What To Say When the Police Tell You To Stop Filming Them

HughPickens.com writes: Robinson Meyer writes in The Atlantic that first of all, police shouldn't ask. "As a basic principle, we can't tell you to stop recording," says Delroy Burton, a 21-year veteran of DC's police force. "If you're standing across the street videotaping, and I'm in a public place, carrying out my public functions, [then] I'm subject to recording, and there's nothing legally the police officer can do to stop you from recording." What you don't have a right to do is interfere with an officer's work. ""Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations," according to Jay Stanley who wrote the ACLU's "Know Your Rights" guide for photographers, which lays out in plain language the legal protections that are assured people filming in public. Police officers may not confiscate or demand to view your digital photographs or video without a warrant and police may not delete your photographs or video under any circumstances.

What if an officer says you are interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations and you disagree with the officer? "If it were me, and an officer came up and said, 'You need to turn that camera off, sir,' I would strive to calmly and politely yet firmly remind the officer of my rights while continuing to record the interaction, and not turn the camera off," says Stanley. The ACLU guide also supplies the one question those stopped for taking photos or video may ask an officer: "The right question to ask is, 'am I free to go?' If the officer says no, then you are being detained, something that under the law an officer cannot do without reasonable suspicion that you have or are about to commit a crime or are in the process of doing so. Until you ask to leave, your being stopped is considered voluntary under the law and is legal."

Comments

One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it were me, and an officer came up and said, 'You need to turn that camera off, sir,' I would strive to calmly and politely yet firmly remind the officer of my rights while continuing to record the interaction, and not turn the camera off," says Stanley.

And if it were me, I would think twice or thrice about getting on the bad side of the local police department, being arrested (and who knows what else). Of course I would be vindicated, but that can occur after I spent some time in jail, got charged with some bullshit, spent who knows how much money on laywers and called ACLU for help...

I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beaten, and if one is lucky, the police is charged afterwards. Sometimes not even that. Basically, most of us cannot afford to stand on principle. Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.

Re:One small problem

[danbert8]

Right, the biggest risk to you to keep filming is that you spend a few nights in jail, hurt your career, hire a lawyer, spend a few days over the next who knows how many months or years in court, etc.

Their biggest risk if they deny you your rights is some paid administrative leave while the department investigates.

Re:One small problem

[silas_moeckel]

Don't forget that after the camera is off and nobody is watching you will resist arrest, get physically assaulted and tazed because you know you resisted. In the end resisting arrest will stick and see it was all justified.

Cops need body camera's and a hard and fast law that anything not captured on body camera the cop can not testify to. Were past the time where we need to or should trust the cops word as to visible facts, technology is capable of giving an impartial viewpoint.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were me, well I'm black, so I'd stop filming and pray the fucker doesn't shoot me and take my camera.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's understandable that there are times a person might want to to willfully relinquish or not stand up for their rights. This article is obviously not about you, then. So to you, and others like you, I ask that you please do STFU and allow those of us who DO wish to stand up for our rights to discuss the issues of standing up for our rights.

Re:One small problem

[knightghost]

Ya'll watch too much TV. If you want to see what a police officer does then ask to do a full shift ride-along. It's rather eye opening.

The negative focus on officers is 99.9% wrong. If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.

Yes, that is how tyranny flourishes. Keep everybody fed just well enough...

Re:One small problem

[rmdingler]

You're both not wrong, of course...

But. In exchange for the lack of personal inconvenience your compliance ensures, your rights die just a tiny bit.

I understand the wisdom of not getting cross with the leos, and admit there are immediate and everlasting benefits, but know there are consequences as well.

Re:One small problem

[Lumpy]

It has always been a fact that cops are the biggest liars, It's been that way for over 3000 years.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.

That is the quote of the day, but nobody's picking it up.

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all right. We're past the time of trusting cops so let's all do NOTHING to change it and watch it get worse and then wonder why we have no rights even though we never stand up for them.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.

That's one of the many reasons why most of the people who are out there filming the cops and protesting are teenagers and college kids. They don't have anything to lose. It's easy enough for them to have legal problems and do some jail time. They just call mommy and daddy to bail them out and then go back to tell their sociology class about the experience. They don't have to worry about losing their jobs, not being able to pay their bills because of the legal expenses, etc. They don't have kids who need to get to school the next morning, a big meeting at work the next day, etc.

It's easy to be a hero when you have nothing to lose. But for the rest of us, getting busted over the head and serving some jail time would be the LEAST of our punishments for talking back to a cop.

Re:One small problem

[cayenne8]

I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beate...n

Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

But one thing to do for sure...don't act like an ass, if you are (and you should) exerting your rights, do so in a calm, non-threatening fashion. Don't shout. Don't curse, use clear concise language. The "Am I free to go" statement is a very simple and very powerful thing to say and get an answer to.

If you don't give them a reason to beat you...99.999% of the time they are not. Yes, there are bad apples, but I don't think that is the majority. If you do not fight, resist, run or act an ass, chances are you are not going to be arrested or hurt. And if they DO arrest you....just face it, you are going to jail...don't resist, doing so give the cops a LOT of leeway in how they manhandle you.

Don't give them a reason to do abuse you, but also, you should always know and assert your rights.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an awful lot of rioting over just 0.1% and it's not as if it's the same few cops getting caught over and over.

Re:One small problem

[CanHasDIY]

Maybe because laws aren't the issue, police department policies (that we don't get to vote for) are. For example, the policy of refusing to hire people who score "too high" on aptitude tests, as evidenced by Jordan v New London. That's just the part of the iceburg we can see.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.

That is the quote of the day, but nobody's picking it up.

The proper fix to a broken user interface rarely entails more options.

Re:One small problem

[nedlohs]

The biggest risk to you is that you die. Less likely than being arrested and having to spend money on a lawyer and so on, but piss off the wrong cop in America and ending up shot, choked to death, beaten to death, etc isn't an unexpected outcome.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

It's not the interface, it's operator error. The keyboard has more than two keys.

Re:One small problem

[silas_moeckel]

Thats fine that 1 in 1000 officer is still significant enough to justify correcting the system. We have learned time and time again authority must be tempered with oversight. We now have the technical means to reasonably oversee all interactions the police have on duty.

It has been shown police do not follow the law hell even use ignorance of the law as an excuse. Real substantial change in policing will take decades, with unions and politicians scratching and clawing to keep the status quo.

I grew up with cops, I've seen a lot more than a one night ride along and I pretty much don't watch TV. Having been around cops I will tell you the number is a lot higher than 1 in 1000, I would want to loose at least 1 in 10 cops and suspect that number would go far higher. I can say cops policing their own community tend to be far better than those that live elsewhere. I can also say police chiefs feel/are handcuffed by the unions and lawyers in getting rid of these bad cops.

Re:One small problem

[Mr D from 63]

This is certainly useful advice, other than the fact that it is highly unlikely it will ever be needed. It is quite rare that a by-standing citizen who is exercising common sense finds himself/herself at odds with the police, even if filming. Yes, there are instances and there always will be, but as most of us know you will much (much x 10) more likely be put in a situation where you require and get the assistance of a police officer.

Given this advice or not, I think the wise person will make the right choice at the time, and the dim-wit might not. If you think you may be at odds, only you can judge the risk vs the benefit for the particular situation at hand. Its not always (and hardly ever) a beat-down or shooting situation.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

We are supposed to use the law to control police department policies.

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What a pathetic response

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

Let's be honest here: the biggest risk to you is that they beat you to death and then concoct some bullshit to justify it after-the-fact.

That said, if you let that scare you so that you "COMPLY", then you've let the totalitarians win.

Re: One small problem

[mordjah]

-1 coward

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

For US President, sure. For state and local elections, there often actually isn't a third-party candidate at all (at least in my area).

Re:One small problem

[Gr8Apes]

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

And this is a clear violation of department policy and law everywhere I'm familiar with and should result in the immediate charging of the officer(s) involved. A person that runs away is not an imminent threat, and therefore there is no justification for use of force. The problem is that officers are often not charged, even with video evidence, far too often. Honestly, officers should shoot second, unless going into a known shooting situation, and should never shoot to kill unless actually attacked. Furthermore, when there are options, such as a guy standing alone outside his house waving a knife, stay far enough away until enough backup comes to assist in taking the guy down. There's plenty of non-lethal means to incapacitate such a person. The preponderance of evidence of late is that too many cops are gun-happy or just aggressive thugs and continue their ways even after multiple incidents.

Re:One small problem

[Holi]

And how exactly is that supposed to work when the police who break the law are not punished?

Re:One small problem

[Holi]

Or even a 2nd party.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more important, if you don't like the options of the available politicians, run for office yourself.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the biggest risk be having the camera disappear and you being shot and killed to make sure the video you were recording never goes anywhere?

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I suspect that a cop that will shoot someone in the back will not hesitate to do the same to the person with the camera and make up a plausible story to justify each of the shootings. When the survivor writes his account of events, "bystander with a camera" will become "accomplish attacking officer from behind. When weapons are planted to justify the shootings, don't be surprised if officers have more than one drop weapon available.

How common are cameras that can post to youtube or the cloud in real time as a disincentive for such behavior? A video from a device which went dark and ceased to exist a few minutes after its last recording was made would be pretty damning evidence.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why everybody should film.

In my country, the police has 50+ cameras pointed at our demonstrations, and we have 500+ cameras pointed at them.

We then both use our video material in court. Stalemate. Sort of back to square one?

Re:One small problem

[hattig]

This is why your phone needs to be set to upload videos to the cloud at all times. You cannot let the pigs get the phone and conveniently lose it or break it to eradicate the evidence. Also make sure someone else has at least read access to the upload folder.

Surely the best move is to ensure that you are recording at the best quality the device can do, and the closest optical zoom the device can achieve, whilst staying out of the situation.

Re:One small problem

[GroeFaZ]

Is it really noteworthy when someone does what they are trained and paid to do? What they even have sworn an oath to do? Neither as an affected individual nor as a concerned citizen am I indifferent to what happens in those .1% of the time, if those .1% can mean someone loses money, their freedom, their health, or their life without justification. Police, whether you or anyone likes it, must be held to a higher standard, because with great power comes great responsibility.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly correct. They do these things because they usually get away with it and the repurcussions on THEIR victim is extreme. I believe it is because of activities like this that more and more people are retaliating against police and will soon be retaliating against judges and politicians.

I suggest the stealth approach. Always keep a safe unobstructing distance, and do not let them know you are recording. They play their games, we play ours.

Re:One small problem

[Mr D from 63]

He who sees the world through the lens of race........

Re:One small problem

[postglock]

Right, the biggest risk to you to keep filming is that you spend a few nights in jail, hurt your career, hire a lawyer, spend a few days over the next who knows how many months or years in court, etc.

Obviously, you are white.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't go to protests. Mainly because I don't see them as very effective. The second reason is because I am not one of those that will set on a sidewalk and just let somebody (including a cop) push me around or pepper spray me or anything like that.

I don't start conflicts, but if one is started, I fight to win, and I use a constantly increasing levels of force to make sure I win. Situation dominance is my way. and yes, this applies to police. I avoid situations that could cause a conflict because I care about the well being of police and other people, but in the event they were to maliciously come after me... then THEY are the criminal.

Re:One small problem

[Applehu Akbar]

The primary responsibility a photographer or any other bystander has is not to invade a crime scene, which is the perimeter delimited by yellow police tape. Just stepping into this area and possibly walking on shell casings, blood spatters, etc. could blow the entire court case against a perpetrator. If you arrive before this was set up, stay out of the area where this perimeter might expected to be set up - in other words, don't get in their faces while they're working.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the biggest risk to you to keep filming is that you spend a few nights in jail

Wrong. Watch the evening news, the police routinely get away with murder in this country.

Re: One small problem

[kenh]

Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

Not in Ferguson, MO - he was fighting and charging at the officer.

Not in NYC - he was resisting arrest.

But that is not to say it doesn't happen, but it isn't as common as you make it seem.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the end resisting arrest will stick"

A few years ago you would probably have been right, but increasingly I think even the courts are coming around to the realization that the "resisting arrest" charge (along with several others) is often just a blanket "he annoyed/questioned me" charge. And the bad apples in the police are even realizing that its probably not going to actually result in a conviction. Don't get me wrong you will spend a night in jail if you come across the wrong officer, they could very well destroy your property or rough you up a little, but they're probably not going to push very hard for a trial especially in the light of the events of the last few years. Freedom is a muscle, you have to exercise it. Yes it won't be pleasant but if enough people stand up eventually the public/courts/representatives will realize the extent of the issue and begin pushing for fixes. The only other options are allowing the country to descend into a police state or armed rebellion, and I can't say that either is a desirable outcome.

Re:One small problem

[kilfarsnar]

When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.

If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.

So, if an officer tells me to cluck like a chicken, I must do it or face arrest? I'm not sure that's right.

Please don't bring that weak-ass "I have rights" crap to court because even your lawyer will want to smack you. The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights.

I'm not sure that's right either.

Re:One small problem

[j-turkey]

Good post, I agree with every point that you've made. However, I'd like to add one thing:

When dealing with the police, avoid being black. This will greatly reduce your chances of being beaten, unlawfully being detained/arrested/searched, or otherwise having your other civil rights violated.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bring a suit against the officer then, provided the suit is allowed to go forward by the judge, you must prove the officer either A) endangered you or others, or B) deprived you of a basic right of assembly, a right that requires you to obey the rule of the law and the officers of the law-courts.

Please don't bring that weak-ass "I have rights" crap to court because even your lawyer will want to smack you. The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights.

You should learn to rtfa, you know the one where you can actually see where they filed suit and one against officers for this shit.

Re:One small problem

[houghi]

I realy love it that people say "just vote differently" when there is no real choice.

And yes, if there is so much smoke, you better start looking for the fire. Yes, it IS that bad. What I see on shows like COPS is obviously not the average. However of those almost each and everyone of the incidents I see would mean that somebody will be fired because of abuse of power.

Just look at how the 4 Swedish police officers in New York handled the situation. They were unarmed and were calmly holding the subjects. If this were the NYPD, do you think they would have handled it the same way, or would they have used much, much more force?

And if you need politicians to change behaviour of humans, you know that things are wrong.

Re:One small problem

[ultranova]

Right, the biggest risk to you to keep filming is that you spend a few nights in jail, hurt your career, hire a lawyer, spend a few days over the next who knows how many months or years in court, etc.

No. What they'll do is take the camera. What are you going to do about it? It's your word against theirs in court, and they're the cop. And this is assuming they're a decent cop, rather than a corrupt one who'll simply shoot you and say they mistook your camera for a gun.

Re:One small problem

[tepples]

Many of the people most affected by these crooked law enforcement policies are ineligible to be elected to public office on account of age.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

and should never shoot to kill unless actually attacked.

I agree with everything you said except this, this is a nonsensical statement. Shooting IS shooting to kill, there's no other expected outcome. It's lethal force and should always be treated as such. Yes the technical phrase they use is "shoot to stop" or "shoot to disable" but in actuality it is ALWAYS shoot to kill and should ALWAYS be treated as such. If killing the target is not an acceptable outcome then shooting should not be used period.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if you look at deaths in police custody there are some pretty obvious similarities. Running/resisting arrest (Garner, Gray, David Kassick), being drunk and being on drugs (Brown, Dillon Taylor, Gilbert Collar) make up a very large portion of them. Also openly carrying a fake gun or pellet gun in public and having officers responding to a 911 call about a real gun has also gone badly.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The negative focus on officers is 99.9% wrong.

You are horribly naive if you believe this. If this were true then the police and police unions themselves would be demanding body cams to protect themselves against false accusations, instead of resisting impartial monitoring for the public good. Changing politicians won't change anything, there are already laws on the books making it illegal for the police to just randomly gun people down because they are a different skin color. It still happens on a regular basis because there are no consequences for them when they get caught. Usually because there is no evidence other than the officer's word. The big problem with body cams is implementation, there are scumbags that try to grab police footage under FOIA just to embarrass people having a bad day. Video footage should not be considered public domain but should be readily available to those who can convince a judge (court order) that they are involved in the case or otherwise need to know.

A body cam would supply impartial evidence of an encounter. After all, what have they got to hide?

Re:One small problem

[operagost]

It's fun to pretend that we have a police racism issue, but it's really a general police brutality issue. It's just that the most vocal communities are focused on people who look like them. So far, none of the black men who were recently abused by the police were trying to film them, so I think your allegation is off topic.

Re:One small problem

[rubycodez]

Er no, here in Chicago for example the biggest risk is the cops beat you or tase you, maybe rape you if they find you sexually atractive....

Re:One small problem

[rubycodez]

sometimes that happens but I mostly just see cops justifiably shooting violent dangerous thugs

Re:One small problem

[Scutter]

Yes, there are bad apples, but I don't think that is the majority.
I think you misunderstand the "bad apple" metaphor. It's important to note the entire phrase or it makes zero sense: One bad apple spoils the bushel. What this means is that if you allow a minor corruption to go unchecked, it will eventually corrupt all of the apples in the bushel. One bad cop allowed to stay on the force will eventually corrupt all of the cops in the department. As soon as someone covers for him, that person is complicit. The bad apples need to be removed IMMEDIATELY before they destroy the department (or the public's trust in that department).

Little corruption begets big corruption until eventually the cops can't tell right from wrong. It starts with fixing a ticket for a friend and the next thing you know, they're planting evidence and falsifying reports "for the greater good".

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll agree that the media really highlights the worst of these events, and these events are often outliers within reason, but there is a point here to be made. Also, it is about laws, as much as it's about behavior. Tax payers funding multi-million dollar payouts when officers violate a citizens rights? Can't touch the officer internally, or oust out of the department entirely, because of police unions, and the 'code of blue' ? Not sure laws will necessarily fix that.

Yes, laws need changing, but you aren't going to get many, or possibly any, politicians who can campaign on such a thing. All things being equal, they'll be harrassed just for bringing it into the publics eye. When even speaking about police means you become a target of police, we've gone way past the point where electing the politians will fix this!

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't start conflicts, but if one is started, I fight to win, and I use a constantly increasing levels of force to make sure I win. Situation dominance is my way. and yes, this applies to police.

Dream on. When a police starts a fight with you, it will be escalated beyond your level of force (i.e. you would be shot) so fast that you stand no chance.

Re:One small problem

[khchung]

This is why your phone needs to be set to upload videos to the cloud at all times.

Good luck making your would-be murderer understood that before you got killed.

Re:One small problem

[TheGratefulNet]

Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

wait, are we talking cops here, or are we talkin' rhinoceros'es[es?]

I know at least one of those things does not like it. maybe its both? I guess it could be both. so, when you see a wild animal OR a scared cop, don't run, don't charge them. maybe put your hands up right high so that they think you are taller than you are. I've heard that helps, sometimes.

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Those teenagers and college kids will have to look for a job, sooner or later. They may have unpleasant surprises.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

But one thing to do for sure...don't act like an ass, if you are (and you should) exerting your rights, do so in a calm, non-threatening fashion. Don't shout. Don't curse, use clear concise language. The "Am I free to go" statement is a very simple and very powerful thing to say and get an answer to.

But if you aren't running away, then you are "resisting arrest".
If you don't obey their instructions, including dropping down on your face within 1 second, then to them you are already "acting like an ass" AND "resisting arrest".
If you don't obey their every whim, then you are "threatening" them.
If you don't speak loudly then they can't hear you answer them, thus you are "not complying", but if you speak loud enough for them to hear then you are shouting and thus "threatening".
If you don't curse and use clear and concise language, then you are mocking them with you obviously superior vocabulary, thus obviously "not complying" and "threatening"
You ask the powerful question "Am I free to go" and you get an equally powerful fist to your face, and get charged for assaulting the police and resisting arrest.

What you said is good on paper, but good luck with using it against people who not even trying to be reasonable and backed with lethal force they are willing to use on a whim.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

is no justification for use of force

You missed deadly. Some force is needed to stop the suspect fro running.

and should never shoot to kill unless actually attacked

I hope you don't have a gun, people should never shoot unless a) they have a weapon that is not deadly or b) they intend to kill. Shooting a normal gun with normal ammo should always be considered shoot to kill.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In some places cops DID get body cameras. And the silly things malfunction at the worst of times. Particularly at times when the footage is required as evidence. (We've had articles on slashdot about this in the past.)

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights.

This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. A group has no rights, period. Individuals have rights, those rights extend to where there are groups (see First Amendment). The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.

I have rights, society doesn't. Society is built to protect the rights of the individuals. This is the part of "Liberty and Justice for all". The defense of liberty is the primary function of government. Justice is how that liberty is protected.

Anything less, is simply a step towards tyranny.

Re:One small problem

[jythie]

That is where 'politely and calmly' comes in. While it is not a panacea, it does improve one's chances. Calm disagreement where one does not give the impression of directly challenging the officer's authority can sometimes stop a situation from escalating and gives the officer a greater opportunity to save face. If the officer feels challenged or concerned about an appearance of authority being questioned in an active situation, it give them fewer face saving options, which can lead to escalation pretty quickly.

Re:One small problem

[jythie]

Yeah, one does not generally 'win' a conflict with police unless one has an entire paramilitary force (like a drug cartel) backing them up.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so melodramatic. The ones who died at the hands of the cops are those with multiple infractions and long rap sheets who physically resisted arrest. Or waved around what appeared to be a weapon and refused to drop it when ordered to do so.

Or were looking at a BB gun in a store and a cop just kills him without giving any orders.

Don't resist arrest, don't get into a wrestling match with a cop; especially don't make a grab for his gun, and you will have nearly zero chance of getting killed or abused.

Also don't try to buy a BB gun. And don't drive with your friends after dark into an area where cops are looking for a suspect. Good luck guessing where that is.

That all said, we all certainly have a right to record anything in public, and no cop should tell you otherwise. Hell, it might even be to their benefit sometimes, as a lot of videos don't supply full context or show the events leading up to an arrest.

Did you see that video recently of the cop who took a woman's phone and smashed it because she wouldn't stop recording? We only saw that because he didn't see the second person with a phone recording her.

Re:One small problem

[cayenne8]

When dealing with the police, avoid being black. This will greatly reduce your chances of being beaten, unlawfully being detained/arrested/searched, or otherwise having your other civil rights violated.

Well, I"m of the thought that there is a little preponderance to DWB, etc...but I don't think it is JUST being dark skinned that is the majority of the problem.

It seems to show that it is mostly black, in that an disproportionate amount of crime is perpetrated by black people, and many of the worst neighborhoods, poor and crime ridden are majority black / minority occupied, so this skews the stats a bit.

And, from many of the video's I've seen (and some experience viewed in person while living in New Orleans), many black people interact and react to the cops in a hostile manner right off to bat.

If a cop comes up to them, quite often you see the citizen immediately get confrontational, start cursing, etc.....that just escalates a tense situation on both sides.

I would posit that so many of these arrests and all would sharply drop if many of these folks interacted with the cops as I have when dealing with them. I stand very still, if asked to move or comply with doing something, I do it. I am quiet, I don't really talk to the officer unless specifically answering a direct question (if it is something not violating my rights). I address the officer as "Yes/No Sir/Ma'am" when responding to them. I am quiet, polite and as non-confrontational as I can possibly be.

Before I move to do anything (get something out of pocket or out of car, etc...I ask the officer if it is ok to do xyz....and wait till they say yes, and Imove very slowly, etc.

In other words, I give the officer(s) as little reason as possible to escalate things.

But when I see folks...no matter the color, get all excited and belligerent when dealing with the officer, I'm just think in my head. "well...they're going to jail".

I mean seriously, so this many folks need to go to a class how to deal with police, and talk and deal with people in general? This should be a no brainer....

The LAST person whose face I want to get into, is an police officer with a gun.

It is amazing what a "Yes Sir" and being calm will do for you....why is this so far for folks to figure out?

Re:One small problem

[operagost]

It's funny how that keeps being overlooked by the media. Most medium and large cities are controlled by one political party, and have been for some time. Strangely, this is usually the political party that constantly accuses the other one of trying to impose a racist police state.

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

What part of Baltimore is racist? The black run Police Dept? The Black run City Council? The Black Representation in the state? Three of the six police charged in Grey's death?

The problem isn't racism. The problem is that there is a whole class of people excusing bad behavior because of skin color alone, except when it really matters, and sometimes when it isn't even involved (like you here).

