum, lost their jobs. Any cop who thinks it was justified should lose their jobs. Even with full context, at least "some" of the beating is not justified, and any is too much.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[AK Marc]

We set the standard in the 1970s. Nixon deleted his tapes before releasing them, and we know that the authorities are expected to and do edit the raw tapes before released.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

>And if someone pulls a gun and starts shooting civilians, you probably think the cops shouldn't shoot back because that's punishment reserved for the courts.

I do, actually, if the only reason they're shooting is to punish him. I am surprised you don't, frankly.

If, rather, the cops are shooting him to protect their lives, then that is self-defense, and thus an entirely different matter.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[RearNakedChoke]

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

Realizing the significance of his footage, Holliday phoned the local police station, but claims that the person who answered the phone 'blew him off'. Next, he tried CNN, but no one was there to take his call. Finally, Holliday took his tape to local Los Angeles station KTLA. They edited out the blurry first 13 seconds of the tape showing King charging Officer Powell, and broadcast the last 68 seconds of the beating. The next day CNN and NBC obtained copies, and the tape was seen around the world.

http://www.seeingisbelieving.ca/handicam/king/

Oh you mean recording an event is not perfect, therefore we should not record it? The police can STFU. Police videos is the only truly effective way to hold them accountable. Everything else gets swept under the rug until it becomes blatantly obvious and far too late. And yes, its not always perfect, but I for one want them accountable SOMEHOW, rather than business as usual. And frankly, I want to hold the department/chief responsible as well for high occurrences of bad police in their department - its a sign that THEY are turning a blind eye to problem cops. They need to weed out bad cops early and often.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[TapeCutter]

Sorry context or no context there is no justification for beating a man who is already down, that's just plain thuggery. I have relatives who have been cops for 30yrs who are equally disgusted by that sort of behavior. The problem is that for young males in particular, a gang chasing then kicking the crap out of a lone "enemy" is an instinctive behavior that has to be suppressed with civilization. Male chimps do the same thing, when a gang of male chimps catches an enemy chimp they beat it to death, rip the genitals off and mutilate the face. Once all the adult males in the enemy group are dead their females join the attackers group (sounds like the new testament, right?).

If you, (the royal 'you'), don't understand that deep inside your own psyche there is an apeman just waiting for the right context to take charge and rip an enemy's balls off, then you have no hope of controlling it and are not suited to police work. I don't know about the US but here in Oz if you apply to be a cop at some point in the interview process they will try and provoke you, if you're judged to be too submissive/aggressive you are shown the door. Life is messy and subjective, people will behave very differently when the power roles are reversed, so there are still plenty of instances of police thuggery/heroics over here that go unpunished/unrewarded. At the end of the day they are a "necessary evil", that means they need to be kept on a strong leash. ie: "Big brother" is a legitimate and peaceful tool only when all sides have access. I know that when I've been totally wasted and deserved being thrown out of some establishment I have always preferred to stand under a CCTV camera when approached by the bouncers from all sides.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[TapeCutter]

Bias is in the eye of the beholder. I think it's fine to show "biased" clips, provided the original source is also made available to those who are interested. There was plenty of bias in the reporting of "climategate", but I will give credit where it is due and point out the perpetrators made their source available to all.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a retard of epic conception would think beating a defenseless human being is not a crime.

Of course there's A LOT of idiots on the internet arguing all kinds of silly shit these days.. If they so happen to get beat down by the police someday maybe that's when they will realize what the fuck is going on..

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Arker]

We're talking about force used to subdue a suspect, not "punish" them. Where did you even get that idea? When a possibly drugged-up suspect with a seasoned criminal history leads you on a car chase and lunges at the cops, that's all going to factor in to whether or not force is going to have to be used to subdue him - if the guy is assaulting the police officers, you're probably going to need to use some. It has nothing to do with any kind of "justified punishment".

