Slashdot Mirror
$125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD
mpicpp sends word of a $125,000 settlement for a man who was arrested for photographing members of the New York Police Department. On June 14th, 2012, the man was sitting in his car when he saw three African-American youths being stopped and frisked by police officers. He began taking pictures of the encounter, and after the police were done, he advised the youths to get the officers' badge numbers next time. When the officers heard him, they pulled him violently from his car and arrested him under a charge of disorderly conduct. The police allegedly deleted the pictures from his phone (PDF). Rather than go to trial, the city's lawyers decided a settlement was the best course of action.
I get the civil settlement, but did the police not also commit a crime?
Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Answer:
When either one does viciously illegal shit, they get away without punishment, and somebody else pays the fine!
Always lock your phone and set media to sync to the cloud (if you can afford the data...). It would have been really interesting to hear what the cops told the judge when they sought a warrant to unlock it.
if my watch is aimed in your direction and I'm not acting strange, (hell maybe I'm reading a book at the same time while the watch records) how would they know?
If you are only recording pictures in a public place then you're good (legally). If you surreptitiously record sound then you may run afoul of wiretapping laws. That there are no wires and you're not tapping anything makes no difference. Depends on your jurisdiction.
1. They should have refused to comply with the search on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
If the police insisted then they would be forced to make an arrest. Then the three should insist on using the legal representation, the representative will ask why they are under suspicion and force the police to obtain a proper warrant etc...
In reality though, as soon as they refuse to submit to the unconstitutional search, the police will either walk away or be forced to commit a serious infringement, which can be dealt with later.
2. They did not start recording the police themselves as soon as the police approached them. That way they have on record their refusal to agree to a warrantless search which renders any search before arrest unconstitutional, and if they make an arrest then they need to have a good reason - which the story implies they did not.
When you start recording you should say to your friend, or the officers if you are alone, "this is being uploaded automatically to my blog, so don't worry if they try to delete the video". If you are smart then your friend will reply "did you press the live upload button" and you will check and say "yeah, it is uploading now" - or something like that. That will put the pressure on the officers to behave themselves.
If you can afford it, then actually do set yourself up to upload the feed automatically, but the threat alone is likely to be enough.
Always remain calm and speak politely. Be nice. Be friendly. Do not use hostile body language. Do not scowl. You cannot scare the police, they are not old women walking down a dark alley. I know that blacks think that they can scare anybody with a dirty look, but honestly, the police LOVE IT when somebody becomes aggressive - because it will give them grounds for arrest. They are trained to deal with your aggression and you play into their hands when you become aggressive. THEY WANT YOU TO BECOME AGGRESSIVE SO THAT THEY CAN ARREST YOU, SO DONT DO IT!
By the way, the President of the US is THE top of the Executive branch - meaning HE is in charge of ALL the police around the country - if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs).
Shame on you Obama. And Double shame for being a Black guy and NOT doing something.
Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. The POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch of the *Federal Government.* He's also the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He is in charge of the Department of Justice (the FBI, the ATF, etc.) and the Army, Navy, etc.
He is not in any chain of command the includes local or state police forces. The closest he *could* come to that is to federalize the National Guard (which is equivalent to a state militia), which has been done from time to time (notably in Arkansas to block the state government from halting enforcement of the Brown v. Board of Education decision).
The POTUS cannot legally give orders to local or state police, which are civilian organizations answerable to the municipal and state governments that raise and fund them, and not the Federal government. The only tools that the Federal government has to affect local police is litigation and withholding federal grants to police organizations. You'll note that this author of the linked article is decidedly not a fan of Federal power over police.
As such, your appeal to authority:
if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs
falls short. Please try again.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
The public has the right to know what their government is up to whether you are involved or not. Don't you think so?
I would say that if the public does not have a right to know, then the government or the departments under it do not have the right to settle lawsuits- whether you are involved or not.
Contracts between a private individual and a government entity are not protected by any such privacy considerations. The public has a vested interest, and a right, to scrutinize their government's conduct and to know why it's tax money is being paid to a private individual.
What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.
The public has a right to know.
You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?
No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.
When a crime is involved (such as unlawful arrest, harassment, theft of property, etc. the cops engaged in), the public has a right to know.
When one of the parties IS the state or one of its many agencies, the public has a right to know.
When the public courts handle a case on the matter, criminal or not, for however long, the public has a right to know regardless of whether the case is settled by the court of by the parties outside of the court.
Heh, our 1970's TV shows. Go watch The Shield. And that's not the only example. The days of CHiPs and Adam-12 are long gone.
America will not have faith in big government until cops who do things like this, lose their jobs because of unexcused absenses due to their felony prison sentences. Who is preventing these prosecutions? Are Repubs giving extra criminal powers to police, in order to increase scepticism of govt?
FUCK MOHAMMAD!!
No thanks. I don't swing that way....
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Exactly. Leave New York and go somewhere safe and free and rights are respected. I'd suggest somewhere in the safe Midwest, close to a major city so that you have services and activities that are of interest, but not too close so that you are under the actual jurisdiction of the big city's police department. I hear the St. Louis area is nice and quite. Maybe Ferguson?
It's not a New York City problem or even a big city problem, it's a law enforcement problem.