Is there racism? Sure, when white liberal guilt makes people say blacks "need our help", that is Racism. Blacks don't need white people's help. They need to help themselves, rather than leaning on the perpetual crutch of "white people hate us". If that is true, then don't depend on white people at all, and excel on your own.

It is Racist make excuses for repeated failures.

Re:One small problem

[Jeremi]

Don't resist arrest, don't get into a wrestling match with a cop; especially don't make a grab for his gun, and you will have nearly zero chance of getting killed or abused.

That may well be true, for white people. Black people (and black men in particular) "fit the profile", regardless of their previous history or present actions, and so their appearance alone is sometimes sufficient to make a police officer feel threatened and cause him to shoot and/or beat them.

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

I wish I had mod points today.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on. When a police starts a fight with you, it will be escalated beyond your level of force (i.e. you would be shot) so fast that you stand no chance.

Depends entirely on your level of training. I wouldn't stand a chance, but...

Was sitting in a boss's office one morning when he got a call from a worker saying he couldn't come him because he was in jail. Gist of call was: guy was working on his car in the street, cop stopped and started harassing him, cop got sufficiently belligerent that he started to fear for his safety, so he disarmed the cop and held him until others came and arrested him. No shit. That was his story. Didn't like cop's attitude, so disarmed him and detained him. You just never know when that black man in a crappy neighborhood working on his crappy car is ex special forces ;-)

But the boss's side of the conversation was priceless. "Wait. What? Did I hear that right? You disarmed him???"

Re:One small problem

[sribe]

Don't be so melodramatic. The ones who died at the hands of the cops are those with multiple infractions and long rap sheets who physically resisted arrest. Or waved around what appeared to be a weapon and refused to drop it when ordered to do so.

Bullshit. Cases this year completely contradict that.

Re:One small problem

[Jeremi]

No. What they'll do is take the camera. What are you going to do about it? It's your word against theirs in court, and they're the cop.

Ideally you'd bring to court the camera footage -- either the camera footage that your camera was transmitting to a separate storage device the cop wasn't aware of, or the camera footage from a second camera that the cop wasn't aware of.

Not commonly done these days, but there's no technical reason why it couldn't be done.

(btw I'm not sure I'd consider a cop who perjures himself under oath to be a "decent cop" -- it sounds like standards for decency aren't what they used to be!)

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Or even a 2nd party.

That is true in some of the so called red or blue states. It is very difficult to get elected in those areas as the opposing party's candidate... or close to impossible. However, back to the original topic. It is as if you have to have a chain of people videoing so as to avoid the mistreatment of any one party doing the videoing.

There is a Dr. Seuss book that talks about that too, bee watcher watchers in hawth hawtchen or something. Although, I think that is over simplifying a potential argument against video takers.

Re:One small problem

[Spamalope]

Ya'll watch too much TV. If you want to see what a police officer does then ask to do a full shift ride-along. It's rather eye opening.

Except for the times when there was a second photographer the officer didn't spot. Then we get video of the officer disabling the camera and assaulting the first photographer. One case in Florida, we had video of the officer pushing the photographer backwards down stairs. (I've had a serious neck injury - that video gave me chills - if the photographer hadn't been slowed by the railing he could have been killed or paralyzed) Go photograph a police station from a public sidewalk for a few hours. When you can reliably do that entirely legal action without an armed confrontation get back to me and we'll talk about it again.

After witnessing NOLA police assault a photographer before assaulting and arresting a nearby group of people I'm not accepting the sort of unfounded assertion you've made. (I later found out the group was planning a small 'unauthorized' parade down a sidewalk outside of the crowded parts of Bourbon st. Since they stayed on the sidewalk, and traveled roughly single file they didn't block traffic or impede pedestrians making what they did entirely legal. The officers put a stop to it anyway, and made sure there wouldn't be a record of what they did. I was passing by and got caught in the cordon preventing anyone from leaving while ordering them to disperse. I managed to lean against a light pole and stay as the cordon passed me.)

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the other 999 cops that follow a mafioso "blue silence", refusing to report or testify against a fellow officer that broke the law.

Re:One small problem

[kraut]

The key thing to remember in interaction with cops: Don't be black.

Re:One small problem

[luis_a_espinal]

I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beate...n

Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

But one thing to do for sure...don't act like an ass, if you are (and you should) exerting your rights, do so in a calm, non-threatening fashion. Don't shout. Don't curse, use clear concise language. The "Am I free to go" statement is a very simple and very powerful thing to say and get an answer to.

If you don't give them a reason to beat you...99.999% of the time they are not..

Tell that to poor Mr. Sureshbhai Patel: http://www.al.com/news/index.s...

Re:One small problem

[Jeremi]

He who sees the world through the lens of race........

... may well be a police officer.

Re:One small problem

[sribe]

The negative focus on officers is 99.9% wrong.

The focus is on the problems with rogue officers, and that is exactly as it should be. The focus is on what needs to be changed, not on what is already fine as is.

Re:One small problem

[mOzone]

yes out of 650,000+ black stops a year handfull are issues and mostly in the hood

fear of a cop doing you wrong is just a "cop-out"

seeing how its what 85% more likely for a cop to be shot by a black person then any other race
     

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, try this. Go get a gun and walk into a police station.

Good luck.

Re:One small problem

[CimmerianX]

Thing is, a cop can take you in for any reason for something like 24-48 hours even without a formal charge. You will be taken in handcuffs, you will be fingerprinted, you will get a DNA swab taken, you will be strip-searched, you will be forced to spread your cheeks and cough in front of a cop... then they let you go after 24 hours with no charges and a have a nice day. All that just because you pissed off a cop and there's no legal recourse.

You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride. All the humiliation is just a bonus for them to 'get ya' because you didn't bow down in a humble enough fashion.

Re:One small problem

[mOzone]

if you run from a cop they will have prob cause to stop and hold you

if you assault a cop and run ..how does he know your not retreating to get a weapon or running him into a area to attack again

he will see you as a threat to the area ..how does he know your not gonna run down hit a old lady in head and take her car at a stop light

so Muh rights .. they cant do that ...only thing guy did was grab cops gun wtf why is he shot
officer will look at others around and safety of neighborhood and drop the person into a grave

Re:One small problem

[mOzone]

if you run from a cop they will have prob cause to stop and hold you

if you assault a cop and run ..how does he know your not retreating to get a weapon or running him into a area to attack again

he will see you as a threat to the area ..how does he know your not gonna run down hit a old lady in head and take her car at a stop light

so Muh rights .. they cant do that ...only thing guy did was grab cops gun wtf why is he shot
officer will look at others around and safety of neighborhood and drop the person into a grave

so yea how about we add these folks to the darwin awards

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you will be instructed to turn off your camera is to obfuscate what may soon occur. If you comply, think of this : All it takes for evil to flourish in the world is for good men (and women) to do nothing.
When you comply, you are doing nothing. We are all taught to do what we are told. The difference between you and a sheep is your brain.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What an epic idiot you are...

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

...should never shoot to kill ...

Wrong, they should always shoot to kill, and the only reason they should ever shoot is when they mean to kill. They are not deer hunters or sushi chefs, they do not have time to try to aim for the legs, shoot the gun out of the perps hands, or fire warning shots (and kill innocents). They need to take down the immediate threat as soon as possible.

There's plenty of non-lethal means to incapacitate such a person

If the person is not threatening the life of the officer or anyone around him, then yes non-lethal force can be used to incapacitate. However, anytime the suspect is holding a weapon, there are too many variables involved to risk non-lethal force. Which generally only consists of a taser, bean bag shotguns can be used to resolve non-hostage situations effectively. The engagement range for a knife attack is 20 meters, the effective range on a tazer is 10 meters. If you hope to use non-lethal force on man lunging at you with a knife or a screw driver, go for it, it's your funeral if you tase him and he still closes the distance and stabs you in the throat.

At the end of the day, it is about the police officer coming home safe.

Re:One small problem

[IronChef]

I have done several ride-alongs and it WAS really eye-opening.

I had a cop tell me about the time they were in a gunfight with someone, firing into a building. Another cop rolled up, the cop jumped out of his car, and he started firing in the general direction of his colleagues. "Guys, what are we shooting at?" he said. The story was recounted as being hilarious, not horrifying.

I had a cop tell me about the way that when he found an asshole, he offered him a beating instead of an arrest. "You'd be surprised how many people take the beatin'," he told me.

I had a cop tell me about the time he visited a house for some kind of domestic complaint, and ended up banging the mom, and shortly after, banged the daughter. "You get more ass than a toilet seat in this job," he told me. "It can destroy some men."

Based on my experience doing ride-alongs I decided not to pursue a career as a cop.

Re:One small problem

[zentigger]

Anything less, is simply a step towards tyranny.

I think that is the point the OP was making. The US government (and it's various arms, subsidiaries, et al.) have made so many of those steps they have become tyrannical.

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

The ones who died at the hands of the cops are those with multiple infractions and long rap sheets who physically resisted arrest.

THAT IS A LIE, AND YOU ARE A LIAR. Counterexample: Tamir Rice.

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

It depends upon where you are. In Wyoming, it isn't a big deal. In San Fransisco or Chicago, it is.

I personally would feel much safer in Wyoming than in Chicago. But that is me.

Re:One small problem

[butchersong]

Well that would definitely be a bad thing. I'm curious though if that is so common why all the recent protests have centered around career criminals that resisted arrest.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.

When an officer of the law gives you a lawful order, you must comply. Officers of the law are also supposed to follow the law - especially in places where it is explicitly legal to film police (most places now). See color of law

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

So, you're saying black people need white people's help, because they can't help themselves? You are saying that black people can't excel without white people helping them. Do you realize how fucking racist that is?

Re: One small problem

[jd2112]

In some areas (particularly rual areas in states where they have open or concealed carry) they won't give it a second thought.

Re:One small problem

[ceoyoyo]

Mostly that's true, although you should also be careful of being potentially black.

I'm clearly not black, yet I apparently share a name with some kind of international badass who is. I had a border guard ask me if I was pulling a Michael Jackson on them once, after a dozen of them hauled me off at gunpoint. I'd hate to think what might have happened had I actually been black.

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

It's fun to pretend that we have a police racism issue, but it's really a general police brutality issue.

Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years.

As a white person myself, I'd like to believe it's not a racism issue... but I can't because the evidence is overwhelming.

(That is not to say it isn't probably also a general police brutality issue, but the vast majority of that police brutality appears to be directed towards minorities and that isn't a coincidence.)

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"white liberal guilt" explains all of the racism in this country?

You wingers are incredibly adept at playing the victim in every single situation.

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

What part of Baltimore is racist? The black run Police Dept? The Black run City Council? The Black Representation in the state? Three of the six police charged in Grey's death?

Yes. It's obviously possible to be biased against your own group. The only question you need to ask is "would these [black] people have acted the same way if Freddy Gray were white?" If the answer is "no" -- and IMO, it almost certainly is -- then there is racism at work.

Re:One small problem

[eth1]

Don't forget that after the camera is off and nobody is watching you will resist arrest, get physically assaulted and tazed because you know you resisted. In the end resisting arrest will stick and see it was all justified.

Cops need body camera's and a hard and fast law that anything not captured on body camera the cop can not testify to. Were past the time where we need to or should trust the cops word as to visible facts, technology is capable of giving an impartial viewpoint.

What we need are cheap and ubiquitous "cop panic button" recorders.
They would work like this:
- Simple hardware - microphone, flash storage, battery, USB port, button, sealed case.
- Upon pressing the button, it starts recording. It CAN NOT be shut off until it's destroyed or the battery dies.
- USB port allows read-only access to anyone, but requires a key file (not just a password) to modify/delete

This presents cops with a tough situation. They can't order you to do something physically impossible (turn it off). If they take it with them, it records everything they're doing (radio conversations, talk to other officers, etc.), potentially for the rest of their shift. If they destroy it, they're destroying evidence. About the only thing they could do is "lose" it and claim it never existed.

Re:One small problem

[tompaulco]

If it were me, well I'm black, so I'd stop filming and pray the fucker doesn't shoot me and take my camera.

At least if you're black and you get shot, people will raise an uproar. If you're white and get shot, nobody cares.

Re:One small problem

[indros13]

Yes, believe it or not, black people can be racist, too. It's a socially pervasive attitude that affects nearly everyone. Look at the Freakonomics analysis of our attitude toward black sounding names, for example. It's convenient to dismiss the notion because of the mistaken belief that "black people wouldn't be racist to themselves," but there's an awful lot of data to suggest otherwise.

Re:One small problem

[lymond01]

I think ideally you have a point, but realistically you can make the same argument for poor people. They should help themselves, right? Start their own company, claw their way to the top like everyone else. But you know, we're a competitive culture -- black or poor, rich or white, at a certain point there other people vying for your same space be it a job, a house, a business opportunity, a better bus seat. I don't know that there is anyone to blame, per say, weakness in the enemy, invincibility in oneself, whatever...but we as Americans are pretty particular about our environment, what we declare as our environment, and what we declare as our culture. We don't want people stepping on our stuff. And if that means actively keeping other people down, so be it.

We're not all like that, of course, and we're not all so devilish about it. But there are enough people who are that if you're not on top already, it's a real bear getting there.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

Public oversight is our obligation. We are supposed to get rid of people who don't do their jobs. We can start with our vote. Until we try, all the complaining sounds pretty silly.

Re:One small problem

[cstacy]

Okay, try this. Go get a gun and walk into a police station.

Good luck.

Where I live, we do this all the time. In fact, we open carry and concealed carry into there every other Thursday for the meeting of our local gun rights organization. This is 5 miles from Washington D.C.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

Yes, well, I guess organizing opposition is out of the question then, isn't it?

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not John Crawford in Ohio. He was minding his own business, talking on the phone, carrying merchandise to purchase. He didn't run until he'd been shot at the first time (and the cops had yet to identify themselves as such).

Re:One small problem

[INT_QRK]

I rise in full agreement, and offer my applause to your eloquence. Individuals have rights. Governments have powers. I hope that there might some in this forum who might find this explanation of the basic principle somewhat familiar: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Re:One small problem

[sysrammer]

"The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights. Welcome to America, sucker."

The scary thing to me is that I think the AC is a cop. And the way he lays his argument out tells me that he was trained that way. It's a gut feeling, though: I hope I'm wrong.

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

That depends on how onerous and anti-democratic the ballot access laws are, and how gerrymandered the district is.

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Racism much

Re:One small problem

[bigfinger76]

You're leaving out a critical detail.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, ride-along with a cop. And, nothing bad happens because they're being watched. It's almost as if you're in agreement with the whole, "we need bodycameras on cops"!!

Re:One small problem

[lister king of smeg]

Okay, try this. Go get a gun and walk into a police station.

Good luck.

I believe that in many states that is pretty much what you are supposed to do when you get you concealed carry permit.

Re:One small problem

[Copid]

It's the other 999 cops that follow a mafioso "blue silence", refusing to report or testify against a fellow officer that broke the law.

Also known as "stop snitching" when non-cops do it.

Re:One small problem

[bigfinger76]

James M. Boyd. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And you just choose to remain gleefully ignorant of all the systems in place that deny opportunity and security to black people, and just call it repeated failures. You're a genius fucking whitewasher!

Re:One small problem

[lymond01]

Certainly dept policies and enforcement of those policies will help change the culture of what's expected. But you have the remember the position description:

Your entire day is meeting people who are possibly engaged in criminal activity. You must be able to discern whether their activity is criminal; you must be prepared by verbal or physical means to halt criminal activity, even when the person is claiming innocence or threatening you. You may be called to a house for a domestic violence dispute, be allowed in, and see four people. You may not know who called, who is dangerous, but you must control the situation quickly.

People will, in general, not be nice to you. People will hate you. People will fear you. People will treat you like absolute garbage. Sometimes it will be their personality, sometimes it will be their culture, sometimes it will be because you have made a mistake. It is likely that every day of your job will be thankless and unreasonably taxing on your psyche.

The job is important. For every drug dealer you capture, there may be 10 less kids starting a life of dependency on a substance. Your very presence can stop a situation from becoming violent. The job is thankless because you deal with the perpetrators, not the victims. But you need to know that there are victims, otherwise who the hell would ever wear the badge?

It's a terrible but necessary job. And people are human. I am not forgiving them for committing their own crimes, but I get how it happens. It takes a very special person to do the job perfectly. Cases of significant abuse are *relatively* rare given the variety of duties police have. Prosecute the people who have failed, but be respective of the ones who have not.

Re:One small problem

[dissy]

So zero is a long rap sheet? Out of curiosity what do you personally consider a short rap sheet if zero is too many line items?

Re:One small problem

[Copid]

I think part of the problem, though, is that a lot of people probably get jerked around by the cops a lot more often than you or I do. I very rarely have to explain myself to a police officer, so I just deal with it. If I got pulled over for DWB or stopped on the street regularly (or God forbid, lived in a stop-and-frisk city), my patience would probably wear pretty thin after 10 or 15 years. I think I'd probably be able to keep it together for a lifetime of that bullshit, and I think that most people do. But not everybody does, and it's not 100% crazy that they can't.

Re:One small problem

[g01d4]

When an officer of the law gives you a lawful order, you must comply

That's a good point. However, I think there's the potential of a Hawthorne effect. The police may order you to desist taking a video arguing an unarmed suspect is more likely to resist arrest knowing that video is being taken.

Re:One small problem

[idontgno]

I'm sorry, which candidate do you recommend? Kang, or Kodos?

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Niggers are often racist against other niggers.
Look at how they talk to each other.
Tryna be white and uppity and put each other down.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

RUNNING = MURDER.
Yeah, that's fair bro.
FUCK THE POLICE.

Re:One small problem

[Cinnamon Beige]

It also means you might find out that, actually, the problem is that assurance is needed that your video or photos will not land on the internet because the cop is concerned about a third party's safety and/or right to privacy--remember, there are circumstances where people have very good reason to not want it known that they talked.

This does not mean they have the right to insist you delete anything or hand over the camera, but overall it's probably polite to agree that yes, live people willing and able to talk is a good thing and if something happens to them you will of course comply with any proper warrant and provide copies of your images. Which is why you certainly won't be deleting them, they might be evidence in the future. You're just agreeing that putting them on the internet is a Bad Idea and you'd feel horrible about finding out that the pictures and/or video you took caused somebody to be murdered (correctly or not) for snitching. (But you're not getting rid of what might be useful evidence later--"See, Bob really did visit the police station on May 7th, 2015. Charlie thought he'd squealed about his drug dealing when Bob was just turning in a lost wallet, and we don't have record because Bob didn't leave his real name.")

There's actually a lot of reasons you can very politely and nicely give for why insisting you delete it would be disposing of possible evidence that you can mutually agree is useful--really, this is one of those situations where the trick often is knowing how to rig the game so that agreeing with you is best option when it comes to saving face.

Re:One small problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The ones who died at the hands of the cops are those with multiple infractions and long rap sheets who physically resisted arrest.

You are poorly informed.

Re:One small problem

[Major Blud]

"Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

It was almost 4 years ago, so I'll give you that.

Re:One small problem

[bkr1_2k]

...should never shoot to kill ...

Wrong, they should always shoot to kill, and the only reason they should ever shoot is when they mean to kill. They are not deer hunters or sushi chefs, they do not have time to try to aim for the legs, shoot the gun out of the perps hands, or fire warning shots (and kill innocents). They need to take down the immediate threat as soon as possible.

There's plenty of non-lethal means to incapacitate such a person

If the person is not threatening the life of the officer or anyone around him, then yes non-lethal force can be used to incapacitate. However, anytime the suspect is holding a weapon, there are too many variables involved to risk non-lethal force. Which generally only consists of a taser, bean bag shotguns can be used to resolve non-hostage situations effectively. The engagement range for a knife attack is 20 meters, the effective range on a tazer is 10 meters. If you hope to use non-lethal force on man lunging at you with a knife or a screw driver, go for it, it's your funeral if you tase him and he still closes the distance and stabs you in the throat.

At the end of the day, it is about the police officer coming home safe.

At the end of the day it's supposed to be about everyone being safe, not just the police officer. Any time a cop shoots his/her weapon, they risk more lives than the guy with the knife did. Period.

20 meters ? I'd think 20 feet, maybe 10 meters, but 20 meters is an insane engagement range for a knife. Even considering the possibility of an olympic quality sprinter somehow surprising you and closing the distance, you've got 1 or 2 seconds and they'd have to be prepared for a sprint. For "normal" people standing in a normal defensive/offensive fighting stance you've got at least 3 or 4 seconds to react.

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

You are continuing to blatantly lie.

Tamir Rice "waved around" precisely nothing, and "refused to drop" precisely nothing. He was in fact shot to death before he would have even had a chance to do anything remotely resembling that!

Re:One small problem

[jwdb]

While a society may not have natural rights in as far as its interactions with individuals, individuals most certainly have obligations towards the society that they live in, which is effectively the same thing. For instance, society has the "right" to protect itself from dangerous individuals, be they external or internal, which is why we mandate vaccines, lock up criminals, go to war, etc. Society has the right to demand that its members contribute, which usually takes the form of taxes. Society has the right to decide who becomes a member, which is why not every person on this planet is automatically an American citizen. I'm sure you can come up with other examples.

These are all rights that you as an individual grant society when you chose to join it, as they are essential to running a society. Don't grant these rights, and you won't be a member long.

I have rights, society doesn't. Society is built to protect the rights of the individuals.

That's really only the view of American society. Societies worldwide have a wide spectrum of views on this, finding their own balance between the individual and the group.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"don't get in their faces while they're working."

Exactly, get a zoom objective.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't start conflicts, but if one is started, I fight to win, and I use a constantly increasing levels of force to make sure I win. Situation dominance is my way. and yes, this applies to police. I avoid situations that could cause a conflict because I care about the well being of police and other people, but in the event they were to maliciously come after me... then THEY are the criminal.

Hey, everybody! It's Internet Tough Guy!

Wow. It's really you. I was telling everybody that you would show up. Nobody believed me but I just told them, "Just you wait and see! Internet Tough Guy will be coming along any minute. He won't let us down." And now here you are. Wow. I'm still having a hard time believing it myself. By the way, please pardon me if I should happen to swoon. It's just that your manly assertiveness is so very, very intoxicating....but I'm sure you get that all the time.

So, what's the plan, Internet Tough Guy? Are you going to strike a defiant pose and tell everyone what you would have done if you had been there to take control of the situation? Tell us all about your gun collection and how you are always prepared for just such a situation? Come on! Show us all how it's done! We're all counting on you! You just can't let us down!

Re:One small problem

[Zak3056]

The American Public has rights, an individual citizen has no rights.

Take note of the above, folks.

The next time you scream about the NRA and claim that the 2nd amendment is some sort of "collective" right instead of an individual right, remember that this is what we've been arguing against for the last couple of decades. Becasue once you redefine "the people" in the 2nd amendment, the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th are next on the list.

Re:One small problem

[mujadaddy]

Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years.

Tyler Comstock

Your move.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya'll watch too much TV. If you want to see what a police officer does then ask to do a full shift ride-along. It's rather eye opening.

The negative focus on officers is 99.9% wrong. If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.

that seems like it could be a useful idea. If you could organise large enough of a group of people into going on ride alongs that the cops are constantly being meaningfully supervised by the actual citizenry you might see a change. It would be lot harder to claim the guy on the ride along was shot while resisting arrest when he was filming it.

Re:One small problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Sure, when white liberal guilt makes people say blacks "need our help", that is Racism.

I haven't heard this one. What I heard was: "stop treating black people poorly."

They need to help themselves, rather than leaning on the perpetual crutch of "white people hate us".

This is a very poor description of what's going on in a world where black people are 3x as likely to be killed by a cop than white people.

Re:One small problem

[deodiaus2]

Bullshit.
I am white and affluent. I was arrested for a drug charge and did not cooperate by refusing to answer any of their questions. They put handcuffs on my wrists facing palm outwards and tossed me into the back of a cruise.
After 20 min, I was ready to confess to both of the Kennedy assassinations.
I told my lawyer (former DA of the town) about pressing charges.
He told me "Do you want to make this any more difficult than it already will be?"

