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 get new ones. What's so difficult about that?
It's simple, if the police are flouting the law then fire the individuals concerned - the others will soon get the message.
Arrest the cops for violating your rights?
Have a very obvious delete button on the recording device and make sure that all recording is backed up to the ‘cloud’ so it doesn't matter if said button is pressed.
Cop happy, you happy, everyone happy.
$7M paid by...The taxpayer!
No need to correct the problem when it's everyone else who pays for their mistakes.
Best solution? Encourage everyone to record every interaction with the police. This will systematically education the police on the rights of citizens.
Just like the 2nd Amendment public carry folks with a big old riffle slung over their shoulder on the sidewalk - it educated the police & public at the same time, and nobody gets hurt. (The the latter case, jimmes get russeled by some liberals, but, meh)
If theyre being recorded beating, torturing, or killing, as was the case in New York, they wont even be indicted. If they are, it just means they're acquitted later. If theyre suspended, they'll return to work after the public scrutiny latches onto something else. If they're fired, there are countless other departments that will hire them instead without so much as second-guessing their termination. Lawsuits dont seem to change the culture or nature of law enforcement in america, most citizens are simply viewed as the enemy, not those theyve been sworn to protect and serve.
Good people go to bed earlier.
And if you didn't know, DWB is Driving While Black:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
How about putting police who violate peoples' civil rights in prison?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Someone needs to organize a flash mob of people just showing up and recording police in public all over the city.
Force those thugs they call police to behave.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You want to curb the problem? Have some high profile prosecutions.
Charge them criminally, kick them off the force, strip them of their pensions, make examples of them. It should be a felony for a police officer to do this, because they wield so much more power in this equation.
If the police aren't going to bother either learning, or following the law ... they have no business being police officers. If they can't get it through their heads they have no right to prevent this, then when they do it, bloody well lay charges.
The police are becoming thugs. And if they want to be thugs and criminals, start treating them as such.
And if the "good" cops won't stand up and get rid of the bad cops, they're just as guilty.
None of this circling the blue wall crap, and being on paid suspension. Fire the bastards.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It should be legal for, when any cop trying to do this, to assault and detain them. They're breaking the law, violating the constitution, destroying evidence, and committing fraud, all in one and what the hell are you supposed to do, call the police? I'd knock him the fuck out and make him prove in court that I didn't need to. Surprise, I needed to in order to preserve evidence of him committing a crime. You know, a citizen using force to prevent a crime from being committed...that thing that's completely legal in 50 states. OH THAT'S RIGHT police officers are magic and immune to the law and can go around making up their own laws. I forgot.
If the police are going to break the law and become criminals, then we need vigilante justice to bring them to terms. The current systems in place don't hold them to account. If an officer is shot for any reason it should be automatically considered self defense and completely justified. If I need to worry about any interaction with a thug in blue being dangerous for my life, then preemptive killing of all thugs in blue is the only way to stay safe. They can't stay within the law, then they need to be taken out of the population.
I truly do feel a bit of joy every time I hear about a cop being killed. They have been out of control for far too long. And don't even try to say they aren't all bad. If the good ones aren't turning in their buddies for the crimes they see being committed or even arresting them, then they are bad too. It stands to reason if you turn in your fellow officers your work place will be very uncomfortable and you will not get the back up from others when you need it. So even the "good" ones turn bad when they are complicit in the crimes going on around them.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I don't know .. it's all too hard for me to think about this. So I'm going to wait until frequent contributor Bennett Hasselton tells me what to think [*]
* Actually, no. I have stopped reading any of Bennett's stories and refuse to reward /. with any page views.
What is all this Hasselton crap? Is it supposed to be harassment? Funny?
Not much of either. Never going to be a beowulf cluster of funny or interesting Hasselton posts, and Netcraft will confirm that.
Time for a new hah-hah, kiddies.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
"Has anyone ever been convicted of the crime of violating the 4th Amendment? Ever?"
It doesn't really work that way. Actions taken by the government which violate the 4th amendment can be reversed and penalties applied via civil law suites. Has that happened? Yes. Countless times. If you pay federal taxes, you are helping to pay for those "mistakes".
