backtop


Print 162 comment(s) - last by littlebiggygir.. on May 25 at 11:52 PM


Newark, New Jersey police detained Khaliah Fitchette for video taping them while they "dealt" with a drunk man on a bus. The police department in the city is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for a broad array of civil rights violations, including police brutality and corruption.  (Source: Amanda Brown Murphy/ACLU-NJ)

A motorcyclist was charged for wiretapping after posting video of an encounter with a plain clothes police officer. The officer did not immediately identifying himself -- the incident initially appeared like an armed robbery attempt.  (Source: YouTube)

Police hope to imprison citizens who video tape or photograph them in the act of beating people or racially profiling.  (Source: Google Images)
PDs pushing measures are also some of the "dirtiest", are under DOJ investigation

Anyone who works retail knows that you can and probably are being videotaped.  And if you do something wrong, like steal something, you can bet you'll eventually be caught and those tapes will be used against you.

Unfortunately, some police officers across the United States seem to think that they should be above the level of accountability of the average citizen.  In response to a slew of cell phone and webcam photos and videos catching cops in brutality, racial profiling, and other unsavory acts, police have begun arresting and filing charges against those who video tape them.

I. Law-Abiding Teen is Detained

Khaliah Fitchette was a law-abiding teen who never got in trouble and always got good grades.  Imagine her surprise when she ended up in handcuffs for a seemingly responsible act.
When two police officers boarded a city bus she was riding in Newark, New Jersey, Ms. Fitchette pulled out her cell phone and began taping the cops.  The cops were working to remove a drunken man.

The young lady recalls, "One of the officers told me to turn off my phone, because I was recording them. I said no. And then she grabbed me and pulled me off the bus to the cop car, which was behind the bus."

She was handcuffed and subjected to the same indignities as your average drug dealer or car thief.  The next two hours she sat in the back of the car as the police played with her phone deleting the video.  At the end of two hours, she was released.

Outraged, the young lady and her parents later filed suit against the Newark Police Department with the help of the New Jersey chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  The ACLU is a civil rights advocacy organization whose famous slogan is "freedom can't protect itself."

Deborah Jacobs, director of the ACLU chapter, states in an interview with National Public Radio, "All of us, as we walk around, have to understand that we could be filmed, we could be taped. But police officers above all others should be subject to this kind of filming because we have a duty to hold them accountable as powerful public servants."

Shaken, Ms. Fitchette says she would be wary to ever tape a police officer again.  She states, "It would have to be important enough to get myself in trouble for, I guess."

The Department has refused to respond to requests for comment about the suit.

Ironically if anyone needs to be videotaped on the job, it would seem to be the Newark PD.

The Department has a reputation for being among the "dirtiest" police departments in the region.  The U.S. Department of Justice recently launched a misconduct investigation into the actions of the Newark PD, following 418 serious alleged civil rights violations (including 261 that resulted in Internal Affairs reports) over a period of two-and-a-half years.

II. Cop Brandishes Firearm at Citizen, Citizen Charged for Releasing Video

The New Jersey incident is not alone, though.  Other states on the East Coast are also cracking down on citizens taping cops.

Maryland resident Anthony Graber was riding his motorcycle when a plain-clothes cop pulled him over.  The cop was driving an unmarked car and did not immediately announce himself as a police officer.  Instead he drew his firearm menacingly and ordered Mr. Graber "Get off the motorcycle!"

A few seconds later he finally established his identity, stating, "Get off the motorcycle, State Police."

Police officers are supposed to immediately announce that they are law enforcement.  Based on the officer's initial statements and lack of any sort of identification, Mr. Graber might have believed him to be an armed robber.  Things might have gone very differently had Mr. Graber been armed.

Mr. Graber had been recording the encounter from a helmet cam and when he arrived home he posted it [video] to YouTube.

Soon after he was hit with charges that he violated the state's wiretapping statute as he taped the officer's voice without consent.  The charges were eventually dropped, but not before Mr. Graber was further harassed.

III. Clashes Between Camera Wielders, Police Rise

Unfortunately these incidents are not isolated.  Across the country there's growing debate over whether to outlaw video taping police.  Some cities like Chicago have made it a 15-year felony -- one step below murder -- to tape a police officer.  Coincidentally, Chicago has one of the worst reputations for police brutality.

Some police argue that citizens recording cops are being responsible and that cops should behave with integrity when on the job.  States Tom Nolan, a former Boston police officer who now teaches criminal justice at Boston University, states:

There's always going to be a pocket of police officers who are resistant to change. But I think the vast majority of police have been acclimated to the reality that what they're doing is likely being recorded at any given time.

The police will get the message when municipal governments and police departments have got to write out substantial settlement checks. Standing by itself, that video camera in the hands of some teenager is not going to constitute sufficient grounds for a lawful arrest.