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so melodramatic. The ones who died at the hands of the cops are those with multiple infractions and long rap sheets who physically resisted arrest. Or waved around what appeared to be a weapon and refused to drop it when ordered to do so.

Tell that to Walter L. Scott. The proximate cause for the traffic stop was a broken tail light. Call me weird, but I just don't think that is deserving of deadly force.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

sometimes that happens but I mostly just see cops justifiably shooting violent dangerous thugs

You mean like Walter Scott? He was pulled over for a broken tail light.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And if it were me, I would think twice or thrice about getting on the bad side of the local police department, being arrested (and who knows what else).

And if it were me, I would drop my pants, bend over, and offer the cop some lube (to use or not use at his/her own discretion).

If you're going to take it, take it good.

Re:One small problem

[Jawnn]

And if it were me, I would think twice or thrice about getting on the bad side of the local police department, being arrested (and who knows what else). Of course I would be vindicated, but that can occur after I spent some time in jail, got charged with some bullshit, spent who knows how much money on laywers and called ACLU for help...

I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beaten, and if one is lucky, the police is charged afterwards. Sometimes not even that. Basically, most of us cannot afford to stand on principle. Many have family to support or career to preserve, or both.

Yeah. You're right, of course. It's much safer to just roll over and pee on yourself than to actually stand up for the rights we all share.
/sarcasm

Re:One small problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

And how exactly is that supposed to work when the police who break the law are not punished?

It's worse than that. The people who investigate the police are their buddies. There's precious little transparency. In fact, not far from where I live, the police are going to be issued body cameras but the rules were changed so that the officer can watch the video before he writes up his report. You know, so he can get his story straight.

Re:One small problem

[neoritter]

No, see you're confusing some things. Society does not have the right to protect itself from dangerous individuals. Individuals have the right to this. In order to achieve these goals, individuals have empowered their government to protect their right to life and property. Society has no right to demand anything of its members. Individuals empowered government to collect taxes to fund operations in the service of the general welfare. Society again does not have the right to decide who is a member (citizen). Individuals empowered government to regulate the border. The government regulating a nation's border are inherent from their mandate from individuals to protect them. I say border because government has no say in whether you create new citizens or not. As an individual, I may birth as many citizens as I wish (well as I and my significant other wish).

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't give them a reason to beat you...99.999% of the time they are not. Yes, there are bad apples, but I don't think that is the majority. If you do not fight, resist, run or act an ass, chances are you are not going to be arrested or hurt. And if they DO arrest you....just face it, you are going to jail...don't resist, doing so give the cops a LOT of leeway in how they manhandle you.

So basically, acquiesce? Just bend over and let them do what they will? Forget about exercising your rights, as those rights only exist on paper, not in reality? That's basically what you (and other LEO apologists) are suggesting we do. I find such suggestions to be incompatible with a free society.

Don't give them a reason to do abuse you, but also, you should always know and assert your rights.

And what if they've already given me reason to abuse them?

Re:One small problem

[neoritter]

You can not be detained with being arrested. That may sound redundant, but you can be arrested without being detained. An example is a traffic ticket. You were arrested for a traffic infraction. In order to be arrested you must be charged with performing an illegal action.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're saying black people need white people's help, because they can't help themselves? You are saying that black people can't excel without white people helping them. Do you realize how fucking racist that is?

By your logic the multitudes of Germans that looked the other way during the holocaust were heroes doing so out of respect for the Jews. Minorities, no matter how capable, are subject to the whims of the majority for their rights.

Re:One small problem

[neoritter]

*detained without being arrested

Gotta start rereading my posts better...

Re:One small problem

[pimproot]

From Radley Balko's excellent column at http://www.washingtonpost.com/... :

When white people fled St. Louis in the early-to-mid-20th century, they took advantage of Missouri’s lenient incorporation laws to set up new towns to keep blacks away. As blacks began to move west, white people would move a little farther out, incorporate again, and set up new zoning laws to restrict black residency. The result is a county filled with dozens of tiny towns, nearly all of which have their own government and police force. The primary source of revenue for the local towns is sales tax. But the poorer (which means blacker) towns don’t generate enough income from sales taxes. So they turn to municipal fines to keep themselves from going under. The poorer the town and its residents, the more likely the town relies on fines for a greater percentage of its annual revenue. Which means that the blacker the town, the more likely its residents are getting treated like ATMs for the local government.

The cops in these towns don’t deal with felony crimes. The county police investigate those. A local officer’s job is to administer fines. Most cops are drawn from whiter, wealthier areas, in part because so many people in the poorer areas have arrest records. That means you have cops patrolling areas they aren’t from who are charged with extracting fines from people with whom they have little in common, and for petty offenses.

We did see a few examples of overt racism from city officials in the months after the Ferguson protests. But a system like this, one created by racism, will produce racist results even if none of the cops, prosecutors, or judges are racist themselves.

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

John Geer - Fairfax County PD

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fairfax-pays-295-million-to-settle-suit-in-john-geer-police-killing/2015/04/21/5fe3d818-e834-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of the people most affected by these crooked law enforcement policies are ineligible to be elected to public office on account of age.

Some people don't let age stand in the way of making their voice heard. This little girl has more balls than NC Gov. Pat McCrory.

Re:One small problem

[Cederic]

Sounds reasonable. I once pulled a police car over on the freeway because they were breaking the law.

They threatened me, but nothing came of it.

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.

As a long time Democrat and coming from a staunchly, fiscal conservative Democratic family I can say unequivocally that the idea that individuals have no rights and only groups do is NOT a "far left wing" idea. The left is not the group that is making corporations (a group of people that work for a legal document that creates a non-entity and gives it tax status) "people" and forcing Christian religious dogma and doctrine on the citizens of the United States. I'm sorry, but your view of the "far left wing" in the United States is sadly misinformed.

I have rights, society doesn't. Society is built to protect the rights of the individuals. This is the part of "Liberty and Justice for all". The defense of liberty is the primary function of government. Justice is how that liberty is protected.

1. Everyone in a society governed by democratically elected representatives has rights (privileges, actually [see George Carlin])
2. Groups have rights and is why we have laws that protect minorities and other disenfranchised groups of people (think Native Americans, ethnic groups, etc.)
3. Society is built to protect the rights of that society, not just the individual
4. "Liberty and Justice for all" is a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, not the Constitution and is therefore NOT part of how we as a society are governed. It's dogma at best, propaganda at worst
5. The primary function of government is governing, that's why it's called government
6. Liberty is protected by force. Period. Whether that be force of arms or the force of the vote, but it's protected by force and force alone.
7. Justice protects the innocent and prosecutes the guilty and has little or nothing to do with liberty unless the law enforcement part of a government is wholly and completely corrupt (see Ferguson, Missouri; Baltimore; Maryland, et al). In that case there is not justice and no liberty.

Anything less, is simply a step towards tyranny.

Not really since your underpinnings are not properly formed. Basically, I don't think your idea of tyranny is the same as that defined by history or the dictionary, let alone current events. Sounds like you want to call anything you don't agree with as tyranny or persecution and I'm sorry, that's just not the way it works. Tyranny is when a group or entire society is being made to suffer by a single, authoritarian individual or group. That's just not happening in the United States, unless you're talking about the billionaires and mega-corporations that practically own our government right now. That's bordering on oligarchy and not democracy and will only lead to tyranny down the road, but that's because society as a whole will suffer, not just a minority nor an individual.

On topic. Check your local laws before you pipe up to a cop while you are recording his/her activities. The laws vary from state to state, but Illinois and Massachusetts are currently the only states where you are not allowed to record a police officer under any circumstance. There are over a dozen states where consent of all parties to a recording have to be received before you can record, and 39 states where, as long as the activity is going on in public or in full view of the public, you can record whatever you want.

It's best you check the laws where you live and PRINT OUT THOSE LAWS and have them handy if you are going to make a habit or passing fancy out of recording police officers while they perform their duty. Otherwise, have a lawyer next to you. One other thing to keep in mind is that even if it is legal for you to record, local cops can put you in their cross hairs forever if you piss them off. I'm not saying they will do anything illegal, but they can legally make your life miserable if they so choose. Do one little thing wr

Re:One small problem

[Cederic]

His risk evaluation may be skewed but his fear is justified.

You may disagree but the stats back him up entirely.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody will retaliate against anyone. There won't be any uprising. The malcontents and the troublemakers will, in due time, be punished. The populace will crawl back into their holes. All is going well.

Re:One small problem

[Cederic]

You think you can take me down in 3-4 seconds without me getting a knife in you? Really?

Shit, even with a gun it'd need a headshot.

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

Okay, try this. Go get a gun and walk into a police station.

Good luck.

Where I live, we do this all the time. In fact, we open carry and concealed carry into there every other Thursday for the meeting of our local gun rights organization. This is 5 miles from Washington D.C.

Agreed, and I don't like guns that much. There's absolutely nothing wrong with carrying a firearm into a police station. Now, if it's drawn that's a completley different story, but open carry and concealed carry with a permit is perfectly acceptable. Now, you usually have to check the firearm at the door if you are going to visit someone being held or sometimes just to get into the secure area of the station, but the officers usually do also in that case.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

You know, you can also use ballot initiatives to override the votes of your elected officials.

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

Thing is, a cop can take you in for any reason for something like 24-48 hours even without a formal charge. You will be taken in handcuffs, you will be fingerprinted, you will get a DNA swab taken, you will be strip-searched, you will be forced to spread your cheeks and cough in front of a cop... then they let you go after 24 hours with no charges and a have a nice day. All that just because you pissed off a cop and there's no legal recourse.

You may beat the wrap, but you won't beat the ride. All the humiliation is just a bonus for them to 'get ya' because you didn't bow down in a humble enough fashion.

Umm, I think you've watched too much TV with your description of outcomes. You can be handcuffed and held in police custody Once at the station, if no formal charges have been made, they can make you empty your pockets and take off your shoes and belt and any exterior garments like jackets, etc. They can put you in a holding cell or interrogation room and ask you questions, but you DO NOT have to answer if you are not charged with anything and you are required to be immediately released or they have to charge you and allow you to make a phone call.

They don't strip search you without probable cause, nor do they take DNA unless you've been charged with a felony (in most states). They also cannot book you (take fingerprints) unless you are formally charged. I live in a college town where drunk people get arrested all the time. They don't get strip searched, nor DNA swabbed, but they do get booked and jailed. You have to be charged with something for the police to do anything but hold you in custody. Usually, the call to a lawyer ends that hold without charge within minutes, btw.

The BS you see cops do on most TV shows is NOT LEGAL and will end a cop's career in no time flat if they try to pull off something we see on TV. One call to a lawyer and/or the press and it's all over for the police if you were held without being charged. I'm not going to say that this doesn't happen at all, but when it does the police are more often than not on the losing end if the person being arrested without charge has half a brain.

Re:One small problem

[The Grim Reefer]

Cthulhu.

Re:One small problem

[fustakrakich]

There is also the voter referendum. Write the laws yourselves when the people you vote for won't do the job they were elected to do. Good or bad, the power is yours.

Re:One small problem

[ravenshrike]

Given that black murder rates are near 50% of the American total and yet they account for barely 25% of death by cop incidents, it would seem rather obvious that that there are more whites/latinos killed unjustifiably by cop than black people.

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

You are continuing to blatantly lie.

Tamir Rice "waved around" precisely nothing, and "refused to drop" precisely nothing. He was in fact shot to death before he would have even had a chance to do anything remotely resembling that!

And thankfully there is video to prove that. ;)

Re:One small problem

[riverat1]

This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. A group has no rights, period. Individuals have rights, those rights extend to where there are groups (see First Amendment). The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.

I agree with you that is an ignorant statement.

Regarding a group having no rights I agree with that too but it is at odds with the Citizens United decision that corporations have free speech rights in addition to the free speech rights of the individuals that make up the group that is the corporations. So I would say it's a mistake of the far right wing as well, just a different group they favor.

Re:One small problem

[HornWumpus]

Blacks are killed by cops more than their % of the population (13%) but less than their % of violent criminals (45%).

Those stats do _not_ back him up entirely.

Of course the 45% is a 'racist fact'.

Re:One small problem

[nedlohs]

No the police claimed the person was physically resisting. Or reaching for their weapon. Or waving around what appeared to be a weapon.

But we've seen enough cases in which video surfaces that contradicts the police claims to be forced to doubt those claims. Sure sometimes there really is a wolf, but given a documented history of crying wolf the police don't have the benefit of the doubt.

The shooting of Walter Scott was a pretty textbook example. Before the video surfaced of him being shot in the back while slowly running away we had all the usual claims:

"during the struggle the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer" - http://www.postandcourier.com/...

"felt threatened and reached for his department-issued firearm and fired his weapon" - http://www.postandcourier.com/...

And sure there was a struggle involved and if he hasn't been resisting he probably wouldn't be dead - but the point of that one is that we have a police officer saying the standard "I felt threatened", "I feared for my life", "he went for my weapon" lines they use to justify killing people when clearly it wasn't actually the case.

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

So, you're saying black people need white people's help, because they can't help themselves? You are saying that black people can't excel without white people helping them. Do you realize how fucking racist that is?

Ok, so far the only one being racist is you. If you weren't racist you would know that using color references when speaking about people is dehumanizing and factually delusional given modern understanding of the human race. You also completely miss the historical mistreatment of minorities in a population by majorities and that is the real issue as to why minority ethnic groups need society's help, not just one part of society, but all of it! Why? Because of idiots like you that cling to 19th century and earlier ideas about ignorant classifications of PEOPLE that are all of the same race, HUMAN! Now, go read something current on human biology and do something charitable for someone less fortunate than you so you can catch up with a 21st century outlook on humanity.

Re:One small problem

[davester666]

"personal inconvenience" = lost job, thousands of dollars in legal fee's, jail time, being placed on various watch lists, possibly being physically assaulted up to and including being killed both by the cops and by others while in jail

Minor stuff like that. I can't believe everyone doesn't stand up for their rights all the time.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you even do that? This is on the level of man bites dog...

Re:One small problem

[Cederic]

We disagree.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The alternative can be dying a whole lot... physically. Police are generally out of control and untouchable, and they know it. Frankly, they can kill you and get away with it, as has been proven time and again in recent cases. So, while I'm all for standing up for your rights, let's not water down that doing so can also have some rather serious consequences.

Re:One small problem

[Mab_Mass]

Prove it: name a single white person unjustifiably killed by police in the last 3 years.

Paul Heenan

His "crime" was coming home too drunk to identify his own house.

Re:One small problem

[steveg]

ACLU for New Jersey has had a camera app that transmits to the cloud for years. ACLU just recently (as in days ago) rolled out versions for multiple states, apparently only differing by which ACLU office they notify.

https://play.google.com/store/...

http://www.androidheadlines.co...

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

And if they DO arrest you....just face it, you are going to jail...don't resist, doing so give the cops a LOT of leeway in how they manhandle you.

Everything you said was spot on, and jives with everything my LEO friends have told me. I would add that arguing with a cop is futile, even in civil tones. Argue with a judge, not a cop! Arguing with a cop is disorderly conduct and you may get hit with that even if you are otherwise in the right. And yes, always obey instructions from a police officer, even if you may be in the right. Here's why I was told this. If you are coming upon a situation that is tense for any reason and you disobey a police officer you are considerably more likely to get cited. If you've been a party to a situation, even as a witness, wait your turn to speak or when commanded to do something other than wait to speak, tell the officer why you are there and then get far enough away to make the officer more comfortable until he/she is ready to get your statement. Where I live they can't ask me to stop recording a public interation, but they can ask me to move along. Just means I get clear of the immediate area and keep recording. Most of the time you can give cops the benefit of the doubt in a situation that you have not seen play out entirely, and obeying a direct order from a police officer is never a bad idea. In most states it's the law anyway and is punishable with a disorderly conduct like charge.

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

maybe put your hands up right high so that they think you are taller than you are. I've heard that helps, sometimes.

Hell, NO! If anything lay flat on the ground and lace your hands behind your head. You are far less likely to get shot by a standing officer if you drop to the ground and submit. Leave no doubt about your intentions to surrender to an armed opponent.

Re:One small problem

[multimediavt]

I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beate...n

Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

But one thing to do for sure...don't act like an ass, if you are (and you should) exerting your rights, do so in a calm, non-threatening fashion. Don't shout. Don't curse, use clear concise language. The "Am I free to go" statement is a very simple and very powerful thing to say and get an answer to.

If you don't give them a reason to beat you...99.999% of the time they are not..

Tell that to poor Mr. Sureshbhai Patel: http://www.al.com/news/index.s...

Bad example. He actually resisted arrest and comes from a country where the police are far more corrupt than they are in the U.S. so he had some fear. Although, he did not speak English (how I don't know since English has been taught in India schools for over a century), he also did not submit and tried to get away from the cops. Now, the cop reaction was excessive--throwing the man down hard to a concrete slab and breaking a vertebrae or two--the man did resist arrest. It could have been handled a lot better.

Re:One small problem

[Greystripe]

You are right, the appearance isn't a coincidence. One could even say it's an agenda.

Re:One small problem

[Zeek40]

A group has no rights, period.

In what country? Here in the USA, groups called corporations have more rights than individuals, including the right to make unlimited bribes ... i mean campaign contributions.. to whatever politician they think will legislate them a tax-break.

Re:One small problem

[neoritter]

Such as?

Re:One small problem

[DaTrueDave]

Here's how it played out just West of Detroit, in Jackson, MI: http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

Re:One small problem

[nedlohs]

You'll have to point out the where someone claimed that interacting with a cop is a death sentence. Or did you build a little straw man to try and detract from your obvious lying?

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Tl;dr

Re:One small problem

[jwdb]

So, let's discuss the first example...

Society does not have the right to protect itself from dangerous individuals. Individuals have the right to this. In order to achieve these goals, individuals have empowered their government to protect their right to life and property.

Any scenario in which society is defending itself against an individual A can probably be reduced to one where society is the agent of one individual B defending themselves against A, I'll give you that. This is not always clear-cut, however: it may be a question of a contradiction between A and B's rights, for instance in the commonly-cited example of yelling fire in a theater. If you view things as it being purely about the individual, how do you resolve this kind of conflict? Why is A's right to free speech less important than B's right to life? You probably can't get them to agree, but if it's all down to the individual, then society has no right to step in and resolve the discussion for them.

But, more importantly, I don't think it makes sense to define things so narrowly. Society can be reduced to its individuals because in the end it's solely composed of and defined by a collection individuals. But in a similar vein, a person is only composed of cells, so why do we speak about the rights of a person and not of individual cells? What's so special about the particular level of organization that corresponds to one individual human? Society - Human - Cell - Chemical... each is an ordered cooperative of lower elements, so what makes human the unique one that deserves rights above all others?

To put it differently, I don't believe in inalienable rights, for the same reason that I don't believe in absolutes. I think the set of rights the US has is a very good one, but I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to call them the truth, the best, or the everlasting.

Same argument applies to any of the examples we're discussing.

Re:One small problem

[DrVxD]

I ask that you please do STFU and allow those of us who DO wish to stand up for our rights to discuss the issues of standing up for our rights.

It seems you're not a believer in GP's right to freedom of speech - no wonder you post as AC.

Re:One small problem

[c6gunner]

Thing is, a cop can take you in for any reason for something like 24-48 hours even without a formal charge. You will be taken in handcuffs, you will be fingerprinted, you will get a DNA swab taken, you will be strip-searched, you will be forced to spread your cheeks and cough in front of a cop... then they let you go after 24 hours with no charges and a have a nice day.

After which you'll sue for false arrest and imprisonment, ask for a ridiculous sum for humiliation / pain and suffering, and have a great life afterwards.

Hell, I wish I could find some of these ass-rapey cops that people like you all seem to know - I'd gladly suffer in jail for 48 hours in exchange for a mil or two.

Re: One small problem

[BlueTrin]

I don't understand protests defending people who resist arrests as well. I understand that even criminals have rights but surely there are better people to defend than a guy who resisted arrest, especially if he has a criminal record.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It reads to me as if the OP just used hyperbole to demonstrate how many LEOs feel, and simply didn't bother to indicate it was sarcasm.

Then again, Poe's law...

Re:One small problem

[c6gunner]

THAT IS A LIE, AND YOU ARE A LIAR. Counterexample: Tamir Rice.

Fair enough - he forgot to mention that a small subset are idiots who went around waving a replica pistol at strangers, and then reached for it when the cops arrived.

I'm not sure that qualifies as a lie so much as a justifiable omission. Such cases do not make up a significant percentage of police shootings, since pretty much everyone with an IQ over 70 knows it's not a good idea to reach for a plastic gun when the police are pointing real ones at you.

Re:One small problem

[aaronb1138]

There are two simple things which would make the process functional for both sides.

1) Put cameras on the officers

2) Give the magistrate court and a initial public defender / citizen advocate the right to view officer body cam footage and make a provisional judgement to hold or release a person on the likelihood of a crime based on the officer's body cam footage. Our magistrate courts are way under-powered here. All one needs to look at is the Innocence Project case for Michael Hanline in which the magistrate court report was ignored by the District Court. That district court judge belongs in jail and it is as simple as that (http://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/michael-hanline/)

If a cop is making an iffy call about obstructing because a person is filming 20 feet away, release the person (no overnight/multi-day stay bullshit) pending the officer and attorney general continuing to press charges. If somebody filming is trying to stand over a body in the street after the cop tells them to back away to an appropriate distance and they refuse, hold them until bail is made.

There is a third stage which neither the police nor much of the unwashed masses are ready for in which one can lawfully refuse an officer and defend themselves as they would against any other violent, armed attacker. The judgement of the average person just isn't there yet, as a function primarily of US culture. There are plenty of other places in the world where that works just fine, but it's not for the US just yet. We have a cultural / social maturity problem and it is what is feeding the us vs them attitude that the average police department has. It's a bit hard to argue with the Baltimore police doctrine, proven repeatedly over the years, that many of their officers believe the value of a black man's life is more than a bullet but less than a taser cartridge when protests turn into looting and vandalism with selfish rather and communal interests as the driving force.

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

Now you're lying, too. Tamir Rice never reached for a damn thing.

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

You guys are hilarious. Did you not see the post I replied to?

"The biggest risk to you is that you die. Less likely than being arrested and having to spend money on a lawyer and so on, but piss off the wrong cop in America and ending up shot, choked to death, beaten to death, etc isn't an unexpected outcome."

This is the lie. It *is* an unexpected outcome. Not an impossible one unfortunately, but how many arrests in the US in the past 18 months have resulted in a death, as a percentage of total arrests? -especially those arrests where no one was resisting arrest or fighting the officer, then they're even more rare.
Y'all are painting with a mighty broad brush.. a brush made of straw.

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

Mike Brown, Eric Garner, and Freddie Gray all had numerous previous arrests. In Brown's case,it's foggier because he'd only just turned 18 and juvenile records are difficult to get in Missouri, but considering he'd just held up a store owner 20 minutes earlier, he was hardly a model citizen.

Re:One small problem

[c6gunner]

Now you're lying, too. Tamir Rice never reached for a damn thing.

That's funny, the police report and all reporting on the case claim that he did. But I'm sure you have access to information that the rest of us don't. Let me guess - the ghost of Bob Marley came to you in a dream, and told you The White Man Executed Tamir, who was sitting there licking a lollipop at the time?

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

One or two cases are exceptions, not the rule.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Those subjects were not filming police officers, they were fighting police officers. There is a huge difference in those two actions and in the way that officers react to them. I've watched a lot of youtube videos of bad cops, I've seen lots of articles about them, what I have never seen is a video or a story about someone being shot for filming one.

Film a cop = legal, but they probably won't like it and may ask you to stop or even break the law and tell you to stop. Most officers know that it's perfectly legal to film them though and it has been made clear to them what youtube stardom will do to their paycheck.

Fight a cop = illegal, and they will shoot you and leave your body in the street for hours afterwards. That is just how the world works, suck it up and move on.

Hope this clears things up for some people.

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

Actually, I didn't omit that. It's in my original post.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

black sounding names

How can a name 'sound' a colour?

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

I'm not saying it never happens, I'm just saying it shouldn't be "not unexpected". It's not the norm, not statistically, not realistically. Far more people die every year in a car crash; do we get in our cars everyday expecting to be killed in it?

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not 'racist', really, it's cop-ist. You are cop or you are little people (thank you, Bladerunner).

