Slashdot Mirror
Federal Appeals Court: You Have a Constitutional Right to Film Police Officers in Public (slate.com)
On Friday, a panel of judges for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the First Amendment protects individuals' right to film police officers performing their official duties. From a report: The 3rd Circuit now joins the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits in concluding that the Constitution guarantees a right to record. No federal appeals court has yet concluded that the First Amendment does not safeguard the right to film law enforcement officers conducting police activity in public. Friday's decision involved two instances in which the Philadelphia police retaliated against citizens attempting to film them. In the first incident, a legal observer named Amanda Geraci tried to film police arresting an anti-fracking protester when an officer pinned her against a pillar, preventing her from recording the arrest. In the second, a Temple University sophomore named Richard Fields tried to film police officers breaking up a house party when an officer asked him whether he "like[d] taking pictures of grown men" and demanded that he leave. When Fields refused, the officer arrested and detained him, confiscating his phone and looking through its photos and videos. The officer cited Fields for "Obstructing Highway and Other Public Passages," although the charges were dropped when the officer failed to appear at a court hearing. Geraci and Fields filed civil rights suits against the officers who interfered with their filming attempts.
Putting aside for a moment that suicide by cop in some cases is actually a thing, and yes, I do believe that it's real, and putting aside that that an African American young man is far more likely to get shot by another fellow African American young man than by the police.
Another starting point would be to actually listen to this podcast, a super insightful interview of a criminologist.
https://ww2.kqed.org/forum/201...
He also wrote a book, When Police Kill
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674...
Civilian deaths from shootings and other police actions are vastly higher in the United States than in other developed nations, but American police also confront an unusually high risk of fatal assault. Zimring offers policy prescriptions for how federal, state, and local governments can reduce killings by police without risking the lives of officers. Criminal prosecution of police officers involved in killings is rare and only necessary in extreme cases. But clear administrative rules could save hundreds of lives without endangering police officers.
If you want to talk about fear, look at the statistics.
Statistics are indeed a way to create fear. Especially when you make them up, or just misrepresent them.
Blacks are about 13% of the population.
That means there are how many blacks in this country? About 40 million. Many of them under the age of 5, others over the age of 65. Right? I wonder why you don't mention the specific number.
Blacks are responsible for about 46% of violent crimes overall.
Really, in what way? Do they each commit a violent crime, meaning the total number is somewhere in the 100 million range, or is it possible that violent crimes are a relatively small number of incidents, which a relatively small portion of the black population commits?
Again, why don't you mention the specific number?
In 2016, 46% of all cops killed were killed by black men.
In 2015, 55% of all cops killed were killed by black men.
And try to stick to specifics. The actual numbers. Like how the reports indicate ~133 officers killed in the line of duty in 2016, 64 who were shot or otherwise attacked, and ~123 in 2015, with 42 shot. I haven't seen any racial breakdowns, and you didn't cite your source, but let's see, a million officers. 40 million blacks. Less than 100 shot.
Hmm. I wonder why you wouldn't mention that fact. Instead, you relied on misrepresentation through statistics, which actually harms your argument, and you couldn't even speak accurately, which really ruins your case.
So, is knowing the stats, and taking extra precautions to control encounters during non-compliance situations racial profiling? Or is it common sense? Or is it both?
"Common sense" is a nonsense phrase used by people who think their statements need to be taken without scrutiny or challenge, actually. Like "Racial profiling" which shares a similar character, it is a flawed method that actually tends to cause more harm.
I suggest you abandon both. They are harmful to your interests, whatever they may be.
Remember, it's not an officer's job to die in the line of duty.
Nor it is their job to kill in the line of duty.
In fact, their duty is to protect and serve the public. Interference with that is a perilous act.
And if it comes down to the officer being hurt or killed, or a violent/noncompliant suspect being hurt or killed, I'd much rather the officer come out of it alive and uninjured.
Period.
So by your own words, you would support the police officer killing a totally innocent person, because they didn't obey their orders, just so the officer wouldn't get even a slight cut. No consideration. No thought. Simple and final fiat.
I'm sure this comforts Sureshbhai Patel, Philandro Castille, and Tamir Rice. Not to mention John Crawford III, Akai Gurley, and Charles Kinsey.
Please do tell us why you preferred each of those persons to be hurt or killed, rather than the police officers not do so. Explain in detail your reasoning.
And do it without statistics, you've already failed with that. You simply can't manage a proper argument with them.
It is a tool you have demonstrated that you are unfit to handle.