That is a pretty good attempt but it just doesnt cut it. You cant justify using force to subdue someone who is already subdued. At that point punishment is the kindest word for it - I would call it sadism.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

would HAVE. not would OF. jesus.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Arker]

No it really doesnt. The entire video was broadcast btw, though for some reason there is a strong urban legend to the contrary. I guess a lot of people really want to believe otherwise. King deserved to be arrested, and force was clearly justified to subdue him. I dont know anyone that ever questioned that. The cops in question went for 'ultraviolence' which at best reflects poor training but that wasnt unusual or remarkable. What was remarkable, however, was that long after the 'suspect' was effectively subdued, the beating continued. That transformed what was otherwise a case of poor but legal police work into a criminal assault.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[sjames]

I wouldn't say an entirely different context. The highlight is still that out of control cops beat the crap out of someone they didn't like because they felt that they could. Now if they cut the part afterward where he tosses them all off of him like rag dolls and then rips their cars apart with his bare hands, that would be changing the context.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Maxo-Texas]

You can stop at "no".

The beating is not justified.

It doesn't matter if Rodney was a lowlife. The cops are the law. They are supposed to follow the law. When the cops disrespect the law, it devalues the rule of law.

Judges and juries decide punishment. Not cops.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you would we could try again:

Replacing the word of with the word have, as in "would have."

"...would of..." is a corruption of "would've."

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[dkleinsc]

If they so happen to get beat down by the police someday maybe that's when they will realize what the fuck is going on.

That won't happen to most of them: To think that cops don't beat defenseless people regularly, you have to be (a) white, and (b) not once involved in a protest that might potentially threaten the status quo.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the police side of the story will be: Cops arrive at scene. Cops get out of police car while turning off camera. Cops turn camera back on while driving back to the police station.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[mcgrew]

No, if someone started shooting at civilians or even the cops themselves, they should shoot back. But your comment is a straw man; the point remains that there is no excuse for beating the shit out of any prisoner, especially after they're handcuffed.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[MozeeToby]

Give every cop a camera, have it record every second of every day that they are on duty. If the media comes out with something taken out of context, make the complete video available to the media and the public via the police website. Corruption festers in the dark, the only way to deal with it is to shine a bright light on it. If that light only hits things that make the police look bad the answer can't be to turn the light off, it should be to make sure the light hits everything.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording.

[dywolf]

The video as presented and the actual video were two different things. One shows a faultless black man being beaten by cops. the other shows a criminal black man being beaten by cops.

Thats not saying the beating was justified.
Simply that RK wasnt as snowy white guiltless as people assumed him to be because of an edited video.

If you have nothing to hide...

[logicassasin]

Finally the line "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" can be used against law enforcement. Since law enforcement agencies across the country are adopting ever more invasive tactics to monitor citizens, it's refreshing to see that we can finally monitor them without fear of reprisal.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Desler]

You'll still see reprisals. This won't change that.

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[Stan92057]

Ya know if we were talking about getting videotaped for a short time while doing there jobs they shouldn't even notice it. No this is 8hrs a day video taping and something the cops are not trained to handle. Hell the standards for being a cop have been lowered so much over the years to allow people who should never have any business being a cop to be one. And now we expect these people who shouldn't be cops to now be super human cops ya not happening. Fat Cops,out of shape cops, 4'2' cops, Cops that suffer from PMS, Last statement sexist? its the truth and not the political correct thing to say but its the truth. And we allow them to run around with guns on there hips.lol

Re:If you have nothing to hide...

[SirGarlon]

But we will *see* the reprisals, thanks to this ruling.

If the cops have nothing to hide...

[Anonymous Coward]

...then they have nothing to fear by being taped.

Isn't that pretty much what "the authorities" usually want to tell Joe Citizen?

Re:If the cops have nothing to hide...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

If the cops have nothing to hide...then they have nothing to fear by being taped.

Isn't that pretty much what "the authorities" usually want to tell Joe Citizen?

Yes.

But, because the police are acting as agents of the state, it is appropriate to hold them to a stricter standard in this matter.

oh yeah. they always do that.

[Anonymous Coward]

'sfunny, though: there's no video evidence of those 13 seconds on that site.

Since seeing is believing and I've seen no 13 seconds, I don't see why I should believe it.

And don't they ALWAYS leave out like some REALLY IMPORTANT bit when those plebs recording the police miss or reporting on it show that there might have been something earlier that might have been showing the person getting stroppy with the police herding them and bransishing weapons.