See?

AC

Re:One small problem

[mwehle]

Are you under the impression that in the majority of cases where police tell individuals to stop filming police personnel are concerned about the disruption of shell casings?

Re:One small problem

[Copid]

Balko is fantastic. I strongly recommend Rise of the Warrior Cop to anybody interested in law enforcement violence and accountability. Surprise, surprise, a huge amount of it is tied to the drug war.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

wow... who pooped on your poptart?

Tamir Rice was a child who made a mistake at the wrong time and it cost him his life. I do not blame the officer who shot him though, I blame his parents and his community who never taught Tamir not to point guns (even fake ones) at other people. I blame the person who painted the tip of the toy handgun to from orange to black to look more like a real firearm. I blame the hoplophobic 911 dispatcher who stated that a black youth was aiming a pistol at people in the park when she was specifically told that the youth was a child and that the pistol was a toy.

I do not blame the officer who responded to the scene after being told that someone was aiming a firearm at other people for shooting and killing someone who drawing a gun on him at the scene after being given the information that he was given.

Kid pulls gun on cops, kid gets killed.
Kid attacks cop, kid gets killed. (Mike Brown was the size of an NFL linebacker and was shown by the justice department's own report to have been attacking the officer who shot him.
Man resists arrest, man gets forcibly arrested and dies as a result of previously unknown (to the cops) medical condition.
Kid assaults neighborhood watch participant, kid gets killed. (again, Travyon was larger than the man he attacked.)

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes...
He who lives by the sword...
All that stuff.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're in principle absolutely correct, all of this is also completely obvious to anyone who'd listen to a comment like that in the first place. This comes off as preaching to the choir for the sheer jollies of it.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

First, perjury only applies in court, and only when giving testimony as a witness. The accused is not obligated to tell the truth in any form, since punishing someone for lying is operationally inseparable from punishing someone for ignorance, delusion, or making things up under pressure.

Second, mostly cops don't end up charged because the prosecutor works for the ministry of interior (or equivalent), so there's not even a day in court. Hell, mostly they don't even end up identified in a criminal investigation, so that the prosecutors have no choice but to not press charges.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Sir, the issue is that mostly the law-abiding, decent people never encounter any police besides those asshole pigs looking to step on the little man. Therefore the knowledge that cops can indeed violate our fundamental rights as human beings basically at-will, and go unpunished, is very disturbing to us.

We would like to see police crimes investigated, charged, and prosecuted wherever there's a non-zero chance of a conviction. Right now this isn't happening. The USA has a police problem, and the rest of the world is following a few years behind: just recently ours asked for stingray mobile snooping devices, for example.

Re:One small problem

[Maxo-Texas]

Corporations are also immune to imprisonment and execution for crimes they commit. No individual has that right.

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No that's only 4 hours for questioning. The thing is, if they don't get answers they might question you again tomorrow... Then the next day...

Re:One small problem

[Maxo-Texas]

Come on dude, even the police recognize they have a racism problem.
http://www.policechiefmagazine...

The law is enforced unequally on whites and non whites.

For example, When a mixed race group of girls were picked up by police...

"officers took the white teen to the lobby to call her parents but brought three of the black teens to the back of the station, where they were locked up and searched. When one of the girls asked why they were being brought in the back doors, one of the officers replied, "trash in and trash out," according to court records."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Don't let the "ferguson" fool you- this happened in yet another town, not ferguson.

Re:One small problem

[OldSport]

Um, no they can't. Not legally, anyway. And that's all the more reason to film the hell out of them. Case in point:

http://www.wwltv.com/story/new...

Yeah, you may get taken for a ride, but the only way you'll have a chance to beat it and hopefully have their badges later is if you have some video evidence.

Re:One small problem

[Maxo-Texas]

Police studies (linked above) show...
Officers who are not properly trained are more likely to shoot blacks and to do so with less hesitation.
Officers who are properly trained, take longer to decide not to shoot blacks.

Studies show officers judge black children to be much older than white children of the same age. And more willing to shoot a threatening "20 year old" who is actually a 12 year old with a toy gun than a white 12 year old.

Re:One small problem

[BlueStrat]

Police, whether you or anyone likes it, must be held to a higher standard, because with great power comes great responsibility.

Ah, I see from where your confusion stems!

You've mistaken domestic militarized occupation/suppression/internment troops for the old-style "police", now all but extinct.

Once correctly identified, their past and future actions are more easily and logically explained & predicted.

Strat

Re:One small problem

[mrchaotica]

That's funny, the police report and all reporting on the case claim that he did.

The VIDEO proves he didn't.

Let me guess - the ghost of Bob Marley came to you in a dream, and told you The White Man Executed Tamir

I AM "The White Man," you shiteating fuckwad! What, you think because I have the shred of basic human decency necessary to admit the truth I can't possibly be white?! Fuck off, you racist douche!

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, "the biggest risk" as AC pointed out was "getting killed".

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

By your assertion of corruptibility over time, the entire worlds forces should be complicatedly corrupted by now without ever a damn hope of redemption.

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So which is it Slashdot: we should assert our rights to film police in public, or we should Never Talk To Police?

Re:One small problem

[silas_moeckel]

Yup because getting shot as you go to press the button, they will argue it looked like a bomb detonator hell it even seems reasonable at first.

Cop Put your hands behind your head
Idiot
Cop stop or I'll shoot
Idiot But it's my cop camera
Cop

It needs to be on the cops with them having very little access or control over it. I needs to get more than just video/audio GPS/Time for starters and it needs to cryptographically sign every frame with strongs protections against tampering.

I could hope, diebold will end up making them a a 5 year old will be able to hack it with a crayola.

Re:One small problem

[zugmeister]

That an encounter with a cop while doing nothing illegal is potentially dangerous has already been established. The degree of danger may be in question but it is without a doubt nonzero. I'd say fear of a bad encounter with an armed thug possessing virtual immunity from the law is entirely reasonable.
Did you just pull those numbers out of your ass or do you have sources? They look a little too "even" for reality...

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"you shiteating fuckwad!" ... "I have the shred of basic human decency"

Parser error.

Re:One small problem

[c6gunner]

The VIDEO proves he didn't.

lol. That's cute.

I AM "The White Man," you shiteating fuckwad! What, you think because I have the shred of basic human decency necessary to admit the truth I can't possibly be white?!

No, it's quite obvious from your comments that a shred of decency is well beyond your grasp.

Re:One small problem

[nedlohs]

Did I see the post I wrote? Are you retarded or something?

I guess your slang is different than mine. "Not unexpected" means unlikely but not surprising to me. It doesn't mean "expected" (why would you use a double negation after all). And no "police kill unarmed man" is not surprising in the US.

But given you didn't argue that in your first post, but instead declared that *all* the people who died at the hands of the police were "those with multiple infractions and long rap sheets who physically resisted arrest. Or waved around what appeared to be a weapon and refused to drop it when ordered to do so." it seems likely you did in fact understand the slang usage but just don't like admitting you lied.

Oh and in the past 16 months police in the US have killed 1500 people - so a bit more than that for 18 months. A tiny percent of arrests, but that's not the point.

Yet another recent example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - Two police officers can handle a drunk pointing at them for a second, large male cop can't handle being pointed at by a drunk (who doesn't understand the danger involved since he is drunk) and so escalates and when the drunk takes an ineffectual swing kills him.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, sheep. Let the masters and their lapdogs grow in power. Next time the police won't ask you to stop filming, they will ask for your nice camera. After that they will forget about the camera and simply ask for a "guarding fee" that ensures you'll get safely where ever you were going. You should pay up too, because, you know, they can really ruin your life by putting you in jail for a day or two.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a camera that stream to cloud. You laugh all the way to the court room.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading these always makes my thank the god i don't even believe in I live in a country where cops act sane more than 99,9999% of the time. 5 million people, so a biggish city for you. Cops fire their arms like 7 times a year TOTAL. Mostly they just talk the aggressors down. If that doesn't work, next step is pepper spray(cop version). The dagger will most likely drop when your eyes hurt like hell and you can't see a thing. After that is a good old fashioned 6 vs 1 wrestling match. In that I believe they hold a perfect record. Our cops are in good shape, train constantly for these situations, go in with a group big enough(at least 2 to 1, basically) so they don't have to use harmfull amount of force. If the assumed bad guy has a gun the situation is different offcourse. Unless the person is actually shooting around and causing immediate danger to bystanders the cops generally just lock the situation down and talk them to drop the gun. Nobody can stay awake forever, but cops get to take turns. When they actually have to go in agains gun wielding idiots they do use their guns, but even then they won't shoot first. Haven't heard of flashbangs being used, and they try theor best not to hurt the suspect. Just firing their weapon means some kind of investigation and loads of paperwork. Being guilty of a crime basically ends the cops career as a cop. There are no fines that come out of police stations budget, what would the point of those even be? The budget comes from tax money anyways, so why would we fine the taxpayers when a cop does wrong? The fines they get they pay out of their own pocket, just like everyone else. Basically same laws apply to cops as to anyone else.

Our cops training takes 3 years to complete. That includes lots of real practice under the supervision of older cops. Physical training, law, weapons, tactics, driving, etc usual cop stuff. A bit of crime scene investigation etc. The real "detective" or "nvestigator" level cops get to go back to school for additional year or two, but only after they have served for some time. Oh, I forgot, all our cops must have another job before they apply to cop school. I guess that makes it easier to kick them out if they are not suitable. There are tests, both physical and psychological to get into cop school.

When I watch some TV show showing american cops I'm often amazed of how damn fat they are :D I mean, how do you even catch a criminal if you can't take a couple of running steps? You really think someone is going to respect your fat ass? Also, why on earth do you send the cops out alone? Go in pairs. It's usually always a single suspect, that means you are immediately in 2 vs 1 situation, the criminal won't even think he might have a change, and will just give up.

Re:One small problem

[danbert8]

One small clarification, you don't actually have a right to a phone call. Though, you will probably get one, and maybe more depending on your situation.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/...

Re:One small problem

[evenmoreconfused]

Check out the Hands Up app

http://www.handsuptheapp.com/

Re:One small problem

[luis_a_espinal]

I mean, look -- there were a bunch of recent stories with suspects getting killed or beate...n

Well, I think ONE thing is pretty clear.

Don't RUN from the cops. The one common denominator from most of the recently publicized cop shootings of citizens, is that the citizen generally ran from the officer.

But one thing to do for sure...don't act like an ass, if you are (and you should) exerting your rights, do so in a calm, non-threatening fashion. Don't shout. Don't curse, use clear concise language. The "Am I free to go" statement is a very simple and very powerful thing to say and get an answer to.

If you don't give them a reason to beat you...99.999% of the time they are not..

Tell that to poor Mr. Sureshbhai Patel: http://www.al.com/news/index.s...

Bad example. He actually resisted arrest and comes from a country where the police are far more corrupt than they are in the U.S. so he had some fear. Although, he did not speak English (how I don't know since English has been taught in India schools for over a century), he also did not submit and tried to get away from the cops. Now, the cop reaction was excessive--throwing the man down hard to a concrete slab and breaking a vertebrae or two--the man did resist arrest. It could have been handled a lot better.

On the contrary, this is a good example. That the LEO got fired and arrested is inconsequential to the argument at hand (the probability of a LEO beating the crap out of you for no valid reason.) The LEO's arrest is a consequence of the event whose probability is into question, so this is irrelevant.

As for the old grandpa resisting arrest, well that is still not a reason. For starters he wasn't resisting, he was simply in a state of not knowing what to do in the face of having uniformed strangers "touching" him during a patdown, not understanding WTF was going on.

That is not resisting. No judge in any goddamned court in this country (nor most LEOS) will ever find that as an example of resisting arrest. Let's be real.

So right there is a counter-example of the claim that if you do nothing (code for "act reasonable") will not get you taken like a piñata by a LEO.

Secondly, this "resisting arrest" mantra is very troublesome and common in forums.

What if instead of an old grandpa from India with zero English skills, we have an adult that is clearly suffering from mental retardation, and he walks back/away from LEOs during a patdown.

Is that resisting? And if so, does that warrant a beat down?

What about a deaf person who cannot hear you, who cannot comply with your orders? Is that person resisting arrest? Fuck no.

kfor.com/2014/02/26/dash-cam-video-deaf-man-charged-with-resisting-arrest-officers-cleared/ At some point, LEOs (and people in general) are bound to exercise common sense, decency, and compassion. In Mr. Patel's case, the LEO clearly understood the old man didn't speak English. Logic would dictate that the officer (a college degree holder and thus, supposedly, sufficiently educated to know better) would know that this person was not capable of understanding instructions, nor following them.

That right there blows up the argument that he was resisting arrest. You can't allege resistance to arrest when you (or should know) the person is incapacitated to comply (be them by obvious language barriers or physical/mental incapacity.) I mean, you can argue that it is so, just in the same way we can argue the world was created in 7 days and that the world is flat with the sun orbiting it.

It happens all the time, all the fucking time, for no reasons, for no valid reasons, not even for quasi-reasons that could be stretched into something barely resembling a reason. It just that nowadays, this type of shit gets move visible because the ubiquitous presence of cameras.

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

And I could show you more videos where cops are shot or killed because someone they pulled over suddenly attacked. No wonder they're on edge. Every single stop is a potential threat. Hindsight is wonderful, and it's easy to say that this or that wasn't a serious threat after the fact. Sure some cops are assholes, and that's a fact, but don't give them a reason to escalate it. If you're stopped, do what they say, and don't fight back. Don't give them a mouthful of shit. Don't wave around a weapon or what appears to be a weapon, and the likelihood of injury or death is dramatically reduced. Is this so hard to understand, or are we all on the "cops are killer assholes" bandwagon?
I mentioned the rap sheets because up until the recent public deaths of Brown, Garner, and Gray, this was nowhere near the issue is suddenly is now. I never said "all". But as long you're looking into the statistics of who got killed by police, go ahead and look again, and see how many of those have previous arrests and histories of legal trouble.
My point is, the average slashdot nerd here who gets pulled over for speeding or something isn't going to get shot to death if he/she just behaves normally.

Lastly, "unarmed man" doesn't necessarily mean anything. In some cases it does, but not all, not necessarily. Example: a perp can be "unarmed", but if he's physically assaulting the officer, grabbing for his gun, he can damn well expect to get shot. And cops are trained to only use the weapon for deadly force, otherwise leave it holstered. In those cases "unarmed" is largely meaningless, as the "unarmed" guy was desperately attempting to change his status to armed and dangerous.

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

All this said, my "Don't be so melodramatic" was maybe a bit harsh in it's verbiage and I apologize for the way that came out. I should have said, "That's a bit melodramatic" or something less confrontational.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Your patriotism is overwhelming. Glad you're willing to stand up for things that others DIED to provide you and your children with simply because it MIGHT mean you actually have to stand up for yourself.

Frankly, from one American to another - you're an asshole of epic proportions. I hope your kids are better people - I won't hold my breath with you at their helm.

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

You're right, the ones using race when speaking about people are RACIST. My point, in case you missed it, was that it is LIBERALS who constantly refer to race and race relations, pitting "whites" vs "blacks" vs "latinos" vs ... where are the Asians in this conversation? Oh right, because you can't negatively stigmatize a race that succeeds in spite of past racism (Chinese railroad slaves).

My point was that it is LIBERALS who keep saying blacks can't make it without help, and THAT is racist. I was saying that blacks don't need white help, because that keeps blacks as a subclass, and inferior. LIBERALS do that, not me.

I just wonder if you say the same thing about Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, calling them racist for keeping on about how blacks need white people's help. I rather doubt it.

No sir, you are the racist, because you're too damn afraid of letting blacks off the DNC Plantation of white guilt and white help. But keep thinking you're not racist by saying blacks need white help.

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

I think you misunderstood my point. People keep saying Baltimore was about "race", a black man died yada yada yada. And you are most certainly right, few, if any, black people would have cared if it was a white guy. I know, my white cousin was killed, while being unarmed in a parked car in a residential driveway. Very few people actually gave a shit.

Gray's death is almost certainly the fault of the police. They are certainly responsible for the care of those in their custody (look at the definition). AND that is what we need to focus on, not Gray's Race.

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

Poor people don't have a chance, because in order to start a business, one has to have the money to start a business. And one certainly needs to pay off government for all the taxes, licensing, and business fees to start a business. Just ask the poor kids (not) selling lemonade.

Taxes are regressive. Overly Burdensome government red tape is regressive. Poor people don't have a chance.

Re:One small problem

[Archangel Michael]

stop treating black people poorly.

But treating white people poorly is okay!!!

How about this ...

stop treating people poorly.

No racist terminology at all.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Obaaaaaaay your maaaaaaaster. Baaaaaa.

Go along to get along. Better to live as a slave than to die as a man.

Re:One small problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

But treating white people poorly is okay!!!

White people are not treated as poorly as black people.

No racist terminology at all.

Acting like it doesn't actually happen has, to date, proven ineffective.

Re:One small problem

[nedlohs]

In 2014 1100 (http://www.killedbypolice.net/kbp2014.html) people were killed by police in the US - now a lot of those were the police acting in self defense or the police acting to defend others. In 2014 127 (https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2014) police were killed in the US - note the police numbers count "police dogs" as "police officers" yet we aren't counting all the dogs shot by police and it includes single vehicle car crashes, training accidents, and heart attacks.

Since every interactions with the police by definition involves the police and another person (possible multiple police, possibly multiple other people of course), it would appear that the other person is orders of magnitude more likely to be killed than the police officer. So why is it the cop who gets to scared about the interaction?

And yes if you say "yes sir! how high sir?" things will probably work out fine. But the entire damn topic is videoing the police and having them tell you to stop and hand over the camera so they can delete it. "It's OK, just comply with their illegal orders and you won't get shot" isn't a a great solution to that situation.

You said "The ones who died at the hands of the cops are ...". That's clearly an "all" statement - it's specifying the set of people "who died at the hands of the cops". There's no "most" there. There's no "many" there. There's no "some" there.

And yes the unarmed guy is always going for the officers weapon. At least until the video comes out showing that surprise surprise the police lied. Though I guess your "just do what you are told and don't video the police when they tell you not to" solution does solve that video coming out part.

And of course people with lots of history with law enforcement and legal troubles are the ones who mostly get killed - they are the ones who interact with the police the most after all. They're more likely to run into the "bad apple".

Todays video for someone with a long history of crime is https://youtu.be/v2NzFq-81uA?t... - I guess you'll have to change "do what they say" to "do what they say fast" but then again you are also supposed to "not make any sudden movements" - damned if you get on the ground fast, damned if you do so slowly I guess...

Re:One small problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Michael Brown did not hold up a store.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if an officer tells me to cluck like a chicken, I must do it or face arrest? I'm not sure that's right.

If the armed man, who has the backing of several other armed men, tells you to do something, "right" doesn't enter into it.

Personally, I'd put the camera in my pocket still running, so at least there's an audio recording (and proof that you were obeying the nice officer, so why is the next five minutes the sound of crunching bones?)

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Officers usually do not arrest people who can prove they did nothing.

How incredibly naive. This happens all the time. A cop can make up any story he wants. "I felt threatened." "He refused to comply with my lawful order and then he repeatedly bashed his own head on the side walk after I arrested him." How do you prove you did nothing when it's your word vs. the word of an officer of the court? Police officers are always given the benefit of the doubt. This is the whole reason for the push for body cameras.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The negative focus on officers is 99.9% wrong. If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.

Assuming this is true - you're saying it's OK if that mall Santa only swears at 1 in every 1000 kids. He's still a great guy 99.9% of the time, right?

Police officers are supposed to be trained - that's why we trust them with the guns.

Re:One small problem

[obscuro]

Sorry dude, you're wrong on almost all of these counts and clearly don't understand the American system of government and law.

• Number 1 is totally wrong. We don't derive our rights from being represented in congresses and George Carlin is funny but they aren't privileges.
• Number 2 is totally wrong. Groups don't have rights. We recognize some groups as lacking sufficient majority to access their natural rights via the common channels of commerce, society and government so we make laws to reinforce their access to their rights.
• Number 3 is not just wrong it's the definition of a totalitarian state - so please stop voting.
• Number 4 is a problem. The only quote I see in the posts you might be referencing is quoting the Constitution, not "liberty and justice for all" from the Pledge of Allegiance. The Constitution can be found in the first section of the first chapter of the first book of US law.
• Number 5 is wrong. It's like saying that the primary function of a company is being a company. Organizations exist to execute mandates not to be organized. Our government's purpose is specifically to, "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (SP.), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." See the BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY part? Take a closer look.
• Number 6 is a paraphrase from fucking MAO, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Here in the United States we believe that liberty comes from our creator (whoever we think that might be) and that it is protected by OUR continued maintenance of the capacity and right to use force. So, you're kind of right but if you elaborated I'm sure you'd show how wrong you can be about it.
• Number 7 is a bizarre statement. Justice in the United States is about protecting people's rights to life, liberty and property. That's why it's POSSIBLE TO BE GUILTY OR INNOCENT. When someone deprives someone of their RIGHT to life, they are guilty of murder. GET IT?

The individual is the source of ALL RIGHTS, ALL RESPONSIBILITIES and ALL POWERS. The Declaration of Independence works like the givens for a geometric proof. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There is no society contemplated here. Society is a collection of individuals that, JUST LIKE GOVERNMENT, is never presumed to have more rights than the individual.

Individuals have certain responsibilities that go along with those rights. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." We have a duty to correct or abolish our government if it fails to protect and serve our rights AS INDIVIDUALS.

The particular limits on government called out in the Bill of Rights is instructive here. They are the rights necessary to correct or abolish our government or to establish and run one.

• 1st Amendment - Free speech (exactly how does SOCIETY speak?) and free assembly (which can be two people or a million) - This is the right that we use freely AS INDIVIDUALS and that we grant to the government for the formation of courts, administration, departments, congresses, etc.
• 2nd Amendment - Right to keep and Bear Arms - This is a right we use AS INDIVIDUALS and a right we grant to local governments for policing and to our national government for FBI and military. Our individual right to bear arms is also what qualifies our courts as those belonging to a free people. WE THE PEOPLE are the convening authority of our courts. If only the police and military

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

Well, now you seem to be suggesting that some videos - which may not even show the full context of an event - speaks for all cops and all situations.
Regards videoing cops, BTW, I agree with the ACLU here. Notice they don't recommend getting belligerent or physical. When I said, "Do what they say" I mean within common sense. If they ask for ID, don't say "Fuck off, you have no right to see my ID". That's the kind of thing that starts trouble. If they say, "step back you're too close", that probably won't hurt to comply. But I do support the right to video anything that occurs in the public domain. If you do as the ACLU here suggests, I'd be very surprised if that resulted in violence.

Re:One small problem

[cyberchondriac]

The video shows him stealing cigars, then shoving the proprietor out of his way, then threatening/menacing him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... That's theft and assault by any definition. No he didn't' have a gun and empty out the til, but I think you're splitting hairs. This event speaks quite a bit to his character, and his mood at the time.

Re:One small problem

[sysrammer]

"When dealing with the police, avoid being black"

Words to the wise, yet people still consistently break that rule. It's their own fault.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculous. You can charge the police with "unlawful detention of liberty". That's what the American Revolution was fought for: liberty. Remember that so you can p0wn those buttcracks in court.

Re:One small problem

[sysrammer]

Wow. He drops everything. He starts to turn away. They pepper him with half a dozen shots. Then yell "Get your hands up!".

Re:One small problem

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

The video shows him stealing cigars, then shoving the proprietor out of his way, then threatening/menacing him.

It shows an altercation. It also shows money changing hands and the store owner didn't call it in to the cops.

This event speaks quite a bit to his character, and his mood at the time.

Mood yes, character, no. The rap-sheet you're operating from is something you've invented.

Re:One small problem

[siliconsmiley]

A group has no rights, period. Individuals have rights, those rights extend to where there are groups (see First Amendment). The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.

I forget, who was that said, "Corporations are people my friends." Was that some far left-winger? Corporations are groups of people. A corporation is an entity designed to indemnify the individuals of the corporation against personal liability. Yet, corporations are now provided some of the same rights as individual people. It's like reverse double jeopardy.

