Slashdot Mirror
Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them
MobyDisk writes: A lawsuit was filed yesterday over a case in which a woman was arrested for recording the police from her car while stopped in traffic. Ars Technica writes, "Police erased the 135-second recording from the woman's phone, but it was recovered from her cloud account according to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lawsuit, which seeks $7 million."
Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.
Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.
So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.
Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.
So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
And if you didn't know, DWB is Driving While Black:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Here in the police state of Illinois, our legislature has passed a bill, which was larded onto another, completely unrelated bill, which makes recording cops and government officials a class 3 felony, with up to 2-4 years in prison. The bill was added as an amendment to the unrelated bill, which passed with over 90% support in both chambers, essentially making it veto-proof.
It uses the word 'eavesdropping' a lot, so it may be argued that it applies only to audio; however, a chance at having a sentence like this would certainly scare off most people who would try to film the cops.
It will be interesting to see how this develops - a similar bill was struck down by the state supreme court in March, and the US supreme court has ruled that police have no expectation of privacy when they're in public, and on duty.
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
"Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
"I don't consent to any searches."
"I wish to remain silent."
"I want to speak to my attorney."
These are the only four phrases that you should speak when dealing with Law Enforcement.
Anything else you say will be used against you. (i.e: STFU! For your own sake!)
Source: http://www.flexyourrights.org/
the chokehold is not a valid police measure. Just because you can speak does not mean you can breathe.
http://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/2odvre/the_pernicious_myth_of_if_you_can_speak_you_can/
From the article:
"Hearing that phrase come out of someone's mouth always upsets me, because it can easily lead to a preventable death.So let's explore why this is false, because anyone who comes up against a situation like this needs to realize that You CAN speak if you cannot breathe!!
This is true for multiple reasons, so let's explore them:
The lungs have what are called "Volumes" and "Capacities". The link describes all of them. For our purposes, you need to understand these two phrases: Functional Reserve Capacity (the amount of air left in the lungs after a normal exhalation) and Expiratory Reserve Volume (the amount of air you can still force out of your lungs after a normal exhalation).
When you take a normal breath you breathe in and out you are breathing about 500ml of air. After breathing out, you are left with ~2400ml of air inside your lungs, this is the Functional Reserve Capacity. If you try to force out as much air as possible, you can still force out ~1200ml more air. This is the Expiratory Reserve Volume. This is air you are able to speak with even if you cannot take a normal breath. Important Note: Notice that the Expiratory Reserve Volume is more than twice the size of a normal breath. That is a lot of air you are able to force out, and a lot of speaking you can do even if you can't breathe.
The lungs work on negative pressure. So, your lungs, when you breathe in, are at a lower pressure than the outside air. This draws the air into them. This is caused by your diaphragm and intercostal muscles. Your lungs are very elastic, and will move back to their normal size during exhalation. This is where the problem begins for officers. If you are kneeling on a suspect, or you have them handcuffed on the ground so that they are on their chest, there is a strong possibility that you can cut off their ability to breathe. Once the lungs begin to exhale, they collapse, but if you they are being pressed down on by body weight, they may not be able to re-expand. They then continue to collapse, forcing out the Functional Reserve Capacity of air, but not drawing in a new breath. So, your suspect may be pleading for breath, they may actually be incapable of drawing one in, and the reason is you. If someone is saying they cannot breathe, you need to believe them, because you might be killing them. Furthermore, during any kind of physical altercation, that person may be breathing deeply and rapidly, making their lungs collapse faster when you are kneeling on them or holding them on the ground.
Asthma. Some of you may be saying "Well, the guy who died in LAPD's care had asthma, that wasn't the officer's fault or the jail's fault." Oh yes it was. If someone is telling you they have asthma and they can't breathe, you need to believe them. Asthma is a constriction of the airways, no different than being strangled. They will still be able to speak and they will still be dying slowly. It took 30 minutes for that man to die, and that was entirely preventable.
False, and false. The chokehold is *not* a valid police measure and is in fact specifically prohibited by his department's regulations. He was *not* released as soon as he said he couldn't breathe, and in fact said he couldn't breathe several times.
Considering your comments, would you too side with the cops who run people over in their cars while texting on their personal cell phones and then blame the victim for throwing themselves in front of their cars, all the while perjuring themselves as has also happened recently?
It's getting a bit off topic but examples of the above have actually happened.
Well, okay, not the blaming the victim bit, but "immediately before the incident, the Albemarle officer, Gregory C. Davis, was involved in "excessive texting." Furthermore, according to the document, Officer Davis may, under oath, have intentionally downplayed his texting."
Then there is this story. The officer in question was criminally charged this time, but still got away with a mere 30 months probation (and two years suspended from the job, with pay). The two girls he slammed into, on the other hand, got to remain dead. Anyone else who had committed the same crime would have lost their job (with no pay) and ended up in jail for a long time.
And this
Compared to the above, the fact that police illegally delete video from a phone without any repercussions is in no way surprising.
Gangsters? You and OP look to be in the same clan when he claims they're doing this "in a rather violent manner". Hyperbole much?
Did you watch the video? The cops are physically violent, and excessively so. Even if this woman was breaking the law (she was not) there would be no excuse for the way the cops behaved.