Move to a malpractice system, like doctors have. Make individual officers personally liable for their own behavior. They carry professional liability insurance, and can be sued if they do something egregiously stupid. Screw up enough, and no insurance company will cover them. Changing jurisdictions won't help, because the insurance companies will be sure to trade information.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
Tampering with evidence, for example by deleting a recording, is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. While in this case the consequences were negligible, I suggest prosecuting these cops for tampering with evidence.
0x or or snor perron?!
When the officer asks for your phone, it's easy.
SAY NO.
There. 'nuff said.
Officer: "Have you been recording me? Let me see your phone."
Person: "Officer, you may have my phone when I am presented with a signed warrant from a judge."
Between the city allowing illegals to roam free and police attempting to (or succeeding) erase encounters with the public, there isn't really a reason to visit.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The Fourth, and the othe nine, Amendments in the Bill of Rights, are not criminal statutes. They are proscriptions against specific judicial, executive, and legislative actions.
Violations can be tortious and civilly actionable, but not criminal.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
What is all this Hasselton crap? Is it supposed to be harassment? Funny?
Bennet is the new Beta
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Forget this boring job, I'm driving to Baltimore with my camera phone tonight!
You know he'd know that it's not illegal. Not that he's that keen on surveillance in the first place, but....
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Say no more....
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
People keep saying "fire the officers", but this should be a criminal matter. Tampering with evidence, violation of civil rights under color of law, etc. Fire them, jail them as provided by law, make the settlement come out of their pocket (or, perhaps, the pension fund) instead of making the taxpayers foot the bill. HOLD THEM PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE. Then, and only then, will it stop.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Fire the Police Chief; assuming the Mayor wants to be Mayor. Recall Election is such a messy term.
I have friends who are cops. It's a shitty, thankless job where you get to enjoy the worst of human behavior. Oh, and occasionally your life is on the line; risking widowing your wife and leaving your kids without a father. Many of them were soldiers who enlisted, had a gun put in their hand at 18 years old, and taught to kill other people. It's easy to see how cops can become jaded and not give a crap about rights. A lot of them are pretty nice work-a-day randos just trying to get through life like the rest of us.
That said, I think in this instance the best way to police cops is to let them police themselves by hitting them where it really hurts: personal finances. So for example, the resulting remuneration from a lawsuit where cop takes your phone and erases a video is paid for from the police pension fund. Further, that officer's personal pension is reset to zero, or halved or some other appropriate consequence. That's a pretty powerful motivator, and there will be huge pressure from within the ranks to keep their shit wired tight. I also think it would need to be very narrowly defined. The last thing we want is officers afraid to do anything for fear of losing their pension.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
This is what it has come to. The cop used to be your friend, right? But now he's not. Well, the cops didn't change, we did. In the old days a copy could say "Stop or I'll shoot" and if you didn't stop, he shot you in the back... Look at "It's a Wonderful Life"... Bert the cop does that to George (but misses)... no question back in the day, the cops could say "get on the ground" and you'd get on the ground. Now, we don't... we won't... go ahead, shoot me... you'll do time in prison Mr. Cop... you'll go down for 2nd Degree Murder. Watch "Cops" and see people who think they'll negotiate their way out of being dumped on the ground and cuffed. And it's all on the cop to make sure he is polite, doesn't use excessive force (which will be decided later, possibly by a jury) and that when someone spits in his face, he doesn't retaliate... Just put that as an additional charge that the prosecutor will drop in exchange for a plea.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we're asking cops to do everything all the time now... In addition to protecting us, and bringing in the bad guys, and finding them, we want them to use kid gloves and we've tied their hands over and over again. So we are getting exactly what WE deserve, a bitter police force, who feels that the people are not behind them, and thus they move from serving and protecting us to serving and protecting themselves. Congratulations everyone... you got the police force you deserve. You don't like it? Well further tying their hands, throwing them in jail, etc. is just gonna make it worse. Rock on, morons.
I'd be more convinced if you had started out your argument with the war on drugs. In my opinion, that's when the police forces went from being the neighborhood cop to basically one big SWAT team, having to be prepared for anything from noise complaints to all out war. There is just too much of a gap between the two to do both effectively. In some ways, the police forces would have been a lot better off if the drug war had been an FBI only operation.
Whether via ballot box or ammo box, we replace the judiciary and the legislature with those who, regardless of "liberal" or "conservative" beliefs plan to uphold the fucking laws of this country, and prosecute the living fuck out of the folks who are doing this shit. Make some examples, and the rest will fall in line.