Just as well the police never lose any footage, right? They have backup of their actions in their own records, right?

Fuck Illinois

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving out of this crap state.

law for citizens only?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not quite clear on this. Does it mean that it is illegal to pro-actively take means to record police, only? ...or is it just straight out illegal to record police working.

Re:law for citizens only?

[fnj]

I'm not quite clear on this. Does it mean that it is illegal to pro-actively take means to record police, only? ...or is it just straight out illegal to record police working.

Did you even read the headline? Not the story; not the summary; just the HEADLINE?

1st world country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?

The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.

Re:1st world country?

[Baloroth]

Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?

The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.

No, the ban was ruled unconstitutional, so we aren't in such a country (did you even read the headline?). That's one thing the courts are for, so I would say the law is working as intended, more or less (in this case, of course). It's up to Illinois voters to remove the people responsible for trying to make such a law from power, but that would be their problem.

Re:1st world country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?
Ummm... obviously yes? I'm not sure if this was rhetorical or not, but I mean seriously... open your eyes or something. Even for a rhetorical question, this is still one of those questions where you say 'umm... yeah' while looking at the person stupidly for having even bothered to ask it.

And questioning the validity of our laws implies that a ton of our laws (notably the ones that make it onto Slashdot's front page oh so often) are valid to begin with.

Dude man... most of our laws have been purchased by people with a ton of money, the police are WELL beyond accountability and have been for years, and we life in a caste system. The fact that you're even questioning THAT (or at least your post implied that you were, by the fact that you were questioning law in general) means that you've been under a rock for the past decade or so.

If it makes you feel any better, one man cannot make a difference, no matter what anyone tells you. The fact that you posted in here means you're part of the lower caste. Nobody from our class is allowed to make changes. Nothing you can do except just make the best of what you have, and enjoy what little you've got. The upper caste doesn't let people into their class, so it's just best to let them do their thing, and you can spend more time doing your thing since you're not wasting time trying to affect the upper caste any more.

Seriously. There's being optimistic that there's the possibility of change... and then there's simply the reality of life.

And no, none of this post is being sarcastic. I'm being honest, unlike most people who like to delude themselves into thinking of the possibility of a greater tomorrow. You may not realize it, but there's actually a very sweet freedom in actually realizing that you make no difference whatsoever. Just live and let live.

Re:1st world country?

[fatphil]

"such a country" is meaningless - no country-wide consensus has been reached.
The ban was ruled unconstitutional in an appelate court which probably covers only half a dozen states or fewer. (I care not exactly how many.)
The SCOTUS have neither said that the appeal's result was sound or unsound, they've effectively ignored it completely.

Re:1st world country?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is bad because it is poorly written. It didn't have an exception for public places, bascially everyone who operated a video camera outdoors who also recorded audio was breaking the law. They didn't specifically make it illegal to record cops, they made it illegal to record anyone, except that cops could still record people and then recently started prosecuting people for recording cops misbehaving. This is just as much or even more the fault of the prosecutors who abused a bad law than the fools who didn't see the consequences of the wording when they passed it.

Record Secretly?

[mk1004]

Secretly? How about openly? I'd say that you'd better record secretly if you don't want to spend the night in jail and get hit with some BS resisting arrest charge or the like.

There are plenty of officers who don't like the idea of being recorded, and their reasoning varies from concerns about "Monday morning quarterbacking" to the sociopaths not wanting to get caught abusing their power. Still, if they can record us, we should be able to record them.

Re:Record Secretly?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Illinois, Secret Police record you.

Re:Record Secretly?

[interval1066]

I'd say that you'd better record secretly if you don't want to spend the night in jail and get hit with some BS resisting arrest charge...

Hell no. If I didn't have other responsibilities I'd be out in front with that shit, recording any and all police activity, in secret or otherwise. Cops do a great job until you find them doing something corrupt, then YOU are doing a great job. Every citizen who loves the constitution should be ready to record any and all police activity by whatever means available.

Re:Record Secretly?