Re:One small problem

[nedlohs]

Of course one video doesn't speak for all cops in all situations. Did you forget this whole thread is about " the biggest risk"? And obviously the biggest risk involves your encounter being with a violent thug of a cop who is having a bad day.

The kind of cop who will kick you in the head for not throwing yourself onto the ground in an instant when told to get on the ground. Or shoot you because you made a sudden movement when he told you to show him your license. Or punch and then slam you into concrete because you put your hands out to be handcuffed.

Sure a lot of cops aren't like that at all - but as you said "And I could show you more videos where cops are shot or killed because someone they pulled over suddenly attacked. No wonder they're on edge." Why would you expect a non-cop to not be on edge when having to interact with a cop given all the cases of cops injuring or killing people?

Re:One small problem

[volmtech]

I don't imagine I would have any trouble. Of course I am an old white guy and by the time I figured out how to take a video with my phone the action would be over. Also my son is a lawyer and a best friend's son is a county judge. YMMV

Re: One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Because A's free speech does not CAUSE the panic in the room that results in B's loss of life. It could have EASILY been prevented if other people in the room had been properly trained to handle such a situation. The owner of the room is, therefore, responsible because he did not provide proper training or had too many people in the room. When you blame the free speech, rather than the irrational behavior, you are revoking a fundamental right (THE MOST fundamental right in a free society, in fact) and not dealing with the inherent problem. For example, what if somebody said "hire" and due to the acoustics of the room it was amplified and sounded like "fire". You have not SOLVED the underlying problem.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

On topic. Check your local laws before you pipe up to a cop while you are recording his/her activities. The laws vary from state to state, but Illinois and Massachusetts are currently the only states where you are not allowed to record a police officer under any circumstance. There are over a dozen states where consent of all parties to a recording have to be received before you can record, and 39 states where, as long as the activity is going on in public or in full view of the public, you can record whatever you want.

In general, the right to record government officials without their permission or even their knowledge is certainly a right arising under the 9th Amendment, and thus not subject to federal, state or local government interference.

As such, any and all laws, rules, orders, or precedents to the contrary are illegal. Enforcement of such illegal laws by police officers is a violation of the oaths they have sword to uphold the Bill of Rights. Those oaths being a precondition for holding any position of public trust and responsibility, the officer immediately and permanently ceases to be an officer, irregardless of any governmental rules to the contrary. The same applies to any judge or prosecutor allowing such illegal laws to be enforced.

Think of this as equivalent to the Nuremberg Precedent, but applying to government officials in general, and to the legal profession, as a consequence of the 9th Amendment and the right to ethical practice of law.

Unlike the 1st Amendment, the 9th applies to state and local government, and can also be applied to non-governmental entities. This follows both from James Madison's original text of the Bill of Rights, and from the right to ethical practice of law.

Note that ownership of land implies public trust (the owner is being trusted not to abuse the land, and to respect the rights of others), and thus persons who demonstrated their lack to fitness to hold any position of public trust or responsibility are barred from owning (or receiving) land.

It's best you check the laws where you live and PRINT OUT THOSE LAWS and have them handy if you are going to make a habit or passing fancy out of recording police officers while they perform their duty. Otherwise, have a lawyer next to you. One other thing to keep in mind is that even if it is legal for you to record, local cops can put you in their cross hairs forever if you piss them off. I'm not saying they will do anything illegal, but they can legally make your life miserable if they so choose. Do one little thing wrong and you'll be cited, every time, until you leave the community. Nothing illegal about it if you are actually violating any civil or criminal statute. Just remember that when you're getting incriminating evidence on your cell phone of a cop. You may have to leave town to protect your "liberty".

The US legal system currently reflects unethical practice of law on a massive scale, in violation of the 9th Amendment. The legal profession is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope and form of the legal system: given the role of legal professionals in writing, shaping, and executing the law, excessive law or excessive complexity of law is a violation of the right to ethical practice of law.

As such, many laws are in fact illegal: the legal system is a mess and has been that way for a long time. If we go back in history, we can even view slavery and later the Jim Crow laws as representing unethical practice of law. Ethics problems in law are not a new problem.

Further, courts sometimes issue illegal orders, and lawyers sometimes issue illegal summons.

Enforcement of such by the police is itself illegal. As such, police harassment of an individual is likely to be illegal, irregardless of the written laws.

For example, in general it violates the right to ethical government (also a 9th Amendment right, even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avo

Re: One small problem

[jwdb]

The owner of the room is, therefore, responsible because he did not provide proper training or had too many people in the room.

Why is the owner responsible for providing training, but the speaker not responsible for the consequences of an action he knows will lead to injuries, possibly death? An action that can only be mischievous or malicious in intent, despite it in theory being a right?

To be clear, I'm talking about someone yelling fire when there isn't actually a fire.

Re:One small problem

[Gr8Apes]

You and everyone that followed is correct, if you shoot, you should shoot to kill. I was still in the mindset of them killing this mentally ill guy with a knife. I should have left that sentence out.

Re:One small problem

[Phaedrus420]

There's an app for that.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to train serving police officers in safe handling and proficient use of firearms.

(I never was a police officer or a civilian under their employ, I ran a civilian shooting range).

Ergo I was often to be found walking into and through a police station with an armful of rifles.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

no more Hawaii Five O for you.

Police REQUIRE "just cause" or "reasonable suspicion" to ARREST YOU. Otherwise it is simple abduction under the Common Law (even preventing you from leaving without just cause is technical abduction), which is covered under no statute of limitations and which carries a life sentence in most jurisdictions.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"Check your local laws before you pipe up to a cop while you are recording his/her activities. The laws vary from state to state, but Illinois and Massachusetts are currently the only states where you are not allowed to record a police officer under any circumstance."

You are wrong with this statement. You are allowed to record in all states but MA tries to pull the "wiretap" law which is incorrect. If you are filming in public and the officers see you and stays there he can choose to leave. If not is consenting and it is not hidden therefore not wiretapping.

Check Photography is Not a Crime. You will be educated very quickly on why you should always film the police.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

6 years ago, but this is a blatant example of police brutality: Ian Tomlinson murdered at the G20 protest (he wasn't even part of the protest!) in London in 2009: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ (video of the deliberate and forethought action by the police officer which directly resulted in Ian's death).

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

that stems from the fact that the police investigate themselves. It needs individuals to bring their own criminal actions against individuals regardless of whether they wear a badge or not, fuck the AG and fuck the public prosecutor. If you have actionable evidence against someone, no matter who they are, fucking demand a jury and use it!

Re:One small problem

[CrimsonAvenger]

As a long time Democrat and coming from a staunchly, fiscal conservative Democratic family I can say unequivocally that the idea that individuals have no rights and only groups do is NOT a "far left wing" idea.

Hmm, isn't it the far left wing theory that the Second Amendment is NOT an individual right, but a "collective right"?

Or have the Dems finally decided that the Second Amendment is just as valid a right as the First? If so, why do they keep coming up with gun control laws?

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a name 'sound' a colour?

Well, there's Barry White, Al Green, Clint Black, and from B.B. King I hear the blues.

Re:One small problem

[Cederic]

Well, pulled across in front of them, slammed on the brakes, then it was a case of braking so sharply they couldn't brake sharper to pull out while not braking so sharply that they hit me.

Then I just got out and walked back to shout at them.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you have to cluck-like-a-chicken or die like a dog.
Remember,they are accountable to no one and will kill anyone who exposes their crimes.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't start conflicts, but if one is started, I fight to win, and I use a constantly increasing levels of force to make sure I win. Situation dominance is my way. and yes, this applies to police.

Dream on. When a police starts a fight with you, it will be escalated beyond your level of force (i.e. you would be shot) so fast that you stand no chance.

Depends on the person. Some are able to escalate a lot and quickly. Some people, for example, have been in special forces. Hope you are smart enough not to think you can just shoot one of those guys! You'll never reach your weapon.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't start conflicts, but if one is started, I fight to win, and I use a constantly increasing levels of force to make sure I win. Situation dominance is my way. and yes, this applies to police.

Dream on. When a police starts a fight with you, it will be escalated beyond your level of force (i.e. you would be shot) so fast that you stand no chance.

If he says it, I would tend to believe it. Some people can break 3 cops before they can think about drawing their weapons. usually, though, they are busy making the world safe and don't have time to write on slashdot....

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the way you described the tactic means you have some serious training. You are breaking my theory of people with your skills being too busy to comment on slashdot...

By the way, I know a man who bit a dog literally. Used it as a tactic to become the alpha male in that dog's world, so it would treat his dog and him with more respect. It worked. But, ya gotta have chutzpah and skills to do these things.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

In reading this entire thread, no one even mentioned the sweetest way to deal with things, up to an including exacting retribution, and doing it all legally. Get elected. Be voted the big boss of whatever is your jurisdiction. Sure, you still won't be above the law for any real wrongdoing, but no one here wanted this anyway. But you will be treated very differently, and have lots of effect on outcomes... including the attitude Officer Clancy who previously thought negatively toward you. Perhaps it just goes to show that slashdotters are mostly computer geeks. No one even mentioned that personally gaining political power might be helpful.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That is completely the opposite of true. The American Public has butkis. The Constitution protects my individual rights. Rights, by the way, which are not limited by citizenship. Any person in the legal jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of legal status has the same rights.
However an officer of the law has the right and obligation to detain anyone who is acting contrary to the established laws. So cluck like a chicken no. Be quiet, leave the area, stay in the area (if being detained), keep you hands visible, certainly. However stop recording if in a public place. No.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

There are six officers in Baltimore that might disagree with that statement about risk to officers, in spite of the undying support of their union.... And, in general, when a cop does something really bad and actually goes to jail / prison, well, their outcome is far worse than average.... Oh, yeah, and don't make the mistake of arguing with Skip Gates in his own house when he is cranky and jet lagged after returning from China... that officer was lucky he was squeaky clean, or instead of Skip and the officer having beer with the President, Skip would still be teaching at Harvard, and that officer would be in a new occupation. As cynical as we like to be, it is not all one-sided.

Re:One small problem

[Pseudonym]

A group has no rights, period.

A corporation can have a religion, apparently.

Re:One small problem

[Agripa]

It has been shown police do not follow the law hell even use ignorance of the law as an excuse.

The Supreme Court recently upheld this; ignorance of the law is no excuse for a civilian who is arrested but it *is* an excuse for the cop making the arrest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

Here in Missouri cops use our seat belt law to pull people over when they want even though it is a secondary offense and the statute specifically states that it is unlawful to pull people over for just a seat belt infraction.

Re:One small problem

[Agripa]

Just look at how the 4 Swedish police officers in New York handled the situation. They were unarmed and were calmly holding the subjects. If this were the NYPD, do you think they would have handled it the same way, or would they have used much, much more force?

If the NYPD had handled it, the suspect would have resisted arrest more.

Re:One small problem

[CimmerianX]

Cops can strip search you without probable cause.... they can strip search you for even the most minor of offensives, even if the offense is made-up.

Source:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/...

Re:One small problem

[nedlohs]

Another day another video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Surprise surprise police attack someone and charge him with attacking them.

If not for the video they didn't know about he would be the one getting a criminal record and thus becoming one of those people with a history who deserves what they get. Instead there's a video so they'll get a paid vacation.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

> As a general rule, however, if you are placed in custody, your "speedy trial" rights typically require the prosecutor to decide within 72 hours which charges, if any, will be filed. Many states adhere to this 72-hour limit.

Findlaw | How Long May Police Hold Suspects Before Charges Must be Filed?

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The right didn't make corporations "people" either. Please read about corporate personhood (which has been around as a legal concept for centuries) before making ignorant claims like that. The right is saying that when people assemble for a purpose (in the case of a corporation, usually to make money) they don't lose the rights they already had. If the case had gone the other way, the ACLU wouldn't be able to run ads either; it's a non-profit corporation.

Groups do not have rights. We passed laws to protect minorities because we as a society thought (with good reason) that the people in those groups were more vulnerable to exploitation, and we wanted to increase the penalties for exploiting them.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Bootlicking asshole alert.

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm saying you're an asshole.

Re:One small problem

[Whorhay]

I definitely agree that such behaviour is illegal. However that doesn't actually stop it from happening on an institutional basis, as we recently discovered in Chicago.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-...

It's open for debate how wide spread this kind of crap is. The people most likely to be put through the wringer are those least likely and able to fight back against it.

Re:One small problem

[Whorhay]

It would take a lot of skill to pull something like that off deliberately and repeatably without error. That said I've done some amazing driving myself in the heat of the moment. But I would never count on being able to recreate any of those situations without ending up injured or dead.

My favorite being while driving my 1969 Catalina, a car swerved onto the highway in front of me, failing to yield the right of way when they had a red light. That car's driver was oblivious to other traffic as they didn't try to get up to highway speed rapidly or even pick a lane. I braked and manuevered hard enough that my car turned 45 degrees to the left, as I slid past them on the right. It's funny how adrenaline or whatever can make time feel slower at moments like that. I even had the presence of mind to flip them the bird and scream some obsceneties

Re:One small problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing that is on the VA side of the river....

Re:One small problem

[ancientmyth]

Why is A's right to free speech less important than B's right to life?

You just answered your own question. Life outweighs action. While A maintains the right to yell "fire", A is likely to be held liable for any harm inflicted upon B (and C, and D, and, etc.) by the action of A. The individual rights of multiple A, B, C's (and so on) make up what we call society in that they socialize with each other. Society has created courts when rights contradict.

I don't believe in inalienable rights

Then you should review its definition. Whether you believe in them or not, they can't be taken away from you.

Re:One small problem

[jwdb]

Life outweighs action.

Why? Is life any more valuable than freedom of action? On what basis? If life is always more valuable, why have people ever given their life, say to fight for freedom?

And who decided which right outweighs which? If you leave it to individuals, you're stuck with the same contradiction again.

Then you should review its definition. Whether you believe in them or not, they can't be taken away from you.

Just because it's written in a book doesn't make it reality. Yes you can define the concept of inalienable rights as an abstract, but doesn't mean any actually exist.

Or, to phrase it differently, can you show that the right to life is inalienable? It clearly isn't for anything not considered a person, so what makes us different?

"Am I free to stay?"

[jareth-0205]

"The right question to ask is, 'am I free to go?'"

Are you not sort of expected to leave if you ask if you're free to go? I don't want to leave, I want to continue doing the legal thing that I'm doing.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[thaylin]

You dont have to completely leave, but it gives you the ability to walk away from the officer without the claim of resisting.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[TheGratefulNet]

ianal, but I think 'free to go' means free to move about. it does not mean you have to change (x,y) locations right there at that moment.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Being free to go does not imply a desire to go or even a willingness to go, it merely implies there is nothing stopping you from doing so if you so wish.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[Dog-Cow]

Free to go does not mean required to go. Expectations are irrelevant.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[rmdingler]

I believe the point of the verbal exercise is to gain an admission from the officer that he/she has chosen to detain you. Detaining a citizen implies things like probable cause and such, which may not exist. The point is, the leo will know exactly what you are asking.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[ArsenneLupin]

... but it's still bizarre if you ask for permission to go, and then just continue to hang around at that exact spot...

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[Mitreya]

You dont have to completely leave, but it gives you the ability to walk away from the officer without the claim of resisting.

Wow, is that the rule?
So then you have to record your question being asked and answered. Otherwise, it's your word against the police officer's word that "....but s/he said I was free to leave", when you are charged with resisting arrest.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[gstoddart]

I think that question says "are you embarking on legal proceeding against me, or are you just flapping your gums?".

If the officer isn't detaining you, he's not doing anything other than speaking to you and you can walk away from him, or just stand there.

That, of course, assumes the police officer knows or cares what that is supposed to mean ... just like the officer obviously neither knows nor cares about the fact that you can legally film him in the first place.

The problem becomes when police don't give a fuck about the law, attempt to illegally detain you, and then when you say "what the hell are you doing?" they charge you with resisting arrest, despite that you weren't being arrested.

In theory this says "unless you are arresting me, this is a voluntary interaction which I am ending".

In practice, I'm not convinced all the police know or care about these things, because they believe they can do whatever they wish.

And it's those police officers who are causing us to say "fuck it, I can't tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones, so put a body camera on them at all times and stop trusting them at their word". And I'm sorry to the good police who feel all butt hurt over this, but too damned bad.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[NatasRevol]

Only if you're a pedant.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[ArsenneLupin]

In theory this says "unless you are arresting me, this is a voluntary interaction which I am ending".

... but actually your are not ending it, but rather continuing it by keeping on filming...

Legally, he could claim that because you voluntarily stick around, you are voluntarily consenting to any abuse that he's subjecting you to after you've got your chance to leave or stop all interactions with him.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory this says "unless you are arresting me, this is a voluntary interaction which I am ending".

... but actually your are not ending it, but rather continuing it by keeping on filming...

Legally, he could claim that because you voluntarily stick around, you are voluntarily consenting to any abuse that he's subjecting you to after you've got your chance to leave or stop all interactions with him.

Legally, he could claim that? Can you cite the statute that says anyone who stays within the vicinity of a cop can be legally abused?

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[MitchDev]

If the good cops would turn in the bad cops, they would still be good cops

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[luis_a_espinal]

In theory this says "unless you are arresting me, this is a voluntary interaction which I am ending".

... but actually your are not ending it, but rather continuing it by keeping on filming...

Legally, he could claim that because you voluntarily stick around, you are voluntarily consenting to any abuse that he's subjecting you to after you've got your chance to leave or stop all interactions with him.

He can claim whatever he wants, it would still be a violation of your constitutional rights. That bad LEOs flunk at that one does not mean they legally have the power for it.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally, he could claim that because you voluntarily stick around, you are voluntarily consenting to any abuse that he's subjecting you to after you've got your chance to leave or stop all interactions with him.

Legally, huh? And your sources for this are, what, exactly?

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[multimediavt]

And I'm sorry to the good police who feel all butt hurt over this, but too damned bad.

Yep. If you want us to trust all of you, start weeding out your own bad apples so we don't have to deal with them to begin with! We'll start trusting you when you show us you deserve it. Isn't that how that's supposed to go? There isn't any instant trust relationship.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[Anonymous Coward]

"In practice, I'm not convinced all the police know or care about these things, because they believe they can do whatever they wish."

I'm sure most of them KNOW, but thinking it affects them in the carrying-out of their daily routine is another story.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is to ask whether the police officer is considering to restrain your freedom of going about your business (so long it is out of the way of a police operation). You're not asking about going elsewhere, you're asking about the current status of your freedom of movement according to the law. The freedom of movement includes the freedom to not actually move.

Pedantry having a connotation of still being right despite the details considered unnecessary (often wrongly to some amount at least, but it's not the subject), I wouldn't say it would be pedantry to consider it bizarre not to move. I'm not sure I would call it an error per se, but it could at least be considered bizarre itself.

Re:"Am I free to stay?"

[hey!]

Well, you could ask, "Am I being detained or arrested?" and if the answer is "no", then "I do not wish to talk with you. Please carry on while I film, officer."

give em two fingers

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Say "fuck you copper" and give them the victory sign.

2. Upload your video to youtube when you/ your items get released

3. Profit / you family profits after attending your funeral.

1a. if the cop had a gun and a tazer, whatever you do, don't run, sometimes they get them mixed up. /dons flame retardant suit.

Yeah, you can say it from jail

[NotDrWho]

Where I'm from if you backtalk a cop, they take you to jail (if you're lucky they don't beat you for "resisting arrest" too). They make up some charges after-the-fact. Or maybe there are no charges and they let you go after 48 hours of sharing a cell with crackheads. Either way, the lesson is "don't backtalk."

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[AntronArgaiv]

Freedom isn't free. If you don't stand up for your rights, you'll have them trampled on. Every citizen with a video camera is a bad cop's worst nightmare.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[NotDrWho]

You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Your employer is in the habit of firing people who are heroes and defend civil rights?

Get a new employer.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your excuse when your kid is in custody for something they didn't do?

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?

when did laying down and not resisting tyranny become 'insightful'

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Every citizen with a video camera is a bad cop's worst nightmare.

And people tend to forget the other half, that more cameras is great for the good cops too. Dashboard cams in cop cars have help defend more cops than hurt bad ones (even if counting when it should have hurt but 'disappeared'). While there are some assholes behind the badges, there are also a lot of assholes in front of them, and video makes dealing with he-said-she-said situations in court or false charges of misconduct a lot more straightforward.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

And who's gonna watch all that video you took? Maybe your grandkids, but not a DA, nor a judge, nor anyone who is going to make anything happen. Don't pretend that once something is on video, the magic fairies of flawless justice take over the case. Sure, video gets played in the case of violent beatings, but if you get thrown in jail for 48 hours and then released without charges, nobody in charge is gonna give a fuck that the cops had no grounds to detain you in the first place. They'll just say: "You've been released without charges, consider yourself fortunate."

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Your employer is in the habit of firing people who are heroes and defend civil rights?

Get a new employer.

Good luck getting past HR of your new employer with your record of being arrested.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?

Welcome back, Mr Hitler. The times are ready for you again.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[mOzone]

if you act crazy and start yellin at the cop thats prob cause for a search ..most folks dont go around yelling and screaming

shout names thats trying to instigate a response from the cop and you will be arrested

common sense people

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[luis_a_espinal]

You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?

As a parent, I agree with the sentiment with caveats. I film with my phone until I'm told to stop. I won't argue, I will simply comply and leave. Chances are my phone will not be taken from me, so the record stays with me. And if the phone is taken from me, I won't fight it. I will comply, hand it over, and go home, call my lawyer and litigate.

I haven't done yet, but I'm in the process of installing front and rear cameras in both our cars. And just by applying common sense, it can be done so without escalating a confrontation.

As a parent, you are completely right to avoid a confrontation. But as a parent, you are not right in doing a modicum of an low-risk effort to improve society. Your children will inherit it.

You don't have to go martyr, but for f* sake, at least show your children you have a backbone and a set of principles.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice to see you are not willing to stand up for your Rights.
Therefore you no longer have the Right of Free Speech. Please log off the Internet immediately.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangely enough, police departments all over the country have are learning exactly the opposite. If you're arrested and held without grounds, and you can prove it, you can hold the department responsible, and get restitution. (And many people have managed to do just that thanks to video evidence.)

It might not be *criminal* charges against the officer in question (unfortunately), but civil cases are easily won with video evidence that clearly shows what *actually* happened.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[pz]

You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?

I have heroes in my family. More than one. Big, international-scale heroes. Heroes who lived apart from their families, risked arrest, or even lost their lives, to do great things. My wife would slap me in anger and disgust if I were to cower in front of an abuse of power, and it would be well-deserved. "Daddy did something heroic," isn't an excuse, it is an expectation.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[multimediavt]

Where I'm from if you backtalk a cop, they take you to jail (if you're lucky they don't beat you for "resisting arrest" too). They make up some charges after-the-fact. Or maybe there are no charges and they let you go after 48 hours of sharing a cell with crackheads. Either way, the lesson is "don't backtalk."

It's disorderly conduct. It's not a bullshit charge. All my LEO friends have told me, do not argue with a cop. It's pointless and will get you charged with a misdemeanor disorderly conduct violation. Argue with a judge or a lawyer, but not a cop. Besides, in most states you are required to obey any lawful order given to you by a cop, whether you believe you're in the right or not it's just dumb to argue with a cop unless you are a lawyer or a judge, or happen to be standing next to one. But, if an officer tells you to stop recording in a state where it is perfectly legal, quote the statute (or have a copy handy) in a calm way and do back off a little to allow the officer to gain control of the situation that you are recording. Don't argue with the cop!

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Pussy.

Re:Yeah, you can say it from jail

[Anonymous Coward]

You go be the hero then. I've got a wife and kids who aren't going to accept "Daddy did something heroic" as an excuse when I lose my job and we're living in a van down by the river. Is the ACLU going to pay my mortgage when I have to call into work and explain to them that I can't come in because I'm in jail?

I have heroes in my family. More than one. Big, international-scale heroes. Heroes who lived apart from their families, risked arrest, or even lost their lives, to do great things. My wife would slap me in anger and disgust if I were to cower in front of an abuse of power, and it would be well-deserved. "Daddy did something heroic," isn't an excuse, it is an expectation.

www.thehotline.org

May be problematic with Victims of crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

While working victim services in Michigan we were trained to inform people that their devices could be confiscated as evidence if they were filming / taking pictures of accidents and crime scene with the victim present. That was probably 15 years ago.