Mr. Nolan says that the state of Massachusetts teaches cops that unless the video camera is also somehow being used in a criminal offense (like child pornography) that police should not arrest or otherwise harass citizens for video taping them.  He says Massachusetts’s cops expect to be videotaped and strive to behave responsibly.

Other active cops, though, argue that they should be able to arrest and imprison citizens who record them in the act.

States Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, "They [police officers] need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be. We feel that anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving — an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad — could cost him or some citizen their life or some serious bodily harm."

The Fraternal Order of Police has, across the country, pushed for tough laws that would imprison those taping the police.  They argue this prohibition should even be in effect if police invade a person's house (individuals have been arrested for photographing police officers coming into their house).

Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, states in previous comments that his organization "absolutely supports" throwing those who tape police officers behind bars.

He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street."

In related news, police in recent months have carried out a number of bungled raids across the country, brutalizing homeowners only to find that they had fingered the wrong person do to sloppy investigation.  Typically these raids stemmed from child pornography investigations.  In recent months several states have also authorized police to begin seizing citizens' cell phones.  And officers in at least nine states are now authorized to invade your property without warrant and plant tracking devices on your vehicles.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

It can be good...
By theArchMichael on 5/16/2011 10:52:43 AM , Rating: 5
I think a lot of police officers who always complain that they get a bad rap from the public could benefit from the public recording and taking more interest in job. They always state that the very few "bad apples" are the reason people think bad of the police. Well great, now we can weed out those bad apples without having to have officers ratting on each other. The public can help protect the integrity of this public institution.




RE: It can be good...
By cjohnson2136 on 5/16/2011 10:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
agreed


RE: It can be good...
By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2011 1:49:35 PM , Rating: 5
"He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street." Mark Donahue

Yes he is making the argument for us, the whole point of taping them is to prevent police abuse. His "cops are above the law" attitude at such a high level is very disturbing.


RE: It can be good...
By Adonlude on 5/16/2011 2:40:14 PM , Rating: 5
Big government, powerful police, disarmament, control of information and media, "papers please", these are the tools of all opressive governments.

I can't believe this even has to be discussed. I don't know about the rest of the country but California is practically a police state already. It is laughable that the police can even come up with reasons why it should be illegal to tape them in a world where a "police brutality" search on Youtube will cause enough hits to keep you watching for days.

Our constitution is practically being used as toilot paper already. 4th amendment violations at any DUI checkpoint and within 150mi of the border and any time a cop feels like fabricating probable cause. 2nd amendment hardly exists outside your home.

Vote for smaller government. Support efforts to expand 2nd amendment rights to actually reflect the 2nd amendment. Record all contact with police either voice or video. Exercise your rights, especially the 2nd.


RE: It can be good...
By FaaR on 5/16/2011 4:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
You're confused. "Big government" is not an identifying trait for oppression. Pretty much every state in western Europe has a government roughly as big, if not bigger, than the US. Care to show how many of those are oppressive ones?

Likewise, most actually oppressive states, typically dictatorships, have much smaller governments that don't offer the services and protections a typical "big government" western state does.

But hey! Don't let facts and rationality get in your way for a good baseless internet rant! :D

Rather, you may want to consider the TYPE of government rather than just its absolute size, and the United States as a whole is a rather authoritarian society, certainly one of the most authoritarian of western states. If you haven't travelled abroad and/or don't know much of conditions outside of the US, you may not realize this. But as a person looking in, it's easy to see this is indeed the case.

The US holds a greater percentage of its population behind bars than any other western nation, it is also one of a very few western states (perhaps the only one) still practising capital punishment. And the US executes more people every year than any other country except China. Add gun laws, gigantic military, typical American attitude of "might makes right", and so on and it paints a pretty clear overall picture.

That a country with authoritarian leanings would end up with an authoritarian police force should come as a surprise to no one, yes?


RE: It can be good...
By Adonlude on 5/16/2011 5:19:01 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You're confused. "Big government" is not an identifying trait for oppression. Pretty much every state in western Europe has a government roughly as big, if not bigger, than the US. Care to show how many of those are oppressive ones?
Sure, I would be happy to use the UK as an example. Self defense is practically illegal there. Firearms were outlawed and destroyed years ago and now they have a problem with knife attacks. Guess what, they want to (or may have already) outlaw knives. Lol. Additionally, there are over 1,200 laws that allow the UK government to invade ones home!

http://www.techeye.net/business/government-has-120...

This is neither freedom nor liberty. This is overpowered, oversized, freedom hating government.


RE: It can be good...
By interstitial on 5/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: It can be good...
By Adonlude on 5/17/2011 11:43:42 AM , Rating: 5
I posted a link to a well reserched study of all laws that allow home entry. Every single specific law that allows home entry by your government is listed there. Your rebuttal is a link to a searchable UK law database and your personal "guarantee" that I wont find 1200 applicable laws? hehe, debate fail. Found em! over 1200 actually... they are listed in my link.

As for your government rant, it's fine if over in the UK you need your government to hold your hand and change your diapers for you but I do not need/want my government to do that for me here in America. My government should protect me from foreign invasion, war, and not much more.


