The Courage of Bystanders Who Press "Record"

HughPickens.com writes Robinson Meyer writes in The Atlantic that in the past year, after the killings of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice, many police departments and police reformists have agreed on the necessity of police-worn body cameras. But the most powerful cameras aren't those on officer's bodies but those wielded by bystanders. We don't yet know who shot videos of officer Michael T. Slager shooting Walter Scott eight times as he runs away but "unknown cameramen and women lived out high democratic ideals: They watched a cop kill someone, shoot recklessly at someone running away, and they kept the camera trained on the cop," writes Robinson. "They were there, on an ordinary, hazy Saturday morning, and they chose to be courageous. They bore witness, at unknown risk to themselves."

"We have been talking about police brutality for years. And now, because of videos, we are seeing just how systemic and widespread it is," tweeted Deray McKesson, an activist in Ferguson, after the videos emerged Tuesday night. "The videos over the past seven months have empowered us to ask deeper questions, to push more forcefully in confronting the system." The process of ascertaining the truth of the world has to start somewhere. A video is one more assertion made about what is real concludes Robinson. "Today, through some unknown hero's stubborn internal choice to witness instead of flee, to press record and to watch something terrible unfold, we have one more such assertion of reality."

Comments

And It's Illegal to Videotape Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that it's illegal now to videotape officers -- if they had seen this person recording they would have arrested him for obstruction of justice and destroyed/lost the phone and/or footage.

Re:This cop is clearly wrong

[XxtraLarGe]

I am not sure how the influence of the NRA can be held responsible for the police "needing" military gear, considering that police began using military gear as laws restricting gun ownership increased.

Stop it, you're ruining the popular leftist anti-gun narrative! The NRA has to be the responsible boogeyman whenever someone is killed with a gun.

It is worth noting that when it was legal for the common citizen to own automatic firearms, the police were perfectly satisfied to be armed with civilian weaponry.

Three words: War on Drugs. Sure, there were SWAT teams before that, but they were fairly limited to large cities like Los Angeles, and were originally used in response to bank robberies, etc. Ever since the War on Drugs began, it has become pervasive.

Re:Systemic and widespread?

[meta-monkey]

I am no law enforcement cheerleader, but I think you're right in that some of the anger at police officers is misplaced. A cop uses a valid technique, but people are angry at the law that was being enforced.

For instance, cop is in hot pursuit of a murder and sees him kick in the door to a home of a third party unrelated to the case. The cop is fully authorized to enter the home in pursuit of the suspect. In fact we as a society would demand that he do so. There's a murderer in there who poses a grave danger to the occupants of the home. Far more than probable cause exists to enter the home and search for the subject, and to wait for a judge to approve a warrant would be dangerous and stupid. So the cop enters the home and apprehends the murderer. Hero cop!

But then it turns out that, by sheer coincidence, inside the home into which the murderer fled, the homeowner was engaged in the violent rape of a child, in plain view of anyone entering the home. The cop rushes into the home in pursuit of the murderer to presumably save the occupants of the home, and it turns out it's a two for one. In addition to apprehending the murderer, the officer saves the child and arrests the rapist.

And at no point in that story were the homeowner's (rapist's) rights violated. His home was not searched without probable cause. The criminal activity in which he was caught was in plain view of the officer who had complete justification in being where and when he was. The rapist has no right to privacy for illegal activity. It's the revelation of information that has nothing to do with illegal activity during a search for illegal activity that is the impetus for our Constitutional protections against unreasonable searches. And the cop did not go rifling through drawers or searching the basement after entering the home in order to find the homeowner's illegal activity. It was in plain view.

The rapist is convicted and rots in jail where he can't harm any more children. Double hero cop!

No one would be upset about this story. The fact is that everything the cop did was on the up and up and in accordance with principles of US justice. Nobody's going to go hand-wring for the homeowner. "Asshole cop! Police state! Barging into somebody's home like that! He should be free to go, the cops should apologize and give him back his rape victim!" The fact is he was caught in a completely legitimate way. It was just an unlucky day for him, and a lucky day for the child (ish, kid still got raped) and society. Justice is served.

But if you change the crime of the homeowner from "child rape" to "had a bunch of weed out on the table in plain view of anyone entering the home" the Internet will explode with rage about the horrible violation of the poor innocent cannabis enthusiast who was just minding his own business, eating some funyuns, not bothering nobody. "Asshole cop! Police state! Barging in to somebody's home like that! He should be free to go, the cops should apologize and give him back his weed!"

But the fact is, there's nothing wrong with busting people for illegal activity in plain view of police who have legitimate reasons to be where they are. The fact the pot smoker is in jail is not a problem with the US justice system. We do not want to forbid cops from entering homes in hot pursuit of murderers. We do not want to forbid collection of evidence that's in plain sight of officers in places they are by legitimate means.

And the cop is just doing his job. His job is to enforce the laws the elected representatives of the people have passed, presumably at their request. You might not think smoking weed in your own home should be illegal. But that's not for the cop to decide. You don't want cops (systematically) deciding what laws they will and will not enforce. This is different from "good judgment," which is situational. I'm talking "I'm a cop and I don't think weed should be illegal so I'm not busting anybody for it." That IS a police state. When you need a law you like enforced, do you w