[mk1004]

Cops do a great job until you find them doing something corrupt, then YOU are doing a great job. Every citizen who loves the constitution should be ready to record any and all police activity by whatever means available.

Well said.

Re:Record Secretly?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a control issue. With a camera pointed at them, they aren't in total control. They don't like that so they harrass and pull stupid charges out just to have it go public that they'll mess with you if you try and stand up for your rights. Cops are inherently control freaks. It's part of the culture and personality of cops.

They know they're going to lose in a court fight. But in the meantime, they can have you in jail for 3-4 days.

Woot

[fnj]

The Supremes get something right. Well, at least not wrong.

Re:Woot

[Anonymous Coward]

You Can't Hurry Love?

Judge, jury, and executioner

[Anonymous Coward]

Do away with all of these silly laws and just establish a Hall of Justice!

OK, maybe we would first have to nuke most of the world and make it uninhabitable, but that is the price of progress. :)

How long of an attack is acceptable?

[concealment]

I'm thinking of attacking you and your family. I'm probably on drugs, and won't stop until you beat me down. How long is acceptable? Or do you just let do horrible things to them?

Re:How long of an attack is acceptable?

[GodInHell]

One large bullet should do. Unless you move, then I might need to add some more.

Re:How long of an attack is acceptable?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking of attacking you and your family. I'm probably on drugs, and won't stop until you beat me down. How long is acceptable? Or do you just let do horrible things to them?

As far as strawmen go, that's one of the most poorly constructed I've ever seen.

Re:How long of an attack is acceptable?

[mcgrew]

I'm thinking of attacking you and your family. I'm probably on drugs, and won't stop until you beat me down. How long is acceptable? Or do you just let do horrible things to them?

Let me set fire to your straw man. My family is made up of fourteen ex Army rangers and they all have mace and tazers and plenty of plastic ties to bind you. Go ahead, punk, make my day.

Re:How long of an attack is acceptable?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be funny if he was ex-SAS. He'd be able to make a bitch of an Army ranger faster than you can say "but but but army rangers are awesome!"

Officer Murray?

[GodInHell]

Is that you?

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[HornWumpus]

Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.

Your right; don't lunge at cops. But not because they are in great danger, because they are armed trigger happy bullies.

The biggest work place risk of being a cop? Traffic accidents.

It as always been Legal

[wisnoskij]

That does not mean you will not be arrested or bitten for it, as it is still illegal to not follow the directions of police.

Re:It as always been Legal

[spire3661]

It is NOT illegal to refuse an unlawful order. The police have some discretion, but they are HIGHLY constrained to the types of orders they can give, and have to provide reasonable justification, albeit later.

Re:It as always been Legal

[wisnoskij]

"HIGHLY constrained to the types of orders they can give, and have to provide reasonable justification, albeit later."

I agree, you still legally have to do what they tell you to do. (http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/259457/)
And leaving legality out of it, they will likely beat you and arrest you anyways, if you do not follow all of their instructions.

Re:It as always been Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

"HIGHLY constrained to the types of orders they can give, and have to provide reasonable justification, albeit later."

I agree, you still legally have to do what they tell you to do. (http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/259457/) And leaving legality out of it, they will likely beat you and arrest you anyways, if you do not follow all of their instructions.

Yea, hey, a word of advice - you may want to refrain from quoting World News Daily as a 'reputable' source for... well, anything.

Here's a couple gems I pulled from their site to prove my point; the first is an article on giving thanks, written by none other than Chuck "1000 Years of Darkness if Obama is Re-elected" Norris.

My other example is an excerpt from a Joseph Farah article titled, "HOW OLD IS THE EARTH??":

No one can be 100 percent certain, though I subscribe to the idea that the Bible is literally true and that the Earth and the universe were created in seven actual days about 6,000 years ago.

In summation, WND.com != reputable source.

Posting anon to preserve moderation.
--
CanHasDIY

Re:It as always been Legal

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, but not for the reasons you think. No news site (reputable or not) is an appropriate source for making citations about the law. He'd be just as wrong if his article was from CNN, NPR or Al-Jazeera. I'd also point out that the article in question neither makes his point, nor even claims to (in fact, its editorial slant is firmly in the opposite direction).

