Slashdot Mirror
Prosecution of UK News Photographer Collapses After Recording Disproves Police Testimony (wordpress.com)
Slashdot reader Andy Smith writes: Slashdot reported last September how I was arrested while standing in a field near a road accident, as I photographed the scene for a newspaper. I was initially given a police warning for "obstruction", but the warning was then cancelled and I was prosecuted for resisting arrest and breach of the peace. These are serious charges and I was facing a prison sentence. Fortunately we had one very strong piece of evidence: A recording of my arrest. Not only did the recording prove that two police officers' testimony was false, but it caught one of them boasting about how he had conspired with a prosecutor to arrest and prosecute me. Yesterday the case was dropped, and now the two police officers and the prosecutor face a criminal investigation.
If you were in the US instead of the UK, you may well be dead right now.
"STOP RESISTING!"
That badge does not make them good people, but it does give them significant power over you.
Resisting Arrest should be a fine, and Breaching the Peace is a catch-all law that should be used for e.g. putting a drunk in a cell overnight. Neither should have prison sentences attached.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
This just shows the lengths that the police will go to intimidate photographers and others to try to make them afraid to photograph or record the police! If the police are doing nothing wrong, why would they care if they are recorded or photographed?
Past convictions of other suspects arrested by those officers and convictions obtained by the prosecutor should be voided if they depended on testimony by the officers or the accuracy of statements made to the court by the prosecutor.
Does anyone here know if English law works that way? Do the previous victims of the dishonest officers and prosecutor now have a right to re-trial?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I would buttfuck both your brothers. Then Iâ(TM)d grab your sister, take her out back and fist her. Go down on your mama, cause a while of drama - save your dad for last, so I can eat out his ass.
Stuff that matters -- to Andy Smith.
How does this guy keep getting /. articles based on his uncorroborated, self-published, vaguely overwrought blog posts?
Dude, can you post the video that saved your hide?
The charging documents?
Can you have someone from the union release a statement on what they accomplished?
It sounds like you pissed off an asshole cop, and the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided to drop the case. It's too bad you had to go through that, but is there a tech angle that I am missing?
Here in the US, the police would be exonerated for having "followed proper established procedure".
When are we going to get serious about the extreme lying and illegal (to say nothing of unethical) behavior going on at the very top of law enforcement in the US?
I'm not a Scottish lawyer. On the other hand, US law largely comes from the UK, and I can pretty convincingly play a US lawyer, in court.
There are a couple of ways this could play out where people get retrials, or if there is no corroborating evidence, get set free.
One would be for the prosecutor's office to agree to that, perhaps after some media attention. That's not a RIGHT to a retrial, but it could happen.
If there is new evidence, a defendant can move for a new trial. In order for this to be evidence in an unrelated cass, some other case involving the officers would need to come to light, showing a "pattern or practice" of this type of conduct. A single instance of a cop making a false statement in one case probably isn't sufficient evidence that they testified falsely in some other case. If it's shown that that made false statements in two or more cases, that's obviously relevant to their testimony in all cases.
A pardon is possible, but rare, in the UK.
Here's some information that may be relevant:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-g...
If there are any UK lawyers reading this, I welcome your feedback.
That is NOT how the world works, nor how it has ever worked.
Those with authority are held to more lax standards than those without. You can rage about how unfair this is all you want, but that is just the way it is.
It is natural for people with power to see other people with power as contemporaries, and treat them with greater deference. They DO NOT CARE how much their subordinates hate that, because subordinates DON'T MATTER.
This hierarchy of dominance is how the human race has thrived since its inception. It works pretty well in the animal kingdom, too. Who the hell are YOU to say it's broken?
Do you have the names of the officers and prosecutor? Perhaps someone can provide extrajudicial retribution.
Remember TFA next time you hear some anti-gun Leftists shouting drivel which equates to, "only police should have weapons".
Leftism, not even once.
They thugs must have been trained in Chicago,Los Angeles and THEN New York. Couple of pos !
Andy Did the News Paper company provide you any help or assistance ?
^^
I thought this only happened in the U.S. (pretty much every day btw). Cops lying out their asses I mean.
dead or alive, you are coming with me.
RC: your pictures are disturbing the peace.
T100: why?
RC: because I am above the law when apprehending a criminal.
T100: why?
RC: because regulations are extrax-constitutional administrative matters that reduceba non-responsive citizen toba subject of contractual remedies default.
T100: why?
RC: the citizen introduced itself as a franchised private person do a Service while the offense occurres and not as a citizen off-duty at leisure in it's own right hearable in a court of law.
T100: why?
RC: the citizen has a guilty conscience and being unschooled in the premises of right and interest has appealed to the merciful benefit of regulations in preference of a tarnishes public record or reputation.
T100: why?
RC: attritiously bipassing the judiciary original exclusivity, likely because a remesy in law would bankrupt the citizen for lack of lawful money or competancy so as to use spurious currencies more readily available such as private credit or the Federal Reserve Note.
T100: why
RC: hate of government protected by Bill of Rights
T100: why?
RC: Leroy Jenkins!
T100: WHY?