Except you know and I know that whatever your beliefs, the ballot box doesn't do shit any more. And I don't need to hide behind anonymity to say this shit.
Here is you valid use case for Google Glass. Make every officer be required to wear it at all times. All arrests recorded from initial contact to Miranda. Traffic stops are recorded from the minute they get out of their car to the minute they get back in. All video footage is uploaded to the cloud and stored on third party servers. When a person is issued a citation or is arrested, The DA and they are provided a copy of or at least access to the video. No video available = no valid citation or arrest. It also eliminates the excuse of "Well, things look different when you are in the field" as you will see things exactly as they looked form the officer's own eyes. Failure to use the camera = suspension on first offense, termination on second. Simple enough.
I reject your reality
Is it known what kind of phone/OS/app she was using? I was under the impression that most built in video recording apps wait until the end of the video before they start uploading. In my mind if a cop stopped you while recording they'd have time to end and delete before it even starts uploading. Many phones record at 720p or 1080p making the files much larger making a cellular transfer take much longer than the video length.
I was planning to do some research to find an app that would live transmit while recording to be ready for just such a scenario. Do the built in video apps hold off on their delete until the file is backed up?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Won't the bear have a problem with you taking his arms?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I think it's fairly obvious that whatever the current punishment is, is not working. Things need to change and it starts at the top.
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.
We put cameras in places where risk is high -- banks, retail stores, convenience stores, ATMs, etc., etc., are all being recorded and we don't complain about them, because the risk of corruption and crime is very high.
Police officers are at high risk for corruption, and they always have been. Their personal opinion of someone can be used to punish that person physically, emotionally, and financially. It's not too much to ask that their actions as employees be more closely monitored.
Actually *punish* police for doing this, instead of just shaking a finger and saying, "Bad boy! Don't do that again!"?
Lawsuits don't mean anything if the officers aren't going to be paying the settlement....
. And it's all on the cop to make sure he is polite, doesn't use excessive force
Yeah you're right. It should be up to that guy in the middle of being choked to death to ensure the cop isn't in fact choking him to death. The cop shouldn't have to make sure he isn't murdering someone for a misdemenour.
Silly me.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
... it might be pointed out that the ACLU has an app for the live recording of police for forensic purposes.
Actually, it'd be nice to see them resisting some real oppression, not manchildren giggling about "dongles" in the workspace.
But you can only reach low hanging fruit from the facetweets and leddits and instablrs. Let me know when an SJW stands their ground while the pepper spray bites.
This guy will straighten out Baltimores bad cops: http://stuffpoint.com/the-walk...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
How about you keep your opinion to yourself until you stop being a hypocrite about it.
You are currently at this very second resisting arrest. If you feel so strongly that fact should mean you must die, then you have to put your money where your mouth is and actually die before your viewpoint will even be considered. Anything less means your actions show you don't at all believe what you said, so why should we?
So are your actions going to follow your words and you kill yourself?
Or are your actions going to be hypocritical and the exact opposite of your words, and you post a reply instead?
What stops crime is not the severity of the punishment, but how likely the person is to be punished for it.
Say the odds of being punished for a crime are 0.01%, people won't care if the punishment if a fine or 10 years in jail.
So firing the officers won't solve it. Punishing them won't solve it. What need to happen is more people filming, so the odds of them being punished for whatever they do increases drastically.
If a cop is doing something wrong (or even right, hey, lets give some positive feedback also), when he looks around he should see several people filming it.
morcego
Except that in this case, it's not a valid police measure and its use has been banned for some time in New York.
Making police look like stupid thugs... is there anything you can't do!
That is one thing the Cloud is very good at in modern times, offsite backup, which so many struggled with years ago.
I know I was looking at getting security cameras for my house, and the only ones I looked at were the ones with Cloud capability... A thief might steal your cameras, or computer, or recording device, or destroy them, however if it has already uploaded to the Cloud.... :)
Bullshit. Nothing in the Constitution says that violations of the Constitution can't be criminal offenses. It doesn't require them to be criminal offenses, of course, but it certainly allows it.