RE: It can be good...
By PrinceGaz on 5/19/2011 12:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
How many laws there are which allow entry to your home is irrelevant, what matters is that they are only ever used where appropriate and that action is taken if they are abused. Here in the UK we have the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commision) who are a very powerful official organisation which investigates and can prosecute both individual police officers and authorities should they be found to have acted incorrectly.

There may well be 1200 laws which allow entry into your home here in Britain, but neither I nor anyone I know has ever had any of them used against them.


RE: It can be good...
By jtemplin on 5/20/2011 9:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
I need someone to air out my stinkables.


RE: It can be good...
By michael67 on 5/16/2011 7:13:31 PM , Rating: 5
I live in Norway now a days but original from Holland.

And a friend there is a cop in Holland.
Preparing to pull (unlocking the strap) and putting his hand on the weapon, he has to write that up as firearms incident in his daily report.
If he pulls his weapon he has to write down a incident report and have to talk to a person that is responsible of these incident reports, this will cost him 2 to 4 hours
If he pulls his weapon and points it, it will cost him at least a day.

And filming cops is not illegal, do they are discussing now that there have to be a at least 2 min of recording before the alleged bad behaviour of the cop, or the cause of it.

So that people don't cherry pick moments that put only the cops in bad light.

Like a fragment that came online 2y ago ware a cop hits the lights out of guy that was stoped for being drunk.
What the friend of the guy did not show, was the knee hitting the cops crouch.

So yeah I am all for filming cops behaving bad, but the cops also have to be traded fair.

They are also some talking about, that every cop if he is on the job have a camera on him and filming what he is doing the whole day. (will not be publicly released, and only used to verify the facts and statements)

And I talked to him about the indecent, if he done what that cop did, pulling his weapon like that, he would be suspended for at least a month, and forget a bout a promotion for at least 2 to 5 years.


RE: It can be good...
By Lerianis on 5/18/2011 12:10:35 AM , Rating: 1
2 minutes filming before the bad act of the cop? With all due respect, most people don't bother to start recording UNTIL the cop does his bad act or they get suspicious that he is acting wrongfully, which is usually 10 seconds before he does something brutal or illegal.


RE: It can be good...
By BailoutBenny on 5/17/2011 11:46:14 AM , Rating: 3
4th amendment has already been thrown out in Indiana. The Indiana supreme court recently ruled that it is illegal for a person to interfere with an unlawful search of their property by the police. If a cop walks into your house without a warrant in Indiana, you are not allowed to vocally berate the office nor attempt to physically remove the officer from your property, even though by unlawfully entering your property they have abdicated their color of law and can and should be treated as a common criminal according to common law.

Now that this ruling has passed, the police have already made statements to the effect that they will conduct random house to house searches without warrants.

yes, yes, i know fox (faux news) and all link, but it is the first one that showed up in google so that i could link the story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/15/indiana...

The only check on an out of control government is an armed populace that is not afraid to fight and die for their freedom. The moment you think the government can be talked out of its tyranny is the moment you die waving the white flag. Get armed, get trained, get ready.


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:32:26 PM , Rating: 3
If you Google News "Illegal Entry by Police Into Homes" you'll see that others have addressed it as well.

quote:
because Liberals LOVE the idea of us having less rights.


Do you know any political extremist that actually benefits their party or the country as a whole?


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/11, Rating: 0
RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/18/2011 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 4
Why are they the only choices? With all due respect I reject both options, it's like choosing between the frying pan and the fire. Extreme Muslims or extreme Christians, they both scare the hell out of me (include all religious extremsists, not just these 2). Obeseness or anorexia, really? Mind if I choose something more in the middle?

Nothing works at extremes. That's all I was trying to say. I think the writer of the article was trying to make a similar point.

Your POV has valid points that more people could and would have agreed with, but the extrememess is what alienated them. That's my guess.



RE: It can be good...
By Dorkyman on 5/17/2011 12:32:52 PM , Rating: 1
The Indiana Supreme Court is catching hell for their bizarre ruling, and I have no doubt it will be "corrected" quickly.

As for your obvious bias against Fox News, I suggest you read a bit less of Koz and the NY Times. Be fair.


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:19:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If a cop walks into your house without a warrant in Indiana, you are not allowed to vocally berate the office nor attempt to physically remove the officer from your property, even though by unlawfully entering your property they have abdicated their color of law and can and should be treated as a common criminal according to common law

You'd be less than sensible in trying. Call 911 and make a permanent statement, then call a different and higher LE agency. Such actions are addressed in court. Physically interfering in any arrest - very bad idea.


RE: It can be good...
By delphinus100 on 5/16/2011 7:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
The eyes, ears and brain are, in a sense, recording devices. Are these guys somehow less comfortable with one video camera than, say, five witnesses?

Could they be compelled to stop looking?


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Could they be compelled to stop looking?