Nothing to fear

[hduff]

If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear officer.

Doing No Wrong? Nothing To Worry About

[assertation]

I love it.

Cops and other forms of authority are always telling people that if they are doing nothing wrong, then they shouldn't be concerned about a lack of privacy.

Right back at you Police Officers. If you are doing your job without breaking the law you have no reason to be concerned about me recording you.

Re:Doing No Wrong? Nothing To Worry About

[glwtta]

No. Just, no.

They're public officials, performing a public service, in public - absolutely no one has less of an expectation of privacy.

There is just no comparison between that and what the average citizen.

So what?

[AndyKron]

So what? They'll make another fucked up law, and people will have to spend millions to fight it, and what do the lawmakers get for being assholes? RE-ELECTED!!!

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, we're talking Illinois here. They re-elected Jesse Jackson when he hadn't served his position for many months. And was under indictment. What makes you think anything will change?

go right ahead as long as...

[goffster]

You don't mind getting roughed up a little and sitting in jail for an
evening on trumped up charges and then paying for a lawyer to
eventually dismiss your charges for which you file a complaint that
is ultimately ignored.

Re:go right ahead as long as...

[glwtta]

Sure.

I'm white enough to eventually cost the PD a fair amount of money.

Re:go right ahead as long as...

[evil_aaronm]

I think you're in the wrong country, if you live in America. Expediency is never a good reason to give up your rights and liberties. It would've been expedient for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus, as the laws held, then. It would've been expedient for women to simply sit at home instead of marching for their right to vote. Hell, it would've been expedient for the Founding Fathers to go along with English rule instead of fighting the Revolutionary War. But because they ignored expediency, you have the right to trash their memory and sacrifice and become exactly the kind of person they weren't.

In short, you're the kind of person that autocratic rulers love: you go along with whatever you're told to do, right or wrong, because it's inexpedient to resist tyranny.

Re:go right ahead as long as...

[goffster]

I did not say "don't do it". I did state the known likely consequences.

Re:go right ahead as long as...

[goffster]

I did not say "don't do it". I did state the known likely consequences.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[Dave Emami]

Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.

When it comes to death/injury rates, yes. Psychologically speaking, definitely no. There is a distinct difference between dealing with passive inanimate hazards and hostile people. Lawnmowers do not come to life and attack gardeners except in bad movie adaptations of Stephen King stories.

Commander Vimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase "The innocent have nothing to fear", believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like "The innocent have nothing to fear".

Re:Commander Vimes...

[dywolf]

Mod up. both for truth and for source.

You shouldnt be able to record police.

[Anonymous Coward]

Police as a rule are always hated by most people just because they are in charge and have authority over average citizens. If a woman gets a ticket for speeding she will bitch about the cops despite the fact she was breaking the law but if she gets robbed she will bitch about the cops not doing anything about it as if she expect them to sit outside her door 24 hours a day or just go straight out and arrest the person who did it and immediately return with all of her stolen stuff. As a rule people dont like being told what to do and cops have the ability to do just that so most people will automatically side with someone who talks bad about police.

For instance if I record a cop hitting someone and show it there will be public outcry if I only show that portion, if I leave out the part where he stopped someone commiting a crime or the person was all crazy on bath salts then everyone would say the cop was wrong and he should be fired blah blah blah. If I record a cop yelling at a black person and the cop is white then there will be racial outcrys despite the reason he is doing it.

People dont care about the truth and they cant mind their own business. They only care about what they want to see and will always get involved or have something to say about something they dislike. So recording officers is bad medicine for everyone involved, especially the police officers.

For gods sake we had a mini race riot a few years ago where I live because the police had a black guy die in custody because he had a heart attack from overdosing on multiple drugs and alcohol. They even said that on the news but it didnt stop anyone from going out and virtually start a riot at the police station, then everyone who got arrested again blamed the police for what? Doing their job.

People need to put away their cameras and recorders and mind their own business.

Re:You shouldnt be able to record police.