The only reason violating the Constitution would not be a criminal offense would be that Congress (or a state or local legislative body) did not choose to make it one.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I would suggest that when someone is being choked and can barely breathe, their words will not be complex, nor will they carry nuanced meanings such as the level of difficulty they are having with respiration. When faced with life-threatening situations, our minds focus, and become exceedingly direct: "I can't breathe" is entirely within the acceptable range of philosophical inaccuracy under those circumstances. You wanted him to say, instead, "my fellow man, I'm having a rather hard time re-oxegenating my blood -- would you mind releasing the pressure on my trachea for a moment?" Or, "I'm panting because you're crushing my thorax, and am unable to draw a full breath -- would you mind removing your knee from my chest?" Or, "my inability to form full words is because you've pinched off my carotids, and I'm facing imminent loss of consciousness -- would you mind removing your bear-sized hands from my neck?"
If someone in a highly stressful situation tells you "I can't breathe" then you should act accordingly to prevent loss of life. Simple as that.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Any cop who can't do his damn job just because he's "annoyed" is incompetent and does not deserve to remain a cop.
It is never valid for a citizen exercising his constitutional rights to ever count as "interfering" with anything.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You all seem to be on the "cops are bad" side on this one. ÂListen up to some other possibility. ÂIt says it in the article, she stopped her car in the middle of the street to record. ÂYou have all the right to record you want, from a safe distance, while not breaking the law. ÂYou DO NOT have the right to block traffic to record an incident, as you are now impeding on others movements (the cars behind you). ÂAlso, why does she keep drawing attention to her self saying she's recording? ÂIs she trying to start an altercation? ÂIs it not also possible that with police in front of her, she did pull forward almost hitting them? ÂThat's what they're saying. ÂThe video doesn't show evidence either for or against it. ÂThat would be Assault with a deadly weapon- a felony (though I doubt she intended to, it's hard for police to know or care much about it when they are in front of a vehicle with a person acting strangely and moving towards them, they're only though is safety first, they have to assume the worst). Â Â There are certain facts that, if known, could have made this situation virtually all her fault, as we know she WAS breaking the law (operating a cell phone for non gps purposes in traffic, at least). ÂThere are facts that, if known, could make this seem like just annoyed police officers. Â Â And IF she did almost run over them with the car, the fact that they called her a bitch, though stupid, is PETTY. ÂSticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me. ÂIt's words, against her possibly almost hitting them with a car? ÂAnd she does seem like a dumb chick for bringing it upon herself. ÂWhy didn't she just pull over first and then record? ÂBecause she's stupid like so many other people and heard from the media, "You have the right to record the police no matter what they tell you" and ignorantly thought that to mean anytime, anywhere, rather than listening to the caveat most news agencies failed to say, "from a safe distance, and as long as it doesn't interfere with the officers and you're doing nothing illegal."
My computer's internet access died in the storm so I had to transfer the txt to my phone to use mobile to submit, looks like character artifacts were left in...
Haha! He said he couldn't breath like six times before being murdered by the cop choking him. Did you not watch the tape? Did it cause a mental syntax error or something?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The untold part of this story is the reason he was being arrested, and evidence of a Police State, was because he was selling "untaxed cigarettes" aka Loosies. The state, using the force of government will collect its taxes from the serfs.
ALL taxes are regressive, and generally oppressive. While we accept that taxes are a necessary evil, we have forgotten that they are, and will remain, evil. The true goal of a free people is to reduce taxes. Period.
However, too many people only care about controlling others, and using taxes is an easy way to exercise our evil tendencies towards tyranny.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You speak by moving air out, moving air in is not required. And that myth you cite is easily and quickly debunked if you speak to anyone with actual medical training. Which the police do not have.
Time for you Yanks to start the Second American Revolution already!
See the article, below, for more evidence of the problem:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
>>> What can people do to curb this problem?
Its very telling that the police force themselves aren't taking any disciplinary or other corrective action on the officers that keep doing this even though they have been told not to.
Conseuqently as the local police chief apparently can't/won't control their own officers to follow the law, the only practical option is to keep legally filming them and then suieing them for everything you can throw at them if they stop you and especially if they illegally mess with and damage your property (i.e. delete files from your phone). That way the economic impact alone will eventually force them to have to change.
I believe but am not 100% sure that you also have every legal right to demand to see a search warrant before you hand your phone over, but of course if you go against a cop in the street, they will probably make your day at least very inconvenient, even if you are actually right.