Gradually eyewitness testimony is becoming irrelevent. Six witnesses of a car accident give 6 totally different stories. That's probably why it won't be addressed to such a high degree as recording devices.


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His "cops are above the law" attitude at such a high level is very disturbing.


Everyone operating with an "above the law" attitude is bad.

1. Criminals
2. Cops
3. Politicans
4. Bankers
5. Presidents

This is a partial list obviously.


RE: It can be good...
By Lerianis on 5/18/2011 3:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
With all due respect, criminals don't usually think that they are 'above the law'. They think that the law in question shouldn't have been there in the first place in most cases, and guess what? They are usually right.

Drug users.
Interfering with whom people sleep with.
Jaywalking.
Need I keep on going?

A lot of the laws on the books today are NOT VALID LAWS with a POSITIVE PURPOSE! They are just meant to enshrine people's personal likes and dislikes into law.


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/18/2011 12:00:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They think that the law in question shouldn't have been there in the first place in most cases, and guess what? They are usually right.


In looking at your list you clearly have not grasped
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence
A complete explanation and argument is made here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-7-Habits-of-H...

quote:
A lot of the laws on the books today are NOT VALID LAWS with a POSITIVE PURPOSE!

Odds are if we reviewed all of them the invalidness is because the methods used to commit the crimes are not addressed withing the wording of the law and I'd be willing to bet they outnumber laws that pretain to horses and donkey's pooping on city streets from 1910. Most laws on the books were there well before cyber issues, many of them became invalid accordingly.

The fact that TV sensationalizes the obsolete poop laws does not mean they are the majority. And the press is notorious for providing only the most sensational facts, on both sides of the political spectrum. Add to that time and money spent on removing such obsolete laws can be written up in the press as a total waste of time by the political party that wants to make that point against the current position holder.


RE: It can be good...
By snarfbot on 5/20/2011 12:34:02 AM , Rating: 3
my solution for police is to wear ski masks, to protect their identities, and as a testament to their moral fiber.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: It can be good...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/16/2011 11:47:16 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I see no issue with them putting a few punches into the back of a guys head who's resisting arrest.


Ultimately I must firmly disagree with you here.

I will not deny my instinctual reaction is to side with you. Despite my criticism of these kinds of laws I actually really enjoy watching law enforcement in action on shows like Cops (trust me, it's ALWAYS in my TiVo queue).

I've had a fair amount of down time on my hands at times and have even thought of taking some courses and enrolling as a part-time/volunteer PO.

So I'll admit when I see some obvious drug dealer resisting, a part of me feels like he deserves whatever he gets.

But then the rational part of my brain takes over. What if that was you and it was a case of mistaken identity?

For example, like I mention in the article some homeowners have found their homes invaded and were placed in handcuffs and brutalized in front of their children due to botched child porn investigations. The homeowners were later found to be entirely not guilty.

Imagine if that was you. What if some creep hacked into your router and started downloading kiddie porn from your IP. How would feel then if the officer planted a few punches in the back of your head when you were resisting arrest in front of your kids in the heat of the moment?

Ultimately vindictive abuse of suspects pleases on a primal level, but it has no place in the criminal justice system of a civilized nation. Remember, we supposedly operate under the principle that "you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty".

That said, I think we both agree, that these kind of anti-taping/anti-photography laws create a system that's conducive to abuse and has no place in America.


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: It can be good...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/16/2011 12:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A person resisting arrest can quickly become someone who's putting the lively hood of the arresting officers at risk. Sorry, but I fully support the use of force in these situations.
...

It's easy for us to sit here and be idealists. But when you're on the ground with some stranger who could be capable of anything, you can't always be a cop. Sometimes you just have to be a human being with a healthy survival instinct.


You misunderstood my statement. I was commenting about abusing a detained individual, not about the detainment itself.

If a person is resisting, he should be tazed, etc. but cops should only use force to detain the individual.

I think most cops would agree that punching someone in "the back of their head" is NOT a very great method of detaining someone.

If you have any martial arts training, you'll realize wrist control is what it's all about. You need to control the suspect's wrists. If he's too large/disorderly/high for that, you should back off as you need to use a taser, mace, etc. to incapacitate him.

quote:
You mentioned that you like watching COPS. Did you see the one where the struggling drug dealer managed to get his hand in his pocket and stick the officer with a used syringe? That cop could have gotten AIDS or something.


But punching a detained individual in the back of the head is very questionable, as it does little to "safeguard the officer". And it most certainly WOULD NOT prevent an individual from stabbing the officer if their hands are free, so your argument is somewhat ludicrous.

And I especially have a problem with that statement if the individual is already under control/handcuffed/detained and the officer is just abusing the suspect vindictively.

Police work is a dangerous job. Of course I understand that. But remember, police who treat citizens with respect tend to be in less danger as they get more respect back, not the other way around as your comment suggests.

What's the point to arrest the individual or to beat them up? Keep that in mind.