So guilt does not apply. It is to determine responsibility, not guilt. There is a major legal difference, and trials proceed differently. Hence you can have OJ Simpson found innocent of a murder, but civilly responsible for causing wrongful death of the same individual.
WTF is with all you idiots bitching about Obama's vacations. Reagan only played eight rounds of golf? Well gee, I guess Obama should be more hard working, like Reagan, right?
Reagan: 335 vacation days in 8 years = 41 days per year
Obama: 129 vacation days in 5.5 years = 23 days per year. (shit...I get more vacation days than that)
Yep, Obama...what a slacker. He also took fewer days than either GW Bush or GHW Bush (but more than Clinton).
The taxpayer is on the hook for CRIMES committed by cops.
From Gen. Alexander's willful and wanton (and unpersecuted) perjury on down to cops killing and chilling there is NO accountability in this country if you're on of "the good guys."
Combine this with the fact that police are much more likely to arrest black people and I think we just found a way to address the systemic poverty of black Americans...
WTF is with all you idiots bitching about Obama's vacations. Reagan only played eight rounds of golf? Well gee, I guess Obama should be more hard working, like Reagan, right?
Reagan: 335 vacation days in 8 years = 41 days per year Obama: 129 vacation days in 5.5 years = 23 days per year. (shit...I get more vacation days than that)
Yep, Obama...what a slacker. He also took fewer days than either GW Bush or GHW Bush (but more than Clinton).
Don't bother. These guys have learned their lessons from the G.W. Bush Administration:
our friends are very busy out there creating new realities. They don't have time for that "fact" stuff.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
1. Nationally require body cameras always rolling while on-duty. Knowing you won't get away with unprofessional behavior = priceless.
2. Total national outlaw of plea deals because coercion is morally indefensible. This is supposed to be the "land of the free" not North Korea.
3. Total ban on performance/incentive structures having effect of perverting justice. This includes linkages between career status/advancement and prosecution rates and officer ticketing/arrest quotas.
4. Total ban on mandatory minimum sentencing.
As such, your appeal to authority:
if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs
falls short. Please try again.
Wow. I have the balls to admit I might be incorrectly remembering something, and you decide to use that to take a pot shot against me? People like you are why some people are incapable of admitting they might be wrong.
You don't know me, so you have no idea what "people like" me are about. You made an outrageously incorrect statement and attempted to bolster your argument by an "appeal to authority" (your civics class back when schools actually taught something). What I said was based on what *you* wrote.
You were completely off-base and didn't even bother to check to see what the truth was before making an argument not only that you were right, but that you were right because some authority taught you better than everybody else. That's unkind at best and deliberately nasty at worst. Now you're upset with me because I called you on it?
While I didn't need to do so, I just now went ahead and found this in less than two minutes with a google search for "US federal vs local law enforcement"
Perhaps I was a bit harsh in pointing out your (as you say) inadvertent error. I would point out that you were at least as harsh on others with your claim that you know better than everyone else.
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I understand that you dislike our current President and wish to tarnish his image. I'm not real fond of him either. But making incorrect statements to bolster an attack on him doesn't help your cause, IMHO.
I care about this issue too and am disgusted by the horrendous abuses of our public "servants." However, before I make disparaging statements and beat everyone over the head with them, I try to ensure that they are, in fact, correct statements. You might try that some time.
Regardless, have a lovely evening!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
I agree, that the only thing that's new is that the police are now treating middle and upper income white people they they have always treated poor whites and minorities.
The President is the head of the Executive branch of government, he is sometimes called the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer in The United States" but he has no authority to direct local police in any way.
He can instruct the FBI to carry out his directives because they are a part of the Department of Justice which is an Executive Branch agency.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Nothing much has changed. Cops in the US have been killing about 400 people/year for decades, almost all of them people who attack them, threaten others, or suspects who run away from them. All of those are (generally speaking) legal justifications for the use of deadly force (of course, details matter).
No, we will not, because the majority of people prefer it that way. If you look at polls, people more concerned about being hurt by criminals than they are about being hurt by police.
The president is only head of the federal government. Police is mostly local and state matter, and policies are set at the local and state level. Police operates the way it does either because local communities like it that way, or because local communities are too stupid to change it.
Don't hold your breath for any changes.
I think it needs to come directly out of the affected officers' pockets, in the form of an individual professional liability insurance policy similar to what doctors carry. Make that coverage a condition for employment in a law enforcement capacity. If the cop does his job right, his premiums stay low. If he screws up too much, his premiums will get so high that he can't continue to work in that field, or won't be able to find an insurer to cover him. No insurance, no job. A side benefit is that as the percentage of claims that get paid out rises, the cost is spread over the entire profession, which gives cops a financial incentive to keep their own in line.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Let's not muddy this argument with facts! I have a perception of Obama being on vacation all of the time and no one is going to take that from me. Aside from bouncing your ball peen hammer of facts against my stone wall of cognitive dissonance there is one thing I know for certain: Regan == Good, Obama == Bad. End. Of. Story. Asshole!
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Mod points, my kingdom for some mod points.
Of course. Because the 2.4% of Muslims in Norway are obviousely all pro-theocracy, and clearly enought critical mass to overtrow the government and the constitution to estabilish Sharia law. /s