[VortexCortex]

For instance if I record a cop hitting someone and show it there will be public outcry if I only show that portion, if I leave out the part where he stopped someone commiting a crime or the person was all crazy on bath salts then everyone would say the cop was wrong and he should be fired blah blah blah.

If the cops have their own cameras they can submit footage that shows the "missing" part. There is no reason that we should not be able to record police activity in public. For instance, police footage mysteriously goes missing sometimes too. Checkmate moron.

ILLinois

[Anonymous Coward]

And soon illegals living there will be able to get drivers licenses.

Sounds to me like ILLinois has things all figured out! LOL

You're playing their game

[Anonymous Coward]

They are fine with you taking that attitude. They WANT you to.

Know why?

It's because by turning the "nothing to hide" argument against them, you legitimize their use of the same argument against YOU. And they can use it against you FAR more often, and to MUCH greater effect, than you can against them.

Re:You're playing their game

[Anonymous Coward]

They are fine with you taking that attitude. They WANT you to.

Know why?

It's because by turning the "nothing to hide" argument against them, you legitimize their use of the same argument against YOU. And they can use it against you FAR more often, and to MUCH greater effect, than you can against them.

Yeah, but ultimately they'll lose that battle. Most people don't do egregiously criminal things during their daily routine. Cops, on the other hand are just thugs and reliably act like it every waking moment of their lives. The only difference between them and the violent felons in prison is that they wear a badge when they do their dirty work. It's no coincidence that cops have a lousy reputation. When we can gather more video evidence, we can start to disassemble that gang and start replacing it with a policing apparatus that works for the people.

Re:You're playing their game

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops, on the other hand are just thugs and reliably act like it every waking moment of their lives

Lie.

Re:You're playing their game

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops, on the other hand are just thugs and reliably act like it every waking moment of their lives

Lie.

True. There are the "good" cops, too. You know, the ones who lie and cover for the thugs.

Being from IL...

[Anonymous Coward]

This means nothing. When it was passed the whole world knew it was unconstitutional. Now if you record cops, you still get your shit broke and roughed up. Nothing changes here. They're all dirty cunts in Chicago. The rest of the state... not so bad, but Chicago cops make NYC cops look like saints.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[HornWumpus]

I'm all for a limit on how long someone can be a cop before they are required to get an honest job.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[Rakarra]

Lawnmowers do not come to life and attack gardeners except in bad movie adaptations of Stephen King stories.

Or AWESOME movie adaptations of Stephen King stories (caveat: Haven't seen Maximum Overdrive in over 2 decades).

Misleading title

[davidwr]

Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police

A better title:

Supreme Court Declines To Un-Block Illinois Law Against Recording Police

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[lgw]

Actually, being a cop is fairly dangerous, because of the traffic accidents. Driving is the most dangerous thing most of us do daily, and cops do a lot of it. Driving for a living is just a dangerous job, by modern standards, but as you say not in the league of deep sea fishing.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[AK Marc]

Anything with Emilio Esteves can be described as "awesome" without conditions or caveats.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[AK Marc]

Taxi drivers are much more likely to die on the job than cops. Do you get a free beating with every airport pickup?

Indiana SC ruled it is illegal to refuse

[Anonymous Coward]

It is NOT illegal to refuse an unlawful order.

Under modern jurisprudence it IS illegal to refuse.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/15/indiana-high-court-rules-people-resist-illegal-entry-police-homes/
"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest." "a right to resist an unlawful police [order] is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"

The courts say that if you believe the officer's order is unlawful then you need to obey anyway and file a civil lawsuit later to let the courts decide if you were right.

Re:Indiana SC ruled it is illegal to refuse

[adolf]

The courts say that if you believe the officer's order is unlawful then you need to obey anyway and file a civil lawsuit later to let the courts decide if you were right.

Civil? CIVIL?

So when I break the law and there's cops around, I can reasonably expect to be charged with a crime, prosecuted with public funds, and I may spend some of my previously-free time holding a bunk down in jail.

Meanwhile when the cops break the law and I'm around, then maybe someday I might be able to sue them in civil court, if I can afford to. And what do I get out of this effort? A pony?

Meh.