I can understand where a person without much self defense training (hand to hand training specifically) might be confused about this, though...


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: It can be good...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/16/2011 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you serious? So most cops who get shot are ones who didn't have "respect"? Come on now. There are people out there who don't care how good you are or how well you treat citizens. ALL Cops are in great danger every day, not just the ones who don't treat citizens with respect. Gang bangers and dealers aren't Santa, they aren't making "good Cop" lists or checking them twice.


Don't twist my words. I never said or wrote what you claim I did. You jumped to wild conclusions and distorted what I said to try to prove some incorrect/invalid point.

Of course respectful, honest cops get killed every week. It's tragic and I for one feel very bad about it.

My point, though, is that if you're a bad cop who delights in abusing those you detain, it will likely put you in ADDITIONAL danger.

You really frustrate me sometimes, reclaimer in your eagerness to twist and misinterpret peoples' words and claim they said things they never said...

quote:
Well I would be lying to you if I didn't think that some people just needed a good beating. NOT supporting it, mind you, just don't get all up in arms if it happens.


There's a clear difference between arresting someone and beating them.

A group of cops stomping on some individual is not justice. And it HAS happened before. You may be fine with that in certain cases, but if you allow that, it may one day happen to you, my friend.


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/16/2011 1:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This was your statement. How did I "twist it"? You are directly implying some correlation between how a cop treats citizens to the level of danger an officer is in. Which seems ludicrous to me because for this to be true, we have to accept the premise that we're dealing with rational human beings here. For someone who says he watches COPS, this seems really off to me...Then maybe you should have SAID THIS. It's simple, direct, and leaves NOTHING up for interpretation. What a concept!


IF you read my WHOLE STATEMENT, you would have realized I was referring directly that cops who abuse detainees put themselves at greater risk.

It doesn't take great reading comprehension, imho, to realize that, but somehow you seem to have failed to.

I believe I expressed my thought clearly; it's not my responsibility to make up for your deficient reading comprehension. Further, if you were confused, you could have politely asked me what I meant by a particular statement before personally attacking me and my statements.

quote:
Yes, there is the rare case of an officer just blitzing someone for no reason. But most of the time if someone is resisting arrest or making the Cops act violently, it's because they are NOT in a rational state of mind. Where it's not going to matter how much "respect" you are treating them with, so how are you in "less danger"?


First of all, you are referring to only the most extreme cases in which someone immediately goes b@sh1t. There's plenty of in between cases, in which the suspect is not entirely in a rational state of mind, but also is not flat out trying to kill/beat up the officer.

Often people simply try to refuse to let an officer cuff them. In this case it's appropriate for the officer to control the joints (particularly the wrists) and apply the necessary force to cuff the individual (which may be painful, but too bad).

Striking an individual on the head does little to help the officer put the individual in cuffs.

There's a multitude of scenarios we can consider here, but my point is that in the vast majority of situations -- including where a suspect is resisting -- hitting them in the back of the head would be counterproductive.

And further, if the individual IS RESTRAINED (pay careful attention to what I'm writing please) and NOT A DANGER and the officer strikes them on the back of the head, that's COMPLETELY inappropriate.

quote:
Coming from a journalist, I'll just say this is ironic and leave it at that. Sorry I guess in the future I'll be a better mind reader?


My comments here are my personal logic-based opinions, not my article...


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By tastyratz on 5/16/2011 3:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer, I think you are confusing Due process with something else, because here I think that is what the system was invented for... Due process and conviction. I agree that words are being twisted to satisfy an ill formed perspective.
Arrest now, put in jail later. Those with heinus crimes we wish to see brutalized in their arrest tend to be the ones with the highest incident rate in prison. Don't worry... if they did it those things have a way of working themselves out.

Cops are not above the law, nor should they be given a free pass. Internal affairs understand situational mistakes and leniency is given if the choice is rational enough. Police should not be above the law, this is not the wild west. We have a system to determine a set of conditions to have all officers adhere to.

They should not be allowed to use excessive force nor have an expectation of privacy when on the duty. The key here is excessive, nobody is saying we should tie their hands to do the necessary job.

And the quote from the police fraternity is classic. It forces them to think twice before their actions, didn't your mother teach you that at a young age? Let them think twice and add a dash of justice while they are there...

I am just waiting on a store surveillance system being called into question. How is someone taping in their own home any different?


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By SiN on 5/17/2011 8:15:14 AM , Rating: 1
You guys have too much time on your hands. It's simple, cops should be accountable for their actions like every other person. Good or bad. Every system has faults, nothing in this world is perfect.

Should people be given a 15 year sentence for filming a cop or photographing a cop. Not really. Should cops be so worried? Not if they aren't doing anything wrong (right and wrong being what a book/document tells us, not what we actually know).

Is a cops job easy, certainly not. They are constantly under threat.

Is a member of the publics job easy? No, they are constantly under threat.

Society was never perfect.


RE: It can be good...
By BSMonitor on 5/16/2011 2:13:36 PM , Rating: 5
Jason is actually 100% correct here.