Where is the recording and how did he do it. At least that would tie this article to some tech :)
Always record incidents, public or private authority notwithstanding. The Dao dragging incident would have been quietly covered up had it not been for all those nearby passengers snapping away with phonecams.
If you encounter a ban on recording incidents, record more. Today's tech makes it easier to record surreptitiously than ever before. If there is a threat of officially forced deletion, get your footage onto social media as quickly as possible. Some camera apps have an option to automatically mirror to your Dropbox account.
And from another psychologist, I'd say his criticism is overblown.
No, he speaks for normal people you brainwashed fuckwit
Whilst UK police seem to be better behaved than their US counterparts, they are almost never punished.
Before the United States became the United States, it was 13 British colonies, called "British America" at the time. The colonies were ruled by a kingdom known as Great Britain, and that's where the law came from.
Great Britain was composed of Scotland, Wales, and England. Later, Great Britain merged with Ireland to form the United Kingdom.
So the colonies got there law from the United Kingdom, not from England, which no longer existed as a country by 1707. The United Kingdom included Scotland.
When correcting someone, it's suggested to make absolutely sure you're right. Otherwise you look like not only an asshole, but also a fool.
When you get to high school, if not before, you'll learn that you never cite Wikipedia. Like Slashdot, what's written there is whatever some fool decided to post.
Since you apparently haven't yet learned the difference between a reliable source and social media, how about at least read what's on your screen. You'll see right at the top of the Wikipedia article, the tabular summary says:
Sovereign state: United Kingdom
Scroll a tad and you'll see it says the law applicable to England is made by the UK Parliament (not English Parliament, there is no such thing). Another short scroll and you'll see:
--
There has not been a government of England since 1707, when the Acts of Union 1707, putting into effect the terms of the Treaty of Union, joined England and Scotland to form the Kingdom of Great Britain
--
So you want to tell me how the non-existent English government, through the non-existent English Parliament, passes laws?
Another pro-tip: before linking to a page while arguing, READ the page you're linking to.
I was there. It was a fraud.
freedom. Do we still have any? Is it important?
Well, this took place in Scotland where the police don't routinely carry anything more than a nightstick.
Not just the left. Everyone except some idiots in the USA thinks that. And with good reason: in countries where only the police has firearms, those are hardly ever used, whereas in a certain country where everyone carries weapons all the time, most shootings don't even make the news anymore.
'cos it can be claimed it is documented so in your post, but that hardly cedes it proof or even credibility.
As he was outstanding in it.
This is impossible. I've been informed repeatedly that the US is the only country with a police corruption problem, and other countries can trust their police and government implicitly.
I'm sorry. Your videotaped and eyewitness evidence must be confused. Your facts are simply invalid.
Body cams won't solve all of these issues, but at least they make it more difficult for cops to just invent things. Video can also exonerate officers unjustly charged with brutality or other violations of rights, so it's not a one-way street. The trick is to implement body cams with policies that are enforced, such as always turning them on during interactions with the public, making it impossible for them to be erased by the officers wearing them, etc.
Psychology Today is the best you can do? Whose side are you on, anyway?
The Lifespan of a Lie — 7 June 2018
About the author:
* Ben Blum was born and raised in Denver, Colorado.
* He holds a PhD in computer science from the University of California Berkeley.
* He was a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow.
* He received an MFA in fiction from New York University, where he was awarded the New York Times Foundation Fellowship.
The author did mundo research, which including, near the end, an interview with Zimbardo himself, which included the following Frost–Nixon interaction:
The entire article is awesome. Read it now.
In summary, the entire experiment was conducted on the basis of publish or perish, and Zimbardo left few stones unturned—acting mainly through compliant Lieutenant Jaffe—to ensure that the end result was "publish".
Here's another link I dropped into a Slashdot thread a few days ago, of an academic whose pursuit of his local career incentive crossed more than a few lines:
Why the Joy of Cooking is going after a Cornell researcher — 28 February 2018
Plus, Orwellian popcorn swells enrollment and sells textbooks:
On the other hand, there's a responsible, modern literature, such as Robert Sapolsky's Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (2017).
There are specific passages in there about the neurobiology of bad cops (under stress, unreliable neural pathways become faster and stronger than reliable neural pathways, operating entirely beneath the level of executive self-control).
Another recent book, Matthew P. Walker's Why We Sleep (2017) explains why—in modern society—operating at far less than our best has become de rigueur.
At the center of this book, with more laboratory studies than you can shake a stick at (many of these conducted until the cold, impartial eye of clinical fMRI scans),
[*] fMRI scans are cold and impartial when applied to slow, global brain phenomena such as sleep; for the fast and small, this, too, can be Wansinked.
I colourful
Strange. So the only source of information for such a non-story is... the blog of the main character?
Some people would call this kind of article total crap.
You did indeed hit on the great part about body cams for police officers. They protect both the police and non-police from false accusations. While almost all of the body cam footage has resulted in showing that police were falsely accused, I suspect that the presence of body cams have kept the police from making false accusations in some situations.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Wow, good think you're not in the US. here they would watch the video and toss you in jail anyway. The badge is infallible here...