Re:May be problematic with Victims of crimes

[ledow]

Evidence requires preservation.

If it's returned without a) a court order saying the evidence was removed by order of the court or b) the evidence, then the evidence has been improperly recorded.

In the circumstances discussed, it's rarely about evidence preservation or even victim protection. In both those cases, there are laws against deleting the evidence from your devices without the correct permission from the court. If you say you filmed something, the officer confiscated your device but the device contains NO trace of that evidence and forensics even hints that it was cleared or deleted, that's destruction of evidence. Courts can/will/should come down extremely harshly on that. It's basically evidence-tampering, perverting the course of justice, etc.

You can't stop your device being confiscated. But you cannot be asked to delete your evidence or have it deleted without a court order.

It comes under similar rules to paedophiles having their computer equipment returned. It has to be properly recorded, tagged, booked in, untampered, forensically analysed, recorded, presented to court, and the order made to remove or destroy only those infringing parts (and/or they ask if you object to just destruction of all the data on it to save time).

It's still your hardware, but it's held in evidence. It can't be tampered with (legally), and it can't be held indefinitely.

In the UK, the police officer would have to give you written confiscation records etc. and you'd be entitled to have details specifically noted about the last file you recorded on there, if you asked for it.

It's all a case of where the crime gets too stupid for an officer to be found guilty of. Asking you to stop recording, the worst that happens is - not much, actually. Asking you to move on from the area, again not much so long as it's done for a vaguely plausible reason. Arresting you? That requires a charge that isn't made up just to harass you. Confiscating your equipment? That requires a) a valid reason b) all reasonable evidence preservation, c) written records of that confiscation and reasons (and, as far as I know, "because he was filming me" isn't a reasonable reason but victim protection may be but even that's dubious in the case of something like a road accident or plain "filming an arrest" scenario).

This has come up in the UK several times and the police commissioners have had to announce that, actually, no they cannot delete your files without a specific, and requested, court order. They can't ask you to do it (except voluntarily), they can't do it for you, and certainly can't do it without treating it as evidence (in which case it's destruction of evidence, which is infinitely more serious than just taking a dislike to someone filming you).

But then, I live in a vaguely civilised country. Your local interpretation of the law may be different.

Re: Two Party Consent

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up how two-party consent works, especially in public.

Problem only for now

[paiute]

This whole problem will go away when recording devices become so small that police will not know who is filming them and who is not. Eyeglasses? Could be a camera. Contact lenses? Camera? Glass eye? Camera. Third button down on the shirt? Camera.

Re:Problem only for now

[moeinvt]

I think it's better if the police know you're filming them. They tend to be a little more polite.

You also have to be careful because of these states where there are "mutual consent" laws about recording. i.e. in some states you can record a conversation surreptitiously, while in others, all parties to the conversation must know it's being recorded. The authorities have actually tried to use this against people who film their encounters with the police. There was a case in MD where an off-duty cop pulled over a motorcycle driver who was wearing a helmet cam and they tried to say he broke the "wiretapping" laws by recording without the cop's consent.

Re:Problem only for now

[Anonymous Coward]

We already tried that with Google glass. Most ordinary citizens decided that someone being able to covertly record people was monumentally worse than whatever we might gain.

Re:Problem only for now

[Anonymous Coward]

Just FYI: in other countries such "hidden" cameras are prohibited to own, use or buy.

Re:Problem only for now

[cdrudge]

You also have to be careful because of these states where there are "mutual consent" laws about recording. i.e. in some states you can record a conversation surreptitiously, while in others, all parties to the conversation must know it's being recorded.

Most (all?) states allow video-only recording without two party consent. Two party consent typically pertains to the audio portion of the recording.

Re:Problem only for now

[mrchaotica]

All-party consent (rather than one-party consent) for recording has always been a stupid fucking brain-dead policy, but the proliferation of cameras means we ought to be making getting those laws repealed a high priority.

Re:Problem only for now

[AHuxley]

It really depends where the data ends up too. Live stream to a public server with other people seeing and making a copy in real time?
Streaming to a file that one person has to connect to later?
A copy kept in the device.
If its to a public, live service then the material exists globally from that device.
A request could be made to hand over all passwords related to the device and service.
If the device is examined and found to be a protected upload site with a file, that could get interesting before a lawyer can get to their client.
A local copy in the device could just fail at some point and be unrecoverable.
Ensure any streaming service is useful and seen in realtime.

Re:Problem only for now

[Anonymous Coward]

So only wear them at crime scenes.

Re:Problem only for now

[Bob the Super Hamste]

In cases of mutual consent states (which probably don't apply any way) would something like a bumper sticker with something like a EULA stating that by approaching this vehicle you consent to audio and video recording. Maybe also include in the warning that you will never consent to a search of the vehicle and any searches carried out would be considered involuntary.

Re:Problem only for now

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a case in MD where an off-duty cop pulled over a motorcycle driver who was wearing a helmet cam and they tried to say he broke the "wiretapping" laws by recording without the cop's consent.

In MD, when a police officer wearing a body camera pulls you over they now warn you that the interaction is being recorded. At least they seem to be respecting the spirit of the decision from that case.

Re:Problem only for now

[LWATCDR]

No the you will just have tin foil hat/hipsters beating the daylights out of you for having a camera...
See every discussion of GoogleGlass on Slashdot for proof.

Re:Problem only for now

[AntronArgaiv]

I think it's better if the police know you're filming them. They tend to be a little more polite.

You also have to be careful because of these states where there are "mutual consent" laws about recording. i.e. in some states you can record a conversation surreptitiously, while in others, all parties to the conversation must know it's being recorded. The authorities have actually tried to use this against people who film their encounters with the police. There was a case in MD where an off-duty cop pulled over a motorcycle driver who was wearing a helmet cam and they tried to say he broke the "wiretapping" laws by recording without the cop's consent.

They tried the same thing in Massachusetts. Only problem: the guy filming was a lawyer and he fought it. Courts came back and said that filming a public official in a public place was completely legal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Re:Problem only for now

[mark-t]

I think It might be argued that simply overhearing something or seeing it is "recording", since human memory is a type of record... It's just one that may be challenged with somewhat more success than photographs or videos would be, but that Is primarily only because the latter are considered more reliable.

once we get into the realm of artificially enhanced memory, technology that I well expect to be available in my lifetime, lines between "recording" and "witnessing" may become indistinguishable.

Re:Problem only for now

[multimediavt]

All-party consent (rather than one-party consent) for recording has always been a stupid fucking brain-dead policy, but the proliferation of cameras means we ought to be making getting those laws repealed a high priority.

Tell that to Illinois and Massachusetts. Then work on the other 16 or so states that have effed up consent laws for recording interactions.

Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Try that advice in the real world. The letter of the law doesn't matter if you're outnumbered, outgunned by an organisation that will not cease to ruin your life.

Let's see these people do it for real, instead of hiding behind a desk. Then ask them how they are in one years time.

Re:Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[moeinvt]

Check out "Filming Cops" and "Cop Block". They've been advocating and doing this for years and facing violence and intimidation from the police as a result.

Yes, it's definitely easy to say and hard to do, but people ARE doing it. Just know that you have every right to film the cops in public and if they try to stop you, they are in the wrong. You might even get lucky and get a payday out of it.

It's funny. For years, people on the Cop Block message boards have been criticizing people who were actively filming police. They were saying that it wouldn't change anything. Now the tide is turning. Too bad that the "racism" thing had to enter the picture when cops have been brutalizing people of all races, but if that's what it takes to raise awareness, so be it.

Re:Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[Major Blud]

"Too bad that the "racism" thing had to enter the picture when cops have been brutalizing people of all races, but if that's what it takes to raise awareness, so be it."

This is what irritates me about the recent Baltimore case. It’s being passed as “cops vs. blacks”, when in reality it’s “cops vs. everyone”. Take a look at the racial makeup of the 6 cops that are facing charges (3 are black). Hell, even the Baltimore police chief is black.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05...

Re:Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[moeinvt]

Oh, it's definitely irritating as hell that it suddenly became a racism thing instead of a government vs. the people thing. Especially to those of us who have been paying attention to law enforcement abuses over the long term. I've been following "Cop Block" for years, long before anyone ever heard the name "Michael Brown" and there are cases of egregious police abuses against citizens of all races. Look up the case of "Kelly Thomas".

However, I think the whole politically correct "white tyranny" theme and the way it plays in the media is having the unintended effect of raising general awareness of the "cops vs. us" issue.

Re: Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

This. A million times over. The neckbeards who pose as mighty warriors from behind the safety of their keyboards never cease to make me laugh. They're like the old joke about Italians, and what Italians always say about a situation happened to someone else some time before. It's always "If I had been there, I would have done so and so and so", and it's always a lot of foolish bragging, very funny to hear. Now while you may think your cool attitude is all edgy and stuff, in real life you know you're scared by mall cops. If an armed officer ordered you to "turn off that fucking camera and hand it over", you would not reply calmly and in a controlled way stating your rights, you would be trembling at the knees and shitting yourselves. You would comply and then some. We've seen your "anonymous" heroes broken and defeated at the mere sight of a cop. We've seen your Cyber Hero Warrior Aaron Swartz hanging himself out of despair just for being threatened with a sentence. You're a bunch of pussies, cowards, nerdy kids who put up the tough macho hombre shit to compensate for a lifetime of derision and rejection. Look at yourselves in the mirror: you're pathetic.

Re:Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the stats that blacks get arrested & incarcerated at about 3x the rate of whites, yeah, it's about everyone. But with the 3x rate, there's more obvious cop bias & illegal behavior towards blacks. So it's easier to highlight the bad actions of cops.

Re:Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[digsbo]

When you correct those stats for socioeconomic status, they're nowhere near the 3x rate. I need to try to find some genuinely meaningful citations for this, but when you're poor, you're much more likely to have a negative interaction with police. And in the USA, if you're black, you're much more likely to be poor. So whether that 3x is more an indicator of cop racism or the effects of poverty isn't totally clear (it's probably a combination).

Re:Easy to say when behind a keyboard

[multimediavt]

Just know that you have every right to film the cops in public and if they try to stop you, they are in the wrong.

Bad advice. In some states that's not true at all. Illinois and Massachusetts in particular. You can be as noble as you like, but if you're actually breaking the law where you live you will be cited. There is no guarantee to the privileges of society being the same from one jurisdiction to the next. Go look up the laws for your state before getting on your high horse.

you lie to them.

[Lumpy]

You say, "ok officer" but keep filming them from your waist level, or from a distance. Honestly, get a frigging telephoto lens for your phone or carry a good video camera where you can be far enough away so you are not noticed.

People need to be recording the police all the time and posting it all in public places. Cops need a strong light on them at all times, they need to be afraid of the public, and afraid of not being professional in public.

I also say we need to film them when off duty, rat on the fucking scum cops that speed and violate laws.

Re:you lie to them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget a good recording device so you can pick up the audio from a distance too.

Re:you lie to them.

[multimediavt]

Ok broken record time:

Bad advice. In some states that's not true at all. Illinois and Massachusetts in particular. You can be as noble as you like, but if you're actually breaking the law where you live you will be cited. There is no guarantee to the privileges of society being the same from one jurisdiction to the next. Go look up the laws for your state before getting on your high horse.

Re:you lie to them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you did give bad advice. Lumpy is 100% correct.

Re:Two Party Consent

[Mitreya]

I'm not sure if this flies in two party consent states. You wouldn't be allowed to record their voice or conversation

IANAL, but I am quite sure that "X party consent" only applies to private conversation (e.g., phone). Any event happening in public, you can pretty much record. Otherwise, in states with two party consent laws, you could never record videos outside within an earshot of people.

I hear ya cous

[GeekWithAKnife]

Of course, if you get the camera slapped out of your hand while being tazed and the officer then claims you assaulted him who's gonna film it?

Just how many cops have behaved inappropriately and have remained on the force. How many messed up or plainly did wrong and are still earning your tax dollar?

Idealistic talk is nice...facts on the ground is another thing.

Land of the free...yeah right.

Re:I hear ya cous

[Anonymous Coward]

"if you get the camera slapped out of your hand"

Thankfully with the ubiquitous nature of cameras this is becoming more difficult each year. Recently this exact situation occurred in South Gate, CA. A woman was videoing US Marshal when several of them surrounded her and tried to destroy her camera. The whole incident was thankfully captured by a neighbor in his house and has resulted in a lot of unpleasant questions about the justification for such an act. With security, mobile phone and officer (gun, car, etc) cameras its becoming far more difficult to say that the footage was "lost" and a whole more embarrassing when they try and fail. Hopefully more of these incidents will move from "embarrassments" to criminal charges/firings as the public becomes aware of the issue.

It depends....

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you say when the police tell you to stop filming them? Wouldn't the answer to that question depend on the color of your skin?

Re:It depends....

[elvesrus]

To the first question "I'm sorry sir, I can't legally follow that order" and probably add that you are doing it for the safety of both yourself and the officer.

Embassi in Laos

[AndyCanfield]

I tried to use my tablet to take a picture of the new American Embassy building outside Vientiane, Laos. I was told by the guards that this is prohibited. I went out to the street and took a picture from a public road on Lao territory, but they again told me to delete the picture. I figure they had no right to prohibit the picture, but I deleted it anyway. Then they had the paradox that they were insisting that I delete the picture, but they could not touch my tablet and I could not delete the picture because it was already gone.

So two days later, while I was in a taxi driving from downtown Vientiane to the Thai bridge, I pulled out my tablet and shot a video as we went past the new Embassy building. As soon as I got home I posted the video on my web site at
http://www.andycanfield.com/Th...
So far the idiots in the U.S. State Department haven't contacted me. Is it an act of treason for you to look at it? Ask your lawyer.

Re:Embassi in Laos

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be arrested for using a tablet to take photos or video of anything. Well, it should be a crime, it looks so stupid.

Re:Embassi in Laos

[Orgasmatron]

I have no idea what the laws are in Laos, or how far past the foundation the US soil extends, but photography is a serious security threat in some circumstances. For example, one of Sean Smith's last messages to the outside world was "Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures."

The catch is that it isn't really stoppable, or even necessarily chargeable in most places. About the best they can do usually is to estimate the threat by ordering the photographer to stop and seeing how that conversation goes. You'll notice that in your encounter, the worst that happened to you is that you got annoyed.

(For the record, I'm 100% against laws that prohibit photography of any one or any thing, in the public, in the US.)

Re:Embassi in Laos

[Anonymous Coward]

In Cameroon, it is illegal to film sensitive places. This includes embassies. I was detained by police 'cause I filmed the US Embassy, and then the US security person came and spoke to me and basically said "don't you know about [Islamic group in Nigeria]" and "[they're going to kill us all!]".
I had managed to get home between filming and the police coming calling, so I swapped out the memory card in the camera and claimed to have deleted the film. I lied.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...
Enjoy.

All cops are bastards.
I won't mourn if all the American Embassies in the world are blown up tomorrow.

Re:Embassi in Laos

[AndyCanfield]

"How far past the foundation?" I was standing in the middle of thie highway that has run for 25 years between Vientiane and the bridge, passing in front of where the new Embassy was built.

It was just one increment in the continuing saga of American government arrogance. The previous example was FATCA, in which the U.S. is trying to regulate the behavior of non-US banks. My Thai bank now refuses to open any new account for any US citizen because of FATCA, and I don't blame them. My existing account was grandfathered in; their computer doesn't know that I am a US citizen.

AFAIK no other country in the world attempts to regulate it's citizen's behavior when they are outside the country. I live in Thailand. While here I am obediant to Thai law, same as my friends who are Germans and Swedes and French. I feel no obligation to obey US laws. I haven't set foot in the USA for twenty years.

I have four living Thai children. Uncle Sam only knows about one of them. I figure they're better off without US passports.

Americans are not aware of this crap. The NSA is accused of "logging the metadata" of your phone calls. The NSA admits to RECORDING the content of every phone call I make. But Americans don't care. Today Uncle Sam thinks he owns the me; tomorrow he will think he owns you. Well, he doesn't own me, yesterday or today or tomorrow..

Freedom isn't free

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the excuse Bush and his Republican cronies used to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as butcher Americans' rights with the patriot act and TSA.

That is the stupidest fucking statement in history (other than maybe "for the children")

Re:Freedom isn't free

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an excuse. It's a strawman. A smokescreen. An excuse would make logical sense, but "freedom isn't free" justifies an offensive war, halfway around the world, about as much as a sack of bananas does.

Of course you do...

[rmdingler]

Free room and board seeker.

Re:Two Party Consent

[Dunbal]

Phone tapping vs recording a public officer exercising public duties in a public space? IANAL but I don't think they're quite the same. I mean, you could pull out maritime law too but I think it's hardly relevant.

"Not the face!"

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they are going to punch you in the face, then smash your camera/phone. Then taze you for good measure.

Warrant not required to seize phone.

[Peyna]

The summary isn't quite right. A warrant would not be required to seize your phone or other recording device if the officer has probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime (and exigent circumstances exist, which they probably do). Then he can try to get a warrant to get that evidence off your device. An example would be they roll up on a crime scene and you were recording before they got there, or, maybe you got video of the suspect assaulting the police. They wouldn't need a warrant to seize it at that point, because exigent circumstances (you could leave, the evidence could easily be destroyed if they don't secure the phone) would justify seizure without a warrant. However they could not legally search it without a warrant. (Typically in a case where a bystander has video of the crime they'll be cooperative and send the video to the police if possible, or give consent to them to get it off their device).

The smarter police aren't going to go around taking phones. If they believe you have evidence on your phone they'd probably like to talk to you about what you saw anyway and ripping your phone out of your hands isn't going to help that. But just be aware that they can most likely legally seize your phone without a warrant, if they have probable cause it has evidence of a crime, and if seizing your phone is the only way to preserve that evidence from being destroyed or lost (you could delete the video or walk away before a warrant could be obtained).

Re:Warrant not required to seize phone.

[AHuxley]

Get a person with a video camera talking, to try and talk a person into showing photo id during a chat down or track until a license plate is seen.
A lot of local effort is put in to find out if the person is real journalist doing real work on an emerging or local story or has some out of state journalist like id on them.
A tame journalist phones ahead and is given a press release.
Questions can range from asking about profession or the "why camera in use", what is/has been recorded, what is of any interest in the local area, to try and get a person talking and then induce a photo id or press id to be given.
A very effective method is to suggest things seen from public on public land cannot not be seen by the public for some legally vague federal or state reason.
That induces a long quality chat, more questions, statements about rights at a state and federal level.
Another method is to surround a person with a camera and get them to face different styles of questions until they show state/press photo id or are 'free' to walk to their car.
Licence plate recognition, voice print and facial recognition is the real tool at local level and would be very easy with a few friendly lines about been on public, enjoying photography and staying on public land.
The problem with the cell phone is: was it steaming, will it be locked when examined and the later press optics of a hand moving to grab a phone.

Re:Warrant not required to seize phone.

[Steve Hamlin]

But the key is "exigency of the circumstances", and how reasonable their belief is that the evidence is under threat of being destroyed. Evidence in the custody of someone likely to destroy that evidence is much different that evidence in the custody of the someone likely to preserve that evidence, and the law recognizes this.

If law enforcement believes that you recorded evidence of a crime and are likely to delete that evidence, then they do have the right to seize the recording device to preserve the evidence, for a limited time, while they timely get a search warrant.

But when you have recorded police misconduct, have protested against that misconduct, and even state that you are going to publicize the recording of the misconduct, I would argue the police DO NOT have a have a belief that such evidence is going to be deleted, and so do not have "exigent circumstances" as a reason for seizing the recording device while they get a warrant. Get a warrant first, then seize and search the recording device.

Lengthy discussion can be found in the DOJ's paper on the public's right to record law enforcement activities: http://static.photographyisnot...

Re:Warrant not required to seize phone.

[multimediavt]

Depends on the jurisdiction (state) you're in. Check your local laws before trying anything.

Re:Warrant not required to seize phone.

[sysrammer]

Then two weeks later they return it to you bricked due to the same mysterious malfunction that caused the cop-cam to have no video.

Re:Two Party Consent

[CanHasDIY]

Correct.

Also, regardless of consent laws, public servants engaged in their public duties in a public place have no legal right to privacy under those circumstances.

Re:Two Party Consent

[moeinvt]

The authorities have actually tried to use this, but if you're filming police in a public place as they conduct their official duties, that law does not apply.

If you are in the position where you are filming your personal interaction with the cops, make sure to tell them that they are being recorded.

Say nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

... pull out your gun and shoot them.

Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

Remember, Freddie Gray was stopped by police, who later killed him just for eyeballing them.

If you want to play on-the-spot eyewitness news reporter with your cell phone, you should try your best to have white skin.

Re:Just be white

[Anonymous Coward]

you should also try having a substantial amount of money, and appear to be some sort of company executive. It isn't JUST black folks whose rights get trampled. It is poor people of all races. Just being white is no panache.

Re:Just be white

[operagost]

It's a bit more complex that your simplistic outlook will allow. Non-black people are attacked by police every day. It's a police brutality issue or, at the most specific, a police brutality issue focusing on the poor-- not skin color.

Re:Just be white

[ScentCone]

Freddie Gray was stopped by police, who later killed him just for eyeballing them.

That's an interesting finding of facts on your part - can you cite some established evidence? Because I saw someone else with exactly as much evidence say that Freddy Gray was killed by that guy from the X-Men who can materialize at will inside police vans and break necks.

He was stopped because he was a well known criminal hanging out in a high-crime area who took off running as soon as he saw the police and wouldn't stop when asked to. There is a legal scuffle going on right now as to whether or not the spring-loaded knife he was carrying fits within the local law's boundaries of a reason to turn that stop into an actual arrest. Which has nothing to do with whether or not he should have been restrained (by a seat belt, etc) in the van (he should have been). But your glib conclusion that he was "killed for eyeballing them" is as absurd as the de/materializing mutant theory. He died from, at worst, bad luck and lazy (legally negligent, most likely) van loading protocol lapse.

Re:Just be white

[sribe]

That's an interesting finding of facts on your part - can you cite some established evidence?

The police report, asshole.

Re:Just be white

[ScentCone]

The police report, asshole.

The police report actually says that they "killed him for eyeballing them?"

Please show the text.

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

That's an interesting finding of facts on your part - can you cite some established evidence?

Yes, the police report made by the arresting officer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"According to the charging documents submitted by the Baltimore police,[27] at 8:39 a.m, Lieutenant Brian W. Rice, Officer Edward Nero, and Officer Garrett E. Miller were patrolling on bicycles and "made eye contact" with Gray,[24][28][29"

He was stopped because he was a well known criminal hanging out in a high-crime area who took off running as soon as he saw the police and wouldn't stop when asked to.

Do you blame him for running? Freddie Gray was not a suspect in a crime. He was not seen doing anything illegal. He was not found to be engaged in any illegal activity. He fucking made eye contact. He did not show sufficient humility in the face of police presence by casting his eyes downward as young black men are supposed to.

Motherfucker, you've got big white militia assholes carrying automatic weapons and drawing down on Federal officers and the cops are polite and careful not to hurt their delicate feels. A young black man makes eye contact and he's sent to the morgue. You think these guys ever have to worry about "making eye contact" with law enforcement?

http://www.capitolhillblue.com...

Wake the fuck up.

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

Non-black people are attacked by police every day.

Really? You see any riot police in paramilitary gear in the below pictures? Any white "thugs" getting shot in the back while running away? Hell, if you're white, you don't even have to run away. White guys have walked into movie theaters armed like Rambo and murdered a bunch of people in cold blood and the police take them alive and make sure they don't bump their head on the cruiser door when placing them in the back seat.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

https://www.google.com/search?...

You can not possibly believe that interactions between police and white people are anything like interactions between police and black people or hispanic people. Let me ask you this: You hear about any white people who have been shot and killed in police custody with their hands handcuffed behind their back?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/in...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/vid...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Re:Just be white

[Slashdot Parent]

Freddie Gray was stopped by police, who later killed him just for eyeballing them.

That's not what is alleged.

The allegation is that he looked at the police, and then took off running away from them. So they chased him down, found what was probably an illegal weapon on him, and arrested him for it.