I am sorry to all those people who believe the love story of a police officer needing to protect his own life in dealing with crazy/dangerous people. You are grossly wrong. A police officer's primary function is to protect the rights and lives of the citizens he serves. Sometimes at the risk of his own life. His duty is EVEN to the lawbreakers he is trying to apprehend. In a free society, innocent until proven guilty, means just that. A police officer has no right to administer punishment in apprehending lawbreakers. If even one innocent citizen is harmed in the defense of a free society, the society as a whole suffers.

Like Mick said, next time it could be you.

Police officers often induce their own peril by being belligerent or overly aggressive in apprehending suspects. If there is no immediate danger to other citizens, the police officer does NOT have to intercede immediately.

Take a riot. An individual officer would need to use deadly force to subdue rioters alone. What does he do? He steps back, waits for further support/directives.. Why? Because the rights of the rioters super-cedes his duty to making arrests or stopping them at all costs from breaking the law. (aka shooting up the place) Now take the belligerent drunk guy. Is he more dangerous than a bunch of rioters? Absolutely not. So why then does a police officer take it upon himself to subdue him by using excessive force against that individual??

"Law enforcement officials shall respect and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of all persons."

From the PO code of conduct. It does not say, all persons except those deemed by the police officer as breaking the law.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By Ristogod on 5/16/2011 12:27:11 PM , Rating: 5
And the livelyhood of a cop outweighs the livelyhood of an innocent man being wrongly accused? Is there some reason why I should submit to arrest when I've done nothing wrong?

The fact of the matter is that a cop's livelyhood is always at risk due to the nature of the job. A good officer accepts this risk and selflessly serves his community. A bad officer looks for his interests first and foremost to justify any action he so chooses to take.

Remember, a cop is nothing more than a person, the same as any other person. They don't create their own authority to govern and control others by simply wearing a uniform and carrying a gun. Any authority of power they gain over citizens is authority afforded to them by the citizens in their community.

If someone can't accept the responsibility that comes with being a law enforcement officer, they should consider taking a different job. I agree that any person has the right to protect oneself, including cops, and that reactions based on survival instinct are completely understandable in preserving one's existence. But that doesn't mean poor decisions based on that instinct should be completely excused just because you wear a uniform.


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By fic2 on 5/16/2011 1:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
We had a case recently (actually several) where a cop was caught on video (HALO police camera) beating a guy he was arresting. The guy being arrested was turned away from the cop talking on his cell phone. The cop basically just starts beating the guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daL7PmFNzw8&feature...

The cops involved have now been fired for lying on their reports.

Oh, and this was for the alleged offense of using the womens restroom.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By BSMonitor on 5/16/2011 2:18:50 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, resisting arrest is a crime. And the courts will administer punishment for that crime. NOT the police officer.

Assault is also a crime. If a police officer assaults me to arrest me. He should face the same criminality I do if I assaulted him.

FIT you impress me less and less with your idiocy.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By xsilver on 5/19/2011 11:16:55 AM , Rating: 1
I think the problem is that you have to further define two things:
when you say resist you mean trying to assualt the officer when they're cuffing you, but what about if they just try to run? or what about if you just flail your arms a bit because the officer pulled your arms back too far? (when putting the cuffs on) or what about not walking fast enough back to the car when the cuffs are on?
Are all these "resisting arrest"?
Do all these deserve to have a baton to the kidneys?

The second problem is that the issue being discussed I believe isnt the actions but rather the accountability. If a officer says they "resisted arrest" and the suspect says they did not, 9/10 times the officer is going to get their way and everything is just swept under the carpet. Thats why the officers dont want anybody taping them (this story) because they dont want to be held more accountable than usual.

Ultimately the issue becomes: do you want a slightly less effective police force because the officers are always held accountable or do you want a force that does what needs to be done even if there are cases of unprovoked assaults/brutality by the officers.


RE: It can be good...
By IcePickFreak on 5/16/2011 4:28:24 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I'd tell a cop to get bent if they told me to stop video recording them. I suppose that means I'm fair game for a beat down?


RE: It can be good...
By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2011 1:56:58 PM , Rating: 1
When cops get sued it NEVER comes out of his pay or assets, its always the police department that pays out. Again its a necessary evil otherwise you probably couldn't get anyone to become cops. That being said it really sucks for us taxpayers, the completely broke city of LA pays out millions of dollars over and over again for often bogus lawsuits.


RE: It can be good...
By rcc on 5/16/2011 5:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
And for that reason alone cops should welcome a recording device on their harness somewhere.


RE: It can be good...
By INeedCache on 5/16/2011 5:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Lively hood? What is that?


RE: It can be good...
By InfinityzeN on 5/16/2011 12:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Simple reply, don't resist arrest. If you are resisting arrest, then the police officier will respond with measures to ensure that your arrest is complete. That can range from giving you a few firm whacks to a taser all the way to shooting you with a firearm.