Bullshit. In the old days cops would make a reasonable effort to resolve an incident non-violently (look at the Andy Griffith Show, if you want an equally-old and equally-fictional example).
Now the cop just shoots you without even giving you a chance to react (at least if you're black).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If there are people filming the people filming the police, then everyone can use this to help each other. That or if there is just one person filming, lock the phone and refuse to unlock it. maybe even leaving the device recording while you argue your case for not handing over legally owned and used personal equipment. 50 utube vids a day of officers doing it will soon bring about a change in the way the police tackle the problem. prob' just end up shooting people who film them and then say they thought that the person was endangering the police or something like that. Best order some popcorn, sit back and wait for another American revolution to kick off
Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them
Wow, I hope that when I start illegal tampering with/destroying evidence that I only get a nasty letter from the Department of Justice. We just couldn't POSSIBLY charge these officers with obstruction of justice, now could we?
This is really important.
A buddy of mine posted an article the point of which was something like "never enact a law you're not willing to kill to enforce." Because, at the end of the day, that might be how you enforce it, and this is exactly that sort of case.
I don't care if this guy sells cigarettes. Seriously, of all the wrongs in the world, this is one I can't possibly care about. I don't want someone choked out because they might be selling cigarettes. I don't want them accidentally killed, for sure. Worst case, write the guy a ticket and go on your way. Best case, repeal the law and officially stop caring whether this some guy sells cigarettes or not.
I watched it. From what I can see, the police are detaining a man. Nothing else. The woman who is recording is stopped in the middle of the street (she is creating traffic, not stopped "in traffic") and when the officer initially tells her to move, she doesn't. Then, when she realizes that maybe what she is doing is a bad idea and she should leave, it's too late as the cops are swarming her car by the time she tries to pull forward. Now she has potentially assaulted an officer with her vehicle (can't tell from the video), which is a felony. This is why the one cop says "Your a dumb bitch."
I'm not saying the cops didn't do anything wrong (clearly he should not have called her that), but all the accusation about deleting the video are not supported by anyhting other than her lawyer saying she alledges that is what happened. The only hard evidence we have is the video, and all it shows is her breaking traffic laws and an officer calling her a "dumb bitch."
Before we all get our panties in a bunch, why don't we just let the lawyers and the court figure this out. All we have heard so far are statements from her lawyer and I suspect that he is overstating her case because that is his job.
Taxes pay for civilization. The streets you drive to your mansion by the lake are paid for by taxes. Providing basic health care for your workers because you are too cheap to pay a living wage, that's from taxes. You want to live in a country without taxes try Somalia. Taxes are generally good for society, and higher tax countries tend to be better places to live in. And the tax rate in the USA is falling along with the quality of life.
Violating the Constitution is not a criminal offense, in itself. It is always illegal. (Also, note that only a government agent can violate your Constitutional rights, since the Constitution says what the government is and is not allowed to do.) The only crime mentioned in the Constitution is treason, and that to limit abusive enforcement.
What makes things criminal is state or federal statutes. Assuming there is such a statute making violation of the Fourth Amendment a crime, if somebody were convicted under it they would be convicted under the statute, not the amendment.
You are convicted only in criminal cases. You can lose a civil case and be required to do certain things, but that is not considered a conviction.
Therefore, nobody should ever be convicted of violating the Fourth. They may lose lawsuits, and they may be convicted of a crime for doing something in violation of the Fourth.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Regardless of what she did, the police should not have stolen her phone and deleted stuff from it. If she was committing some sort of crime, that's destruction of evidence. If not, that's just illegal anyway.
The police committed an illegal action, and there's going to be a lawsuit. Fine. If the woman in question violated the law in other ways, she can be prosecuted. That's how the system should work.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You're talking semantics about technical details that aren't important. The argument I was rebutting was the idea that Congress was somehow "not allowed" to make such a statute.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I like the pension fund suggestion. I had been thinking along the lines of forcing them to be personally liable by stipulating that any police departments/union/organization are strictly forbidden from assisting in their defense.
I realize a lot of things in the life of a cop suck. Dangerous situations/dealing with assholes/the petty stupidity of the public at large/etc. I even agree that they ought to be granted some measure of privacy. However, I've never heard of a case much less any outrage over when someone's phone was confiscated because they were filming a cop eating lunch or sitting around in their backyard when off duty. The only reason I can see that a cop wouldn't want their on-duty official actions filmed is because they are worried that they would get in trouble over something they did wrong.