For what it's worth, I don't think that they killed Gary on purpose. But I do think that the officers were negligent in not getting Gray medial attention when he was clearly hurt badly. Had they called an ambulance instead of tossing him into the paddy wagon like a bag of meat, he'd probably at least be alive today.

The officers definitely fucked up, but I don't think it's quite as bad a picture as you're painting, that's all.

Re:Just be white

[Anonymous Coward]

The knife, regardless of its legality, can not (and could not) be justification for the stop if it wasn't discovered until *after* the stop.

The stop must be justified *before* it is made (reasonable, articulable suspicion is the standard, BTW).

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

That's not what is alleged.

In fact, it is. The arrest itself is alleged by the prosecutor to have been illegal, and the very first thing in the police report regarding the reason Gray was stopped was "made eye contact". The knife Gray was carrying was not illegal. Indeed, depending on the state, it's probably not even illegal to run away when you see police.

Do I really have to list the names of unarmed black men who have been recently killed by police just to demonstrate that running away may in fact be the smartest thing that one can do?

Re:Just be white

[operagost]

Pope, it's time you grew up.

Re:Just be white

[Slashdot Parent]

The arrest itself is alleged by the prosecutor to have been illegal

The prosecutor has to allege that the arrest was illegal, because if it were legal, then the officers have a much stronger case. Everything that I've read, by the way, suggests that the arrest was legal. Probable cause for carrying a knife that was illegal under Baltimore city statute was almost certainly established.

the very first thing in the police report regarding the reason Gray was stopped was "made eye contact".

And then ran. The cops aren't going to chase you down, snap your spine, and toss you into a paddy wagon like a sack of meat just for looking at them.

The knife Gray was carrying was not illegal.

That can only be determined in a court of law, but the knife almost certainly was illegal by Baltimore city statue, which is the statute that he was alleged to have violated.

it's probably not even illegal to run away when you see police.

It is not illegal to run from the police unless you have been given a lawful order to stop.

Do I really have to list the names of unarmed black men who have been recently killed by police just to demonstrate that running away may in fact be the smartest thing that one can do?

One thing that all of those shootings have in common is that the deceased has either run from the officer, physically attacked the officer, or both.

Running from the police is a bad idea unless you know that you will be in trouble if caught, and also you are certain that you can evade them successfully. Physically attacking an officer is always a bad idea.

Re:Just be white

[c6gunner]

The police report, asshole.

You know, you can't just make shit up and then claim you read it in a police report.

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

but the knife almost certainly was illegal by Baltimore city statue,

Keep up with the story. They've already released the type and size of the knife, and that knife is not illegal in Baltimore. The arrest was almost certainly illegal.

One thing that all of those shootings have in common is that the deceased has either run from the officer, physically attacked the officer, or both.

Even the cases where the men were shot by police with their hands cuffed behind their back? Take a look above. I've listed four cases where young minority men were shot by police while cuffed.

Re:Just be white

[Magius_AR]

Keep up with the story. They've already released the type and size of the knife, and that knife is not illegal in Baltimore. The arrest was almost certainly illegal.

Not sure you've been following the story either, because the legality is still up in the air (http://www.wbaltv.com/news/officer-files-motion-contending-gray-arrest-was-legal/32824182). And "grey-zone" territory like this has come up before in Maryland, so this is nothing new:

http://www.mdshooters.com/show...
http://forums.officer.com/t513...

Re:Just be white

[ScentCone]

Do you blame him for running?

Yes. As a frequently arrested and convicted criminal who was carrying a weapon, he might have avoided some trouble by not giving every appearance of being in the middle of, or in possession of something illegal. Running when you see cops and not stopping when told to is exactly the wrong thing to do when you're a well known criminal who had frequently been caught with contraband, etc. So yes, I think he was stupid to put on such a guilty-looking display, and to further ignore the cops order to simply stop, and to resist. Stupid across the board, on top of an existing career record of being stupid, criminally.

He was not found to be engaged in any illegal activity

The police report is at odds with the charges filed. The police report found that Gray was carrying an illegal weapon (Baltimore's laws are different - more restrictive - than the wider state laws). That was the basis for the arrest, though it was his behavior in the context of his long and well-known criminal history that caused the police to want to stop him when he put on his flight performance.

He did not show sufficient humility in the face of police presence

What? He took of running, just as he'd done previously in advance of being arrested and convicted for criminal behavior. But even with that, if he hadn't been carrying the weapon, there'd been no arrest.

A young black man makes eye contact and he's sent to the morgue

No, a well known career criminal makes a break for it the moment he sees the cops, is found to be carrying an illegal weapon, and is sent to booking. Specialists now reviewing the autopsy report are saying there's no grounds for homicide charges presented, probably only negligence - involuntary manslaughter at most, which says there was no intent to kill.

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

Not sure you've been following the story either, because the legality is still up in the air

Either way, Freddie Gray was not stopped for having a pocket knife in his pocket. He was stopped for making eye contact. And he was killed for being black.

You know, I've got a knife just like that in my car right now. It's a Columbia River 1100 Moxie and it's a little bit bigger than the one Freddie Gray is accused of carrying. And I've driven through Maryland on numerous occasions. I guarantee that if I get stopped and that knife is discovered in the little well on the driver's side door, the cops aren't going to tune me up and send me for a "rough ride" because I'm white. Even though I've probably got an arrest record longer than Freddie Gray's (I was kind of a wild kid back in the day). Hell, when I was Freddie Gray's age, I had a cop stop me with a half-ounce of weed in my pocket. He gave it back and gave me a warning. If I was black, I'd be eating grey baloney so fast it would make your head spin. Freddie Gray's "criminal record"? Minor drug offenses that I guarantee police wouldn't even inconvenience a white teenager from Bethesda over. Or even Essex or Dundalk.

Because white skin is a get out of jail free card in the US unless you are really an asshole. And even then, you'll get a shit-ton of benefit of the doubt. Maybe a suspended sentence or probation for the same offense that would get a black kid a solid dime.

As has been pointed out before, even the police departments themselves recognize the racism in their institution. If you are white and you don't think there is a discrepancy in the way the races are treated by police, it's because you are white. Nothing is harder to see than your own privilege.

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

What? He took of running, just as he'd done previously in advance of being arrested and convicted for criminal behavior.

And for that, he received the death penalty.

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

You still haven't explained why there is no paramilitary police presence for white riots.

I gave you plenty to look at, and not an armored vehicle or body armor or rubber bullet or masked officers with no badges or nametags anywhere in sight.

So why the different response for white riots? Same violence, same property damage and looting. Different skin color.

I know you hate the idea that you've got it easier because of the color of your skin. I'll bet a day comes when you're ready to admit it.

Re:Just be white

[Anonymous Coward]

The knife, regardless of its legality, can not (and could not) be justification for the stop if it wasn't discovered until *after* the stop.

The stop must be justified *before* it is made (reasonable, articulable suspicion is the standard, BTW).

Apparently he made "eye contact". I gather this is now considered the new standard of "reasonable, articulable suspicion". Yes, we are fucked.

Re:Just be white

[Slashdot Parent]

They've already released the type and size of the knife, and that knife is not illegal in Baltimore. The arrest was almost certainly illegal.

I haven't seen any stories that said that the knife was legal in Baltimore, but in the context of determining if the arrest was legal, the legality of the knife isn't the main driver.

If you're arrested for something and are later found not guilty, that doesn't retroactively make the original arrest illegal. Police arrest based on probable cause, not absolute guilt or even reasonable doubt. The question we need to answer to determine if the arrest was legal is: Would a reasonable police officer (not the arresting officer--a reasonable one!) have thought that the knife was probably illegal to carry?

In this case, proving that probable cause was lacking is going to be a seriously uphill battle. If you look at the stories coming out about the knife, a police investigation has determined that the knife was illegal. Don't waste your breath, I realize that a court would have to determine that if Gray were still alive and facing charges over the knife, but the important thing is that in the comfort of a police station (rather than out in a field), a group of officers found the knife to be illegal. That means that the officers out in the field who also determined that it was probably illegal almost certainly were reasonable in that determination. It will be unlikely that the prosecution will be able to show the absence of probable cause.

Now, the officers still should have treated Gray like a human being, so they probably are guilty of something, but they are going to get a lot more latitude since the arrest was legal.

Re:Just be white

[PopeRatzo]

a police investigation has determined that the knife was illegal.

Just think about the meaning of that.

Now, the officers still should have treated Gray like a human being,

We agree on that. Police custody should be one of the safest places for a person to be. I'm not talking about prison, mind you, but simply when they're in the hands of police officers. A police force that has a culture which accepts the "rough ride" for uncharged suspects is not a lot better than the Chicago Police Department's famous "torture squad", who are now the reason Chicago residents are on the hood for dozens of multimillion dollar settlements.

Racist, brutal policing minimizes all of us. Local police forces, given practically unlimited weaponry and adversarial attitudes toward the people they're supposed to protect (not to mention the out-and-out racism, from officers of all races) is a recipe for more of these situations.

And let's not forget, if there hadn't been video of the arrest, this would have been a case of, "The thug tried to grab a cop's gun" which has become the "Blue Shield's" way of describing every encounter with young African Americans. If we didn't have video of the cop shooting Walter Scott and then dropping his taser next to the body, do you doubt that the discussion of that case would have been, "Scott should not have taken the cop's taser".

Advice is one thing...

[Roskolnikov]

I always carry a camera and will readily use it, but before you take your newly re-discovered rights watch this....

https://www.facebook.com/micha...

Knowing your rights isn’t enough; I am not suggesting this advice is wrong but you need to fully understand that if you find yourself in a situation like this that you are risking a confrontation with an officer that has deemed him or herself ‘worthy’ of your camera. Police must learn to respect the citizens they ‘protect’ and stop this kind of behavior.

Kind regards, North America

[qrwe]

What are the rules in your countries, fellow non-U.S. world members?

Re:Kind regards, North America

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK Metropolitan police (London police force) have quoted:

"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel"

In general, the police aren't armed so your chances of being gunned down for being the wrong skin-tone are slim (but not impossible). Also, they can't insist you delete photos because data protection laws stop them.

However, stand outside Thames house and I'm sure you'll learn about the various terrorism laws that have been introduced in the last few years.

Re:Kind regards, North America

[elvesrus]

How difficult is it to get CCTV records for a possible defense? The more angles the better.

Re:Two Party Consent

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm not sure if this flies in two party consent states.

It does not - this was settled in the Gericke decision, and Glick weighs heavily as well. Technically it's only binding in the 1st Circuit (Northeast and Puerto Rico) but good luck finding a judge in the 9th Circuit or similar to try to go against it.

Sounds like a police state; a Canadian perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Body cameras are needed to keep everyone in line, I guess Americans forgot what freedom is and what their fathers fought wars for.

And The Officer

[wisnoskij]

I would strive to calmly and politely yet firmly remind the officer of my rights while continuing to record the interaction, and not turn the camera off

And the officer would then proceed to calmly yet firmly remind you of his Authority.

For those wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who don't understand LC'd TLAs, here is what IT means: LEO

Re:For those wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also spelled Snau, not Snow.

Re:For those wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd know he's the son of Rheagar Targareon and Lyanna Stark, and that is biologically impossible for him to be Robert's son. You'd also know his name is spelled Jon, not John.

It's spelled Targaryen. Just sayin'...

Ftfy

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxpayer supported room and board seeker

Intimidating Cops guilty of assault with firearm ?

[redelm]

Most cops are polite -- with good reason: If anyone approaches you in a menacing tone, stance or attitude, they _are_ guilty of assault, with firearm if armed. Cops have no legal immunity except when arresting. Assault is the _threat_ of violence, battery/mayhem is the act.

With confidence they will not be prosecuted, some cops push the line. They make forceful requests they mean to be taken as orders. (Plausible deniability) One remedy is to ask: "Is this a request or an order?" "Will you use force if I refuse?" A longer-term remedy is to remove the cofidence, and particularly to have bad cops fear indictment by untampered grand juries and conviction by un-behelden prosecutors.

Re:Two Party Consent

[moeinvt]

I remember this case from MD where an off duty cop pulled a gun on a speeding motorcyclist. They arrested the motorcycle operatorr for "wiretapping" because his helmet cam was filming the encounter. The judge ruled that cops have no expectation of privacy during a traffic stop.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.co...

£3000 per arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried that in the UK (arresting people) and the arrestee got £3000 each.
A Go Pro Her owith body straps is better, as men don't seem to look down 'there' at other men

Re:I prefer to say

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably don't even know what an actual facsist is.

You should try looking in the mirror.

Self-Awareness and Respect

[Anonymous Coward]

You say, "ok officer" but keep filming them from your waist level, or from a distance. Honestly, get a frigging telephoto lens for your phone or carry a good video camera where you can be far enough away so you are not noticed.

That last part is key and can't be stressed enough; stay the hell out of the way to begin with. How many people here b*tched and moaned about being uncomfortable with the constant wearers of Google glass use in public places even when the cameras were off. Someone unknown to you gets into your personal space with a camera and whether you're a policeman or not, you feel semi-invaded.

This is not to mention the issue of safety and, that, most people, as with cell phones become unaware of their surroundings when looking at/through a device...

We saw this in Ferguson when the riots happened, all captured on third party cameras while self-appointed blogger-journalists cried about their "rights" while they were in the way; in the line of fire, between an officer and someone he was chasing.

"Put the damn camera down" was code for pull your head out of your ass and move out of the way. Simply asking someone to move did not work, the person may back up two steps and continue filming.

As in life, these people are idiots and ruin it for everyone...

Doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Logically, if freedom isn't free (i.e. ubiquitous), then your state of being can't be freedom. (If you must defend yourself against oppression, then you are obviously in a state of oppression, not a state of freedom.)

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. 'Free' has multiple meanings. One of those meanings is 'without cost'. Freedom is not without cost. That cost is standing up to those who would oppress you.

If you aren't willing to defend your freedom from those who would take it, you won't be able to keep it.

Canada, eh?

[y2imm]

It's usually a US commentary on filming police in public, what about Canada, do we have the same/similar/totally different rights?

The problem is not the Police - it's the lawyers.

[gurps_npc]

The laws on the book in the US are already good. The problem is the prosecutors and the judges do not enforce the law. They expect you to sue - at great cost - to ensure your rights are obeyed, all the while the judges ignore the laws.

The solution is simple:

Pass the following laws: 1) Prosecutors can not prosecute or even investigate accusations of legal crimes by police that they may in the future have to work with. Instead, each state should set up an "Internal Affairs Office of Prosecution", whose sole job is to prosecute police and similar law enforcement officers. They will be judged on how many convictions they get, and only the best will be allowed to become managers.

2) After rule #1 has been in place for at least 5 years, require every one appointed to be a Judge to have previously successfully prosecuted at least one police officer.

This system attempts to counter the natural prejudice prosecutors and judges have in favor of the police while at the same time creates a strong motivation within the government to prosecute their own.

Hands Up App

[evenmoreconfused]

The "Hands Up" app ( http://www.handsuptheapp.com/ ) has just been released and is designed to deal with these issues. It's quite clever and records the your interaction with the police as usual, but also:
- Turns the screen blank but keeps recording;
- Automatically uploads geotagged video segments to Dropbox every few seconds, preserving the recording even if it's erased or the phone is destroyed; and,
- Sends a text message to your emergency contact notifying them of the recording's existence.

Re:Hands Up App

[multimediavt]

The "Hands Up" app ( http://www.handsuptheapp.com/ ) has just been released and is designed to deal with these issues. It's quite clever and records the your interaction with the police as usual, but also: - Turns the screen blank but keeps recording; - Automatically uploads geotagged video segments to Dropbox every few seconds, preserving the recording even if it's erased or the phone is destroyed; and, - Sends a text message to your emergency contact notifying them of the recording's existence.

Does it also check the consent laws for the jurisdiction you're recording in via that GPS tag? If not, you may want to do that before you become John Q. Public with a cop cam.

Re:Hands Up App

[adolf]

When did knowing the law become a problem looking for a technical solution?

I just want tools. How I use the tools is my business, not the tools' business. If I run afoul of the law, I'm the one that goes to jail -- not the tool.

Cellular data plan

[tepples]

This is why your phone needs to be set to upload videos to the cloud at all times. [...] Surely the best move is to ensure that you are recording at the best quality the device can do, and the closest optical zoom the device can achieve, whilst staying out of the situation.

If everybody uploaded high-definition video 24/7, how much would the cellular companies make off those (revenue) streams? Do they even sell data plans that big?

Ask your lawyer if Sudapigs is right for you

[tepples]

By suing LEOs who break the law in civil court. It's not double jeopardy to sue even someone who has been acquitted. OJ Simpson, for example, was found not guilty of murder for killing Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman but liable for their wrongful death.

Re:Ask your lawyer if Sudapigs is right for you

[NormalVisual]

O.J. didn't have qualified immunity. The cop you're going to sue does, and the civil case is likely to be tossed as a result.

Re:Ask your lawyer if Sudapigs is right for you

[Anonymous Coward]

So sue the taxpayer? Cause that's who will end up paying if you win your lawsuit and the police go right on with their bad behavior.

It really depends on the situation .....

[King_TJ]

I think the question people need to start asking themselves, first, is WHY they're filming in the first place.

I've seen a good number of YouTube videos where someone appeared to be videotaping the police primarily to try to make the police look bad. They added their own narrative/commentary to what was being recorded and in some cases, even tried to provoke a negative reaction towards their filming so they could show people "part of the problem".

That antagonistic behavior doesn't really do anyone any good. It makes the cops distrust and dislike the people filming them and it's heavily biased reporting.

On the other hand, if you're recording a police interaction because you really feel you're witnessing a huge violation of others' rights and you may be the only witness who can bring about some positive change with your video capture? Well then, yeah - I think you got yourself into something you need to have the guts to see to its conclusion. Don't start something like that and then back down as soon as the cop tells you to stop filming.

Re:It really depends on the situation .....

[Spamalope]

I think the question people need to start asking themselves, first, is WHY they're filming in the first place.

I'm a photographer. My answer to that question is - so I don't face 10-20 years in jail on falsified charges made by an officer in retaliation for my recording - or just because I was nearby with a professional camera.

Assaulting photographers simply for recording is a crime. Falsifying charges against a photographer is a crime. Destroying a photographers (often extremely expensive) equipment is a crime. Those things became so common, so pervasive that holding a professional camera near an officer was known to be dangerous.

Some news photographers began filming each other so they'd have evidence when they were arrested on false charges. In some areas, the illegal assaults and false arrests escalated.

That's escalation pissed off otherwise disinterested people enough that they'll record just to preserve the right to record. Departments and cities backed the officers actions, so civil lawsuits followed. Repeated losses in civil lawsuits over false arrest didn't stop the behavior. It became so pervasive that courts are sometimes stripping officers of qualified immunity. (see Glik v. Cunniffe for a case where that was upheld all the way to the Federal court of appeals) Interfering this way is a violation of the 1st and 4th amendments, and that's very settled case law.

Simply, if officers stop assaulting and arresting photographers merely for recording, they won't have a problem. If 'showing up' is all it takes to catch you breaking the law, perhaps the problem is you.

Re:It really depends on the situation .....

[mrchaotica]

I've seen a good number of YouTube videos where someone appeared to be videotaping the police primarily to try to make the police look bad. They added their own narrative/commentary to what was being recorded and in some cases, even tried to provoke a negative reaction towards their filming so they could show people "part of the problem".

And if the officer falls for it, then it proves that he was in fact bad! It is quite literally the police's job to deal with asshats, and to deal with them appropriately, fairly, and with care to respect their civil rights. If the officer fails to do that, then he deserves to look bad.

Of course, if arresting the person doing the filming is genuinely justified, then when the public sees the video they'll agree the officer was being reasonable and it'll make the person doing the filming look bad, not the officer.

It makes the cops distrust and dislike the people filming them

Boo fucking hoo. Being accountable is part of the job. Cop doesn't like it? Then he should turn in his damn badge and GTFO!

Re:It really depends on the situation .....

[Cederic]

That's escalation pissed off otherwise disinterested people enough that they'll record just to preserve the right to record.

This is why if I'm wandering around with my camera, I photograph any police officer I see, whether they're doing something interesting or not.

I know I'm not the only person that does this.

Police are not allowed to shoot you in the back

[Anonymous Coward]

either, but they do. Just because what you are doing is legal doesn't mean you aren't going to take a beating (or worse) for it.

We are way beyond everyone gets to do whatever they want as long as it's legal. You only get to do what the police want you to do, legal or not. And if you step out of line, you pay for it.

I'm filming ...

[PPH]

... a por black man bleeding on the sidewalk. You cops are just blocking my view.

Only partially true .....

[King_TJ]

I've actually done a ride-along with a cop in a pretty bad area (East St. Louis, IL). It wasn't a pretty scene.... Among other things, we tried to go grab lunch at one place, only to find out it burned to the ground the night before (suspected arson but no real conclusive evidence yet, at that point). The place we wound up was a cafeteria stye place in the basement of a building, where another cop started passing around Polaroids of a body found thrown by the side of the road, asking if anyone recognized the woman. (Probably a prostitute someone shot and killed rather than paying.)

I'd never suggest the cops have an easy job, or that most of them aren't really trying to help clean up the neighborhoods of crime and violence. The problem is, the negative focus on officers today comes from stories on practically a weekly basis where police corruption, misbehavior or mishandling of evidence or people is uncovered. I don't know what exact percentage that works out to, but it's far too great of one -- even if by the numbers, it's only 1% of the police on the force.

Just in my own personal encounters with the police (everything from calling them about stolen property to hanging out with some of them I knew, off-duty, to getting a traffic ticket), I'd have to say I've run into something like one cop with a bad attitude or "issues" out of every 3 or 4. That doesn't mean some of them weren't just having a bad day.... But hey, it's as much a "customer service" job as any others I can think of. When you get poor service at the return counter of a retail store, you get upset and complain about it, right? You might even decide not to ever shop there again. When the police give you poor customer service, they seem to generally get a pass - with people telling you you're just angry because you got caught doing something wrong, or a lecture about how most cops aren't like that.

Re:Only partially true .....

[mrchaotica]

I'd never suggest the cops have an easy job, or that most of them aren't really trying to help clean up the neighborhoods of crime and violence. The problem is, the negative focus on officers today comes from stories on practically a weekly basis where police corruption, misbehavior or mishandling of evidence or people is uncovered. I don't know what exact percentage that works out to, but it's far too great of one -- even if by the numbers, it's only 1% of the police on the force.

The problem is that even if only 1% of the cops are directly corrupt, the other 99% of cops who fail to report them -- and that number apparently really is damn close to 99% -- are indirectly corrupt too.

Re:Only partially true .....

[multimediavt]

The problem is that even if only 1% of the cops are directly corrupt, the other 99% of cops who fail to report them -- and that number apparently really is damn close to 99% -- are indirectly corrupt too.

Being "indirectly corrupt" makes about as much sense as being "indirectly pregnant". There's no such thing. If you are an honest cop then you should be pointing out corruption in your ranks. It's your duty to your community to do so! If not, then you're not an honest cop and are just a different kind of corrupt.

Don't let them snatch your phone!

[bigsexyjoe]

They will generally try to steal your phone, so keep the camera on them and don't let them snatch it.

Live stream

[pigwiggle]

when your record the cops.

To answer the original question

[Anonymous Coward]

What to say when the police tell you to stop filming them?

"Where do you want me to stand?"

The only legal question the police can ask is "Stop standing there and filming", so treat it like that.

Compliance, huh?

[luis_a_espinal]

When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.

If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

Re:Compliance, huh?

[mrchaotica]

If police in the '50s were like they are now, I wouldn't be surprised if Rosa Parks would have been summarily shot.

Re:Compliance, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

If police in the '50s were like they are now, I wouldn't be surprised if Rosa Parks would have been summarily shot.

If I'm not mistaken, even in the 1950s Rosa Parks was in grave danger of being summarily shot. She was either one very brave lady or one very fed up with the BS lady. Either way, we owe her a great debt for putting her life on the line to end tyranny.

Re:Compliance, huh?

[multimediavt]

When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.

If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.

Tell that to Rosa Parks.