So in short, don't resist arrest.


RE: It can be good...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/16/2011 12:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Simple reply, don't resist arrest. If you are resisting arrest, then the police officier will respond with measures to ensure that your arrest is complete. That can range from giving you a few firm whacks to a taser all the way to shooting you with a firearm.


Again, I agree with your premise, but I have a problem with an officer punching someone in the back of the head as it's a STUPID way to restrain someone.

If the officer is able to do that the individual is likely on the ground.

If they're resisting at that point, the officer SHOULD be trying to control their wrists and/or use tasers/mace on the individual. They shouldn't be wasting time punching someone in the back of the head.

Punching the person in the back of the time does little to help you restrain someone. In fact it ENDANGERS the officer because it means the person's hands are likely left free to counter-attack.

Take a martial arts course... restraining someone is largely about wrist control.

Punching someone in the back of the head is largely counterproductive as it likely will only make them angrier and more violent while doing little to bring the situation under control.


RE: It can be good...
By FaceMaster on 5/16/2011 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you mean, but this wasn't what you were talking about in earlier posts.


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By bh192012 on 5/16/2011 1:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
Holding someone's wrist is not the end all be all of detaining someone, nor easy. Criminals who are resisting do not offer their hands to be locked. Punching them in the back of the head will stun them so you can lock them, it can also cause them to give up (and protect their head.)

Stepping back to tazer or mace them will get you shot, and you might kill them with the tazer anyways. Never give up control of an opponent by letting them turn around, especially if you're on their back. Also, I'm not sure why you think getting maced is better then getting a punch to the head?


RE: It can be good...
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/16/2011 1:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Holding someone's wrist is not the end all be all of detaining someone, nor easy. Criminals who are resisting do not offer their hands to be locked. Punching them in the back of the head will stun them so you can lock them, it can also cause them to give up (and protect their head.)


I would argue your self-defense knowledge is deficient here.

Firmly grasping someone's wrists and practicing joint control does make it difficult for them to resist.

Typically in police arrests the individual is first forced to lay down on their belly (until this happens the whole head strike issue is a moot point as you COULDN'T hit the back of their head).

Once on their belly, the arresting officer has the leverage advantage when it comes to pulling on a detainee's joints.

The only way wrist control would not be effective is if you're dealing with an extremly drugged/strong individual.

In this case hitting them in the back of the head would be STUPID as if you've ever hit someone on the back of their head it's not a magical instant shot to decapacitate them.

If you're by yourself and you do that their hands will be free to reach in their pockets and grab something to stab or shoot you with. In other words you would be putting yourself in MORE DANGER.

What you SHOULD do is back off if you're alone and wait for backup. If you're in a group of officers, you should be able to easily control a suspect's joints without resorting to beating them in the back of the head.

If a group of officers is still struggling with the individual, stunning the suspect with a taser is far more appropriate than striking them to the back of the head as it is more effective and has less risk of leaving lasting brain damage.

You are confused.


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 1:47:15 PM , Rating: 3
Jason Mick: Author, philosopher, Kung Fu master :)


RE: It can be good...
By BSMonitor on 5/16/2011 2:23:47 PM , Rating: 5
Reclaimer77, simply a moron.


RE: It can be good...
By bh192012 on 5/16/2011 2:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
People who go down, don't fall with their arms behind their back. They fall with their arms in front of them, giving them leverage on their arms (in close to their body.) The officer, on top would have his arms strechted out (not good leverage for pulling on an arm.) Watch mixed martial arts some time, even die hard ju-jitsu guys don't just try to pull the wrists when they are mounted. They give the opponent "a few punches" first to get their hands out. Then, they have leverage.

While hitting the back of the top of someone's head might not be super effective, from the bottom of your head down to the shoulders is basically the highest density of sensitive targets on a human. Also you get bonus points for doing it while mounted since their face will then bounce off the ground.

I'm not confused, and that was a weak personal attack. You can do better. While this is the internet, for what it's worth, I'm a sankyu.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By rcc on 5/16/2011 5:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be taking this as an absolute. I have a lot of years of martial arts training, and if someone is driving in at me from the front, low, I have no compunction about driving an elbow to the back of the head. It'll put them on the ground and allow me to use gentler methods of restraint.

Of course, being in that position means I've probably already done something wrong.

So, while I may agree that punching or hitting someone in the back of the head is not the best way to deal with a situation, there is a time and place for almost anything. Just don't get stuck on the "never" part.


RE: It can be good...
By HrilL on 5/16/2011 12:42:23 PM , Rating: 5
Yet in reality its not that simple. Cops will say you're resisting arrest for many reasons. I've been taken to the ground by 3 female officers because they felt threatened. Yet I never flinched at them. I was very cooperative the whole time. They even told me stop resisting while I was on the ground yet I wasn't even moving. If someone would have taped this these officers would at least have been able to have been punished for their actions. Not that our police chief would have done anything. When the top of your department is more corrupt than the ones bellow then you can't expect justice from being brutalized by the police.