Very misleading

[shaitand]

If the supreme had blocked the law it would have set a national precedent. They declined to hear the case and thereby allowed the possibility of such tatics being used in other states.

No it didn't

[Anonymous Coward]

"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest." "a right to resist an unlawful police [order] is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,"

That ruling was about unlawful ENTRY INTO A HOME, not unlawful orders. You clearly knew, that since you deliberately replaced "entry" with "order" in your blockquote, and openly admitted it by bracketing the word. But admitting what you did doesn't make it any less disingenuous.

Resistance to unlawful entry is not the same as refusing an unlawful order. Yes, the difference does matter. And if you're thinking of framing the entry as an "order to let us in" and then weaseling that into an application of the ruling to all other orders, you're just going to embarrass yourself.

I am not endorsing or agreeing with the ruling regarding unlawful entry, incidentally.

Who watches...?

[Anathem]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[lgw]

Yes, but taxi drivers often combine driving with "staying up 48 hours straight", which is death-seeking behavior to begin with.

it'll all be encrypted soon

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be moot, because new, federal standards will mandate digital radio for public service and it'll be encrypted. The days of listening in on the local authorities are almost over. I regard that as a Bad Thing, but security mania wins. Again.

Re:it'll all be encrypted soon

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does encrypted radio prevent video recording? You know, the thing that the article and this discussion are about?

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[Maxo-Texas]

Seriously. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death.

Even with traffic accidents included there are a dozen jobs with higher fatality rates and some of them are pretty grisly (like being ripped to pieces while still alive by heavy machinary).

If you take out the traffic accidents, there are easily a couple dozen jobs with higher fatality rates.

And, being an old fart, I've seen good men turn bad because they were cops. They laugh at abusing their power over civilians. They use prostitutes- and/or arrest them. They break the law. They lie under oath.

Many of them are good people. But a lot of people who just want power over others are attracted to the job. And a lot of others are corrupted by that power over time.

And hell, i"m making it generic, but as far as I can see, the men are corrupted much faster than the women.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[dywolf]

This is why you should be careful with statistics, something I thought most /.'ers knew.

Those statistics are taken across the entire police force.
Break it down by the different duties and a different picture emerges.
Traffic enforcement and desk duty are the big outliers than lower the statistical rate on the rest of the duties.
Traffic enforcement, generally not hazardous to health, though they are always wary of the potential that the guy you just pulled over may be wanted or may shoot you. (Just cause its uncommon doesnt mean you ignore the risk; cops want to get home to their families too, and criminals dont tend to just break one law and call it quits, but several)

Other more hazardous duties are things like:
drug enforcement/busts
responding to calls (robbery, etc)
domestic disputes (actually one of the most dangerous and unpredictable things cops deal with)

Not everything is pulling over grannies who went a little fast.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[dywolf]

driving old cars badly in need of maintenance and new shocks/brakes at breakneck speeds. man taxis scare me

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[HornWumpus]

Gardeners/machinists/fishermen/roofers also have more and less dangerous parts of their jobs. What is your point? Just trying to obfuscate?

Being a cop is not a very dangerous job at all. The main danger is to their souls. They are surrounded by villainous scum of the earth, and that's just roll call.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[AK Marc]

I thought that traffic duty was one of the most risky, and you are more likely to be rearended at a stop with your lights on while on the shoulder of a highway than have an issue with the driver of the car you pulled over.

I walked with a sheriff serving warrants, and someone else tagged along. The sheriff stands to the side while knocking, and the guy asked "why do you do that?" I answered for the sheriff, "the wall stops bullets better than the door does" (though most don't shoot at him through the wall, but that people shoot at the door/sound, not the person anyway, but process serving is dangerous).

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs

[HornWumpus]

Most walls won't stop most bullets.

Stand on the right side. Because most people are righties and will naturally want to stand on the left. So that's the wall most likely to be shot through.

Why first amendment

[S1ngularity]

I know it's all press-like and maybe you want to publish someday. But wouldn't it make more sense to classify it as 2nd and 4th amendment breach? A camera as reasonable, non-violent armament for defense, and taking/destroying the evidence recorded on it being an unreasonable search and seizure(hell, if not out right evidence tampering)?