More like tell that to Rodney King, for a more contemporary example. And no, the officer of the law is not an "officer of the law-courts". That's a bailiff or in some states the sheriffs that deliver subpoenas and other court documents. Those are the only instances where cops are servants of the court. The rest of the cops are servants of the Attorney General of the state whose job it is to prosecute criminals. Cops and AGs work for the state. Courts are run by judges, not Attorneys General, and are part of the judiciary NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT. Law enforcement is part of the Executive branch of government and is why the Governor of a state can pardon criminals. AGs report to the Governor's office, not the courts.

Re:Compliance, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not true at all.

What if the officer told you to murder someone? An officer can only tell you to do something that is legal, and only where your rights do not trump his job.

He cannot tell you to stop or delete a recording on your phone or camera or to leave an public space during a legal protest that is not violent. He cannot make you unlock a locked phone or computer without a warrant. He cannot ask you to stay after a traffic stop while waiting for a K9 unit without a warrant. He cannot ask to search a car or home without warrant or consent.

It is not legal to arrest someone for saying no to illegal requests by a police officer.

Re:Compliance, huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd even have put a taser by her, today.

Re:Compliance, huh?

[pete6677]

You, and everyone who modded up this ignorant comment, could not possibly be more wrong. Police were a LOT more likely to shoot someone in the 50s then they are now. The public was just not aware of this because there was no video evidence. 50s cops were mostly on the take, and it wasn't even referred to as bribery. It was just part of the perks of the job.

Besides, if the Rosa Parks situation happened today, she would win millions in a wrongful arrest suit.

watch out!

[luis_a_espinal]

I don't go to protests. Mainly because I don't see them as very effective. The second reason is because I am not one of those that will set on a sidewalk and just let somebody (including a cop) push me around or pepper spray me or anything like that.

I don't start conflicts, but if one is started, I fight to win, and I use a constantly increasing levels of force to make sure I win. Situation dominance is my way. and yes, this applies to police.

Ooooo, internet tiger here!

Re:watch out!

[RockDoctor]

Ooooo, internet tiger here!

Looks like an internet kitty-video to me. So thet'd be "Ahhhh", not "Oooooh"

Does AC want a tummy rub?

missing the point

[mOzone]

out of a 1 million stops a year ..everyone yaps about a hand-full

Muh rights ..roll up window and act the fool thats prob cause and you will be searched and held

like the morons who say its okies to search my car 90% of states cop now has to search the car once you say that

I was threatened once

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to Seaworld in San Antonio and the park was blatantly ripping me off. So, I pulled out my phone and started recording. The Seaworld employee who was ripping me off went and got a cop who is stationed there and asked to have me arrested. I was told that since I'm on private property that I didn't have the right to record. But this is Seaworld- there were people everywhere with camera recording everything- what they meant is that I couldn't record them ripping me off. In the end I had to stop the camera and pay them $100 or face going to jail. Since I was with my wife and kids hundreds of miles away from home I did what I had to, but let me scream from the rooftops - SEAWORLD is EVIL! Never had any other run-ins with the law except traffic tickets before or since then. I also don't ever go to San Antonio anymore because I don't feel like I can trust the police there, and now when I read about people complaining about the law I feel more sympathetic to them.

Re:I was threatened once

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? You were defeated. They won. Not only that, but they effectively prevented you from ever getting to the city, which is of absolutely no consequence for them. Why do you feel it necessary to talk about your defeat and humiliation? And before your family to boot?

kinda off topic

[Anonymous Coward]

But security guards at art galleries can ask me not to photograph the artwork in special exhibits. Situation is kinda ironic considering that the same artwork appears in books in the gift shops.

Police at the Pentagon (department of Defense headquarters) in Arlington asked me to put my camera away when I was taking pictures of buses. I could take photos of the September 11 memorial though.

bring the violins!

[luis_a_espinal]

It's understandable that there are times a person might want to to willfully relinquish or not stand up for their rights. This article is obviously not about you, then. So to you, and others like you, I ask that you please do STFU

It is your right to ask us to STFU. And it is equally our right to ignore you.

and allow those of us who DO wish to stand up for our rights to discuss the issues of standing up for our rights.

And who is stopping you? Just because we say it can be stupid, that doesn't constitute a way to stop you. Go ahead and bang yourself on the wall on principle. Whatever makes you feel like William Wallace. We'll still tell you you are being a dork too dumb to learn how to be strategic and pick your battles, that you are a dork who can't strategically know when NOT to fight so that you can fight another day and win. We will tell you so even more if your death is ineffectual to promoting your cause.

Uhhuh

[SpaceCommander]

...so I can film them as long as I'm not "interfering". I read that as "as long as they don't notice me".

When was this written, 1990?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap small tech is available. Just as you go about your day oblivious to the dozens of cameras, so should cops. The only time a cop should even know he is being recorded, is when you're doing it conspicuously to communicate information to the cop: "Government, we're watching you."

photographyisnotacrime.com

[Macdude]

if you want to see what all the fuss is about, go to photographyisnotacrime.com

A few points

[singularity]

1) The problem I see with the "Am I free to go?" question is that in all of the recorded interactions I have seen, the police officer more often than not just ignores the question.

Police: "Sir, can you tell me your address?"
Citizen: "Am I free to go?"
Police: "Sir, I need your address so I know if you should be on this street."
Citizen: "Am I free to go?"
Police: "Sir, do you live on this street or not?" ...and so on. Eventually the police officer will either concede the person is free to go, or will call for assistance.

2) For all of the talk about "99.6% of officers do not abuse their power", I have a problem when 99.6% of officers willingly choose to cover for the 0.4% that abuse their power. In my mind, that means that the 99.6% are also guilty of abusing their power, this time by not investigating and arresting criminals - in this case their coworkers.

If a big city police department was found to completely ignore the crimes of another subset of the population, that would be described as a corrupt police department. The fact that the subset in this question is the very same police department should not make a difference.

3) I am always confused by the "Let the investigation run its course, do not give in to the demands for immediate justice" calls that follow incidents of police brutality caught on tape. If someone records me shooting someone as they are running away from me, you had better believe I would be arrested as soon as the police located me. Putting me on paid leave for a few weeks while they "investigate"?

4) As was seen in the Baltimore riots and countless other major protests before, the police, as a department-wide policy, have no problem locking people up for 24-48 hours and then releasing them without charging them with anything.

The few people that are charged are caught in the catch-22 of being charged with resisting arrest, but no other crime. Their only crime was verbally and/or physically trying to prevent an officer from handcuffing them when the protestor was not doing anything illegal in the first place.

5) At what point do we start holding North Carolina officers responsible when they unconstitutionally pull people over for a burned-out rear tail light? NC law only requires a single "stop lamp" on the rear of a car. The Walter Scott incident should have never happened, as it is reasonable for NC officers to know by now that NC law has held being pulled over for only a failed brake light is unconstitutional.

Re:A few points

[Theaetetus]

1) The problem I see with the "Am I free to go?" question is that in all of the recorded interactions I have seen, the police officer more often than not just ignores the question.

Police: "Sir, can you tell me your address?"
Citizen: "Am I free to go?"
Police: "Sir, I need your address so I know if you should be on this street."
Citizen: "Am I free to go?"
Police: "Sir, do you live on this street or not?" ...and so on. Eventually the police officer will either concede the person is free to go, or will call for assistance.

You're correct. The next step is to say "I've repeatedly asked if I am free to go, and you haven't answered. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'm going to assume that I'm not free to go and am being detained. I refuse to answer any other questions without my attorney present" or conversely, "I've repeatedly asked if I am free to go and you haven't answered. Unless you tell me otherwise, I'm going to assume that I am free to go and will be on my way." If they then say "stop", that's detention.

5) At what point do we start holding North Carolina officers responsible when they unconstitutionally pull people over for a burned-out rear tail light? NC law only requires a single "stop lamp" on the rear of a car. The Walter Scott incident should have never happened, as it is reasonable for NC officers to know by now that NC law has held being pulled over for only a failed brake light is unconstitutional.

Yes and no... The Supreme Court held, 8-1, that even though stopping someone for a single broken tail light in North Carolina isn't legal, it's not unconstitutional, because it's reasonable for police to not know the law. :/

Re:A few points

[Cederic]

Create an uncomfortable pause. Just look at them, don't answer their question. They'll ask it again and societal norms will force them to wait for an answer, and to register your response. That's when you ask again if you're free to go.

After that, I'd go straight for "Are you deaf or stupid?" but I'm no respecter of authority.

Re:A few points

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. According to that ruling, ignorance of the law *is* an excuse, but only for law enforcement officers.

Re:A few points

[Gestahl]

Yes and no... The Supreme Court held, 8-1, [npr.org] that even though stopping someone for a single broken tail light in North Carolina isn't legal, it's not unconstitutional, because it's reasonable for police to not know the law. :/

And yet, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Fuck that.

Re:A few points

[Gestahl]

Holy shit's it's even worse!

FTFA:

Heien contended that just as ordinary citizens cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defense, police can't either, and because the traffic stop was illegal, the evidence from the search that followed should not have been permitted in evidence against him.

Wait... I've watched Law and Order. Isn't there a whole "fruit of the poisoned tree" thing where evidence obtained illegally is impermissable in court? Just 10 levels of fucked up there.

Am I fee to go . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

As in, "Am I free to go about my business?"

Re:Two Party Consent

[mark-t]

At what point does simply seeing an event or hearing a conversation constitute "recording" it? What if a person has an exceptionally accurate memory? What if they are utilizing drugs orctechnologyvthat enhance their memory?

Two things

[Sycraft-fu]

One is you might notice said officer has been fired and arrested however the second is you might notice the parent never said it never happens, just that it doesn't often happen. When someone says something is rare, and you find one counter example, you haven't done anything to disprove their assertion.

Re:The problem is not the Police - it's the lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a problem with the entire system. Cops, lawyers, politicians, racist white rednecks, the media, complacent rich not-quite-racist white people, all play their part.

TV only?

[Tyr07]

I'd like to know how many commenting about how you can't have a camera or whatever negative police interaction they're going to have actually interacted with a police officer and found it negative.

I've never had an experience where an officer went beyond his expected role to follow the laws. While being pulled over, or interacting with them on the street. Not all of them are perfect but I certainly don't have some fear where I need to record every interaction with them.

I'm in Canada mind you, so maybe it's different in the US. RCMP are mostly pretty decent, albeit we all know there are always a few bad apples.

Some of my experiences:

Some normal things I do when being pulled over in a vehicle:
- If it looks like the officer is pulling me over, but I'm not entirely sure, I pull over anyway just in case. This assures I'm either A- out of the way or B - it doesn't look like I'm thinking of not pulling over.

- I turn off any music so I can respectfully hear the officer easily and he can hear me as well.
- If it is at night, I turn on my interior light, so he can safely see into my vehicle and see that there is nothing that is a safety risk to him.
This is seriously important. Drug dealers or otherwise could have guns or other people in vehicles that could assault an officer. This is a human being, they need to feel safe just as we do.

- I remove my sun glasses if I'm wearing any so he can clearly see my face and out of respect.
- If he asks for something, I let him know what I'm doing. E.G If he wants my vehicle registration and it's in my glove box, I tell him "It's in my glovebox, can I grab it?"
This is also important. People will try to look like they are doing normal things expected when reaching for a weapon or it could look like you're doing something different from a different angle. Best to let him/her know so they know what to expect from your actions. This is a safety thing.

- I don't lie to them. I give them accurate information about my driving history etc.
- The above applies at road stops too. Like drunk driving road checks at night. Turn on your interior light, do them a favor.

- I remove my keys from the ignition and put it either on my roof or dashboard
Now - On to my experiences with these conditions

1. I was pulled over for going a little faster than I should on a single lane winding road. I should have gone a bit slower.
The officer pulled me over, was courtesy, requested my drivers license and registration. He asked if I've received previous speeding tickets.
I told him it was clean, as it was.

He checked. Since I was honest and not being wreckless or rude, he let me off with a warning. He said "You know this road has hidden drive ways and a lot of curves, you should be going slower." He was right. I respected that and adjusted my driving behavior accordingly.

2. Another time on a highway. I was pulled over for going a little quick and changing lanes to get around vehicles. That last part I rarely do as I know that dramatically increases the chance for an accident. Sure enough, a undercover cop pulled me over.

I very quickly, and carefully pulled over somewhere where it would be safe Turned off my engine, took off my sun glasses, and put my keys on my dashboard.
I also had my registration and drivers license ready for him.

He told me why he pulled me over, and asked me, "Do you think you're a good driver?" I responded, "Well, I think I could make some better choices"(Given that he pulled me over this was obvious)

I don't think he was expecting that answer, he said, "Well, these people aren't. If you come up on them quickly, changing lanes, they won't see you and might turn right into you." He was correct, and I knew this was a risk, an unnecessary one. He told me, "I'm going to check your license, if it's clean I'll let you off with a warning". Sure enough he comes back, "Well, it's clean like you said. Next time, someone is having a bad day and gives you a hard time, give them

Re:TV only?

[SuiteSisterMary]

I'm in Canada mind you, so maybe it's different in the US. RCMP are mostly pretty decent, albeit we all know there are always a few bad apples.

High River, Robert Dzienkanski, Frank Lasser all immediately come to mind. There are others.

Simply put, the police have extraordinary powers, therefore must be subject to extraordinary scrutiny.

Re:TV only?

[Tyr07]

I believe the ones that commit terrible acts as are supposed to be role models should be punished harsher, but it's not right to subject a good, hard working police officer who puts their life on the line daily with shitty attitudes and treatment.

Yeah, there's works to be done, yeah, everyone is human but just grouping them all up together. What, since it's becoming less socially acceptable to hate all of 'X Race' or 'X sexuality' they need to start on 'X organization'. Seriously, stop fucking generalizating and grouping everyone into a single 'They're all fucking bad' mentality.

A few bad apples need to be delt with, but it doesn't mean the entire tree is a shit tree that drops only shit apples.

It is useless information

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It works only for white people.

Not only goes a long way but frustrates jerks

[Sycraft-fu]

When you are polite and friendly this not only makes things smoother with people who are nice, but it really annoys the jerks who are looking for an excuse to cause you trouble because they don't have one.

A minor story about that: I was coming back from Canada from visiting my parents. I made the mistake of declaring on the customs form that I had meat, which I did, a pack of beef jerky fully sealed, manufactured in the US. So instead of going right through the automated line, I had to go see an agent. This dude had a huge chip on his shoulder. It was pretty clear to me he'd like nothing better than for someone to get annoyed and belligerent with him so he could make their life suck. No such luck here, I smiled, was polite answered the questions and after a bit, was on my way to the next segment.

He'd marked to have my bags searched (at airports in general, and the border especially they can search your bags for any or no reason). So I had to head to the search area. Well I was nice and polite to the agent there who clearly thought this was moronic and gave my bag the most half-assed quick search ever before saying "Thanks you are good to go."

I got to go through with a minimal inconvenience (10 minutes max) and got the satisfaction of him getting to be frustrated with being able to do nothing. I'm not saying it always work, of course, but it works more often than not. Makes your life easier and you get the added satisfaction of making jerks sad.

Why don't you leave?

[Sycraft-fu]

Serious question here. I mean if things are truly as bad as you claim they are, where police just arrest and beat people regularly for no reason, then why don't you move somewhere that is not the norm? I mean I can understand staying if you wish to work to make things better, but you imply in your post that you do not, that you wish to not fight back. Fair enough. However the fact that you can freely and without worry post this on a public forum means you live in a place free enough not to restrict you from leaving. So why stay?

Were I in such a situation where I feared the police to that point, and believed I could not affect change (or didn't wish to try), I'd get out ASAP. I'd work on getting a job and moving as soon as circumstances allowed.

So why do you choose to stay, if it is that bad?

Re:Why don't you leave?

[NotDrWho]

Because like most people, I can't afford to just up and move to another city and because the cops never harass me. They only harass people stupid enough to stick a camera in their face or give them lip.

Bullshit

[Etherwalk]

When an officer of the law (which implies "officer of the law-courts") tells you to do something you, as a citizen under the law, must comply.

If you do not comply, then the officer has the right and obligation to clear you from the area by whatever means necessary.

Bullshit.

You have to comply with *lawful* police orders. In probably every state you can be arrested for failing to follow *lawful* police orders. But if they tell you to do something they don't have the power to order, they *may* arrest you in fact, but they are not *allowed* to.

If they do not lie about what happened (and cops lie a lot) you will be set free sooner rather than later, likely within a few days. If the cop's behavior is obviously illegal, as opposed to just arguably illegal, you can sue him and his department successfully.

Use a PENCAM, idiots...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the police won't KNOW you are filming them. Why do so many idiots hold up a phone in front of the police, to film them? Why not just buy a $30 pencam off Ebay, walk near them, crouch down to tie your shoelace, and while you're down there, stick a pencam into the dirt and then walk off. Or put one in your back pocket and stand with your back to the police, while pretending to have a conversation on your phone?

How to survive a police encounter

[netsavior]

I am honestly considering taking the policy of laying face down on the ground with my hands interlocked behind my head any time a police officer talks to me. That way if they shoot you it will be in the back, and they might have to think twice about beating a murder wrap if there is no way they can claim you were "resisting".

Re:How to survive a police encounter

[Anonymous Coward]

I am honestly considering taking the policy of laying face down on the ground with my hands interlocked behind my head any time a police officer talks to me. That way if they shoot you it will be in the back, and they might have to think twice about beating a murder wrap if there is no way they can claim you were "resisting".

If I'm not mistaken--and I don't want to bother googling it right now--this has already happened. Cops have already shot and killed people lying face down with their hands behind their back. It's shocking that any of them would get away with it. It's shocking that they would even think they might get away with it. If you are white, your strategy might work for you. Unfortunately, if you are melanin-enhanced this may not work out as well as you would like to think.

Re:Two Party Consent

[multimediavt]

Phone tapping vs recording a public officer exercising public duties in a public space? IANAL but I don't think they're quite the same. I mean, you could pull out maritime law too but I think it's hardly relevant.

Actually, in some states they are the same thing. It's about recording interactions of any kind. In Virginia where I live, only one party to a conversation is required to know the conversation is being recorded. That means if I am talking to you on the phone or in person I can record the conversation without your knowledge, legally, as I know it's being recorded. You can also put cameras in or on buildings without any notice in my state. Some states all parties have to consent and is why telephone support folks are required to disclose that calls are being recorded and why businesses are required to post notices at their front doors that there are recording devices active on the premises.. Then there's Illinois and Massachusetts where you're not allowed to record any interaction without complete consent from everyone being recorded, even in public! Note that the notice on the door serves as consent if you choose to enter any structure with recording devices with the posted notice.

Re:Two Party Consent

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this consent requirement exist in a public forum? Or it is specifically designed to be part of belief of privacy? I think the latter.

You are assuming the filmer is white.

[publiclurker]

If they happen to be unfortunately black, they could well find themselves dead.

Re:Intimidating Cops guilty of assault with firear

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Also because politeness is usually reciprocated. If an officer is polite to me, I'll be polite to him. And that helps sort me from the crazies he has to deal with.

Why do I have to ask?

[rthille]

Can't I just start to walk away? If the officer says "you are not free to go", then I'm being detained.
My point is the presumption shouldn't be that I am being detained, it should be that I'm a free citizen.
Further, if I'm not being violent and I'm compliant after being detained, the officer's first action should be required to be to explain under what statute/authorization they are detaining me.

Return the Favor

[Tablizer]

I know an ex-law enforcement officer who said he sometimes countered such moves by videoing the person right back.

The camera holder would then often say, "Hey, why are you videoing me? I didn't do anything."

The officer then replied back, "The same laws that allow you to video me also allow me to video you. I'll make a deal; you stop and then I'll stop too."

Isn't the answer

[BlueTrin]

... 'Yes Sir !'

Yes, but don't be a dick about it.

[bobjr94]

Your not a cameraman for COPS. To the officer your just some guy getting in the way of him doing his job.

Get back out of the auction, don't put yourself between the officer and his person of interest. Some of these youtube and liveleak videos the stupid guy with the cell phone is right up next to the cops, either getting in his way so he has to keep walking around him or standing right behind him. Don't act like a 4 year old and start asking the cop ' what are you doing, what did he do, why are you doing that, is he in trouble, what's you name ? '
Cops don't like people to be standing directly behind them, are you getting ready to jump him, you gonna video yourself shooting a cop when he's not looking, are you buddies with the guy he trying to arrest ? And don't say freedom of the press if you do not have press credentials. Everyone has a blog, tumblr or twitter but that does not make them a reporter.

Re:I prefer to say

[Anonymous Coward]

> You probably don't even know what an actual facsist is.

Someone who advocates sending documents over phone lines?

Re: I prefer to say

[djdarko]

LOL!

Re:Intimidating Cops guilty of assault with firear

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting POV, but if you don't have a verifiable source then it's just speculation.

ACLU app

[Anonymous Coward]

My new favorite plan is "Just so you know, I use an app that has ALREADY sent this video to the ACLU while filming it." And then I would follow up with various other suggestions. Fortunately it has not been a concern yet for me.

In Soviet Russia, police record you

[SJester]

Except it's not a funny punchline now that it's reality.

Hack the Law

[Anonymous Coward]

As an aside: http://wiki.hackerspaces.org/Hack_the_Law.

Laws really need to change from...

[Anonymous Coward]

implicit to explicit. If people know explicitly what the law is, then any implications of what the law might be or how it's applied would help civilians and LEO's sort out the issues better.

Quote the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah. That works. Look for reasons to upset police. Hey, it's your rights, man! And then just say "ACLU" and they will collapse like Spring snowflakes.

Then, if you're shot, your estate will have a good case.

Great plan!

The right answer is ...

[niftymitch]

The right answer is: "Yes sir".

"yes sir" and back away.

Keep the recording live but not pointed at anything as long as possible to record the illegal request
to stop recording civic actions in a public place.

Should you feel a need to answer why... one answer might be "to protect the innocent
like you officer."

Re:Intimidating Cops guilty of assault with firear

[Anonymous Coward]

jurisdiction dependent. In England, assault is the act. Battery is the drawing of blood. Aggravated~ is the use of a weapon, affray is the threat. There are mandated maximum sentences for each, from memory these are, respectively: two years, ten years, life, two years.

Sources:

S39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
S3 Public Order Act 1986
S47 Offences Against The Person Act 1861 ...

Dipshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya'll watch too much TV. If you want to see what a police officer does then ask to do a full shift ride-along. It's rather eye opening.

Yeah? Try living a day in my shoes, fuckwit, as one of many police victims. Fuck you, prick, and fuck the police.

The negative focus on officers is 99.9% wrong.

You're the one who is wrong, dumb fuck. And you're too much of a self-absorbed asshole to realize it.

If you want laws changed then vote for different politicians.

Voting doesn't work, simpleton.

-- shiftless (410350)

You're a pussy

[Anonymous Coward]

You go be the hero then.

I will. You fucking coward.

The day is coming soon when many of these pigs are going to be summarily executed in the streets, by those who are far more deserving of being called "men" than you will ever imagine being. How does your pathetic self-preservation instinct feel about that?

When the Russians and Chinese overrun this country they are going to fuck your wife until her pussy bleeds, while you watch. Then they will cut your balls off, and leave you there bleeding out on the carpet.

And when (not if) this is happening to you, remember: it's all because you and your ilk were too big of a fucking PUSSY to stand up for what's right, when you had the chance.

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. "

-- shiftless (410350)

Not a fan of cops.

[ToddInSF]

But recently there as a death in the family and I got to experience some of what it is that the are the duties of the police, and they were extremely professional and truly there to help. It can't be something that they look forward to every day, dealing with grieving families and dead bodies, but they do the job.

To me, the USA's sick and twisted enforcement of things considered vice, that is to say, things that are non-crime crimes, is a much larger issue that corrupts across the board.

The drug war and the explosive growth and out of control spending of many departments as a result is corrupting, the militarization of police departments is also another severe problem, and the forfeiture laws and forfeiture related activities of the police are the epitome of corruption.

People are missing the whole point here. The cops do the job the lawmakers dictate. You keep electing these shitbag lawmakers that build careers not on doing what's right for the public, but rather, what's right for generating controversy in order to create divisive political attitudes based on how remarkably stupid the general public here tends to be.

When your legislature is predominantly stupid, corrupt, and exploitative, what do you expect everything else to be ?