I wouldn't like it if someone in my workplace was recording everything I do especially in a critical situation... Oh wait, I work in IT. We do record all that stuff.
I wouldn't like it if someone in my work filming stuff I was doing especially in really busy stressfull situation... Oh wait, I used to work retail. They have cameras everywhere.
I keep circling back around to what makes cops special that they think they get to bully people, confiscate their stuff and tamper with them to cover their own (or other officers) asses?
You ASSUME what she said is true- that the police deleted the video. Why do you assume that, because she said so? If she was looking to make an issue of this, hence all the shouting and drawing attention to herself to get their attention and get arrested, is it not possible she deleted the file herself and said they did it so people reading only one account of the incident (hers) would automatically assume that she was telling the truth, thus bolstering her chance of financial benefit? Do we not realize that she could have prevented the whole situation by not breaking the law in the first place, and legally recording from a parked position not blocking the flow of traffic?
I don't know if you can do so in the US, but in Canadian law you can seem to be able to sue both an individual and the body of which he is a part. Strong unions or companies usually pay to defend their members and try to pay any fines, but if the offence is serious enough, the union or employer won't be able to afford it, and the individual will be punished despite their efforts. This can be use by good people against bad, or bad people against good, it doesn't matter: as an example, people sue city councillors and the city all the time.
davecb@spamcop.net
When you speak you exhale; if your airway is restricted or partially-blocked you can still potentially force air out by creating high pressure in excess of 1 ATM using muscles. When you inhale, however, the force to move the air comes entirely from the pressure difference between your lungs and the environment; assuming you could pull a vacuum with your lungs the best you can EVER achieve would be 1 ATM of pressure forcing air into you -- without external help. EMTs can use bag-valve-mask hand ventilators to provide a source of high-pressure air to help force it into you (assisted breathing) but that would require the cops to actually give a crap and get help.
I'm usually thinking along the line of the chassis. Specifically, the female chassis. Functional and delightful at the same time. But don't fret. I won't be four string you to agree with me. More of a 5-string guy, myself. Makes me B happier, it does. Deeply so.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Fire them and stop all pension benefits as well. Cops who deliberately violate the law are criminals in every sense of the word. If they control their behavior there would be no problem with cams recording them while they work. The fact is that many cops break the law every day and feel as if they are immune. One answer is for federal agents to pose as civilians and trap cops who are ugly or abusive to the public or to suspects. Frankly the cops are acting up because it is now obvious they can not hold back the wave that is sweeping over the nation. Many people at the lower levels are on the verge of acting out. They have not been rewarded for work or given a fair shot at making a better life. That turns them towards crime. Law enforcement is actually creating criminals these days.
The individual officer(s) involved cannot be immune from civil lawsuits!
The individual officer(s) involved cannot be immune from criminal prosecution!
In addition to facing EXACTLY the same criminal charges that any other individual who performed the same actions would face, the officer(s) should be individually subject to a civil suit just like any other individual. Once a few officers have been bankrupted and are facing garnished wages and liens to settle court judgments then they will suddenly find a way to avoid taking the offensive and illegal actions.
And should those in charge persist, they will find their tacit acceptance and hints (never orders, because that would be wrong) are falling on deaf ears.
2 party consent only applies in areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. in the middle of a public road doesn't qualify.
They can't arrest all of us, and if they can, we're fucked anyways.
Russians have found a way to fight corrupt law officers and insurance fraud setups:
Why Almost Everyone in Russia Has a Dash Cam http://www.wired.com/2013/02/russian-dash-cams/
<p>
Mass-install dashcams. That will get the police and judges used to video footage.
I did watch the tape, after the first time saying "I can't breathe", the cop released him and moved around him to hold him down by the head area as he was already on the ground. The remaining "I can't breathe"s occurred because of the asthma attack that the man had.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
No, I won't resist arrest, I will take it up in court later and make a boatload of money from the police/police department that screwed up in the harassing arrest.
Now, that doesn't excuse that in this particular case, the guy WAS breaking the law, and the officers were right in arresting him.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Oh? Did we watch the same video? I quite clearly saw that no one was choking him the second time he said "I can't breathe".
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Comment removed based on user account deletion