RE: It can be good...
By MrBlastman on 5/16/2011 12:55:38 PM , Rating: 1
You had three women with their hands all over with you... playing with you on the ground. I fail to see the problem here. ;)


RE: It can be good...
By delphinus100 on 5/16/2011 7:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
He may not have cared for the BDSM component...

I wouldn't.


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I fail to see the problem here.

When you finally see them they all look like Roseann Barr?


RE: It can be good...
By bobsmith1492 on 5/16/2011 9:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Why oh why do you get into these situations so much? Assuming more policeMEN are men than women, you must encounter the police a lot. That removes a lot of credibility from your comment...


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If someone would have taped this these officers would at least have been able to have been punished for their actions.

Without taping it's just your word against theirs. Three cops against your civilian word? You have no chance in hell.

I'm curious what would happen to such an arrest if only the judge saw the tape in chambers. That's assuming the corruption doesn't keep climbing.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2011 5:06:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Imagine if that was you. What if some creep hacked into your router and started downloading kiddie porn from your IP. How would feel then if the officer planted a few punches in the back of your head when you were resisting arrest in front of your kids in the heat of the moment?


Wasn't the exact situation you propose but in college I had my apartment raided for exactly this.

Did I resist? No. To be honest the first thing that went through my mind was "Shit they're here for software piracy". Then the truth of why they were there came out. When I found out the why I breathed a sigh of relief because I knew they weren't there for me. To this day I laugh about what happened.

But from experience, the guys doing those raids make it very clear to stay still and put you in cuffs as soon as you are able. One of my roommates was still asleep when this shit went down and didn't do as he was told immediately but they still didn't do anything violent. Not to mention guns are drawn when they make a bust like this and enter the premises.

So if those parents fought back, it was an unfortunate situation but those cops don't know the truth. They know what they were sent there to do and they know you're resisting so they respond as they're trained to. If I had resisted, I'm sure I would've been pistol whipped by the gun that was pointed at the back of my head. I hold no ill feelings towards the police for what happened because they were merely doing their jobs. The truth came out and nothing happened to me. My seized property was returned a month or two later.


RE: It can be good...
By Fritzr on 5/17/2011 7:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
So years ago, in college, some officers doing there job correctly broke in to your dorm (remember the college probably gave them permission so a warrent for your room was likely not needed) and treated you with the respect due your actions.

You then extend this to officers breaking into a private home with a warrent based on an IP address and brutalizing the people they find and say it is completely justified because based on your one arrest in college, the police are always polite and respectful and never make mistakes.

First the police who have a problem with this are not the ones you met

Second if they never make mistakes, why did they not charge you with software piracy? After all you assumed that is what they were there for, so you probably assumed they would have probable cause for a lawful arrest.

You missed a really, really good chance to be a fully cooperative and upstanding citizen. Once you understood their mistake, you should have let them know what the facts were so they could put the right charge in their report rather than having to report that they didn't find what they were looking for.

Having to report that nothing was found after breaking in and detaining the occupants always looks bad on the reports. So much so that officers have been known to plant "evidence" to justify the search and for prosecuters to teach "witnesses" the correct testimony to give in court.

It saves so much embarassment when no one is able to present a recording showing something other than the testimony of "honest" police officers (of course they are honest, they have an official PD badge) that might cause the public to believe that there may actually be one or two less than upstanding officers on the force.

Limiting the ability to identify and remove the problem officers does very little to engender trust in Law Enforcement. Police vehicle cameras are a start & they have resulted in cops being taken off the force, but having random bystanders who can present video taken after the carcam "broke down" will do a lot to cause officers to consider their actions.

The officer who had the motorcyclist charged because the biker had a video showing that he stopped a civilian while driving an unmarked car and then pulled a gun on that civilian all the while presenting himself as an armed motorist wanting to stop & hold someone at gunpoint. That officer is one of the reasons civilian cameras are needed.


RE: It can be good...
By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2011 1:52:41 PM , Rating: 1
I guess the use of force in police work is a necessary evil, but only when it follows strict policies that are approved by the voting public. It should never be used because the cop is angry and wants some pay back.


RE: It can be good...
By zmatt on 5/16/2011 11:00:32 AM , Rating: 3
The cops are not above the law, they should be held accountable just like everyone else. Removing said accountability is the first step to letting corrupt police do what they want. Good cops should be all for allowing us to tape them, that makes it easier for them to find the bad cops.


RE: It can be good...
By Omega215D on 5/16/2011 11:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. As someone who was in college for Forensic Science and now on my way to becoming a cop out in California (NYPD gets paid less and have more hell to deal with, plus the weather gets very depressing) I don't object to being video taped, probably because I am used to it with the various NYPD cameras on the streets and transit.

Also, Newark police (NJ) are some of the seediest I've seen in the tri-state.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2011 11:32:22 AM , Rating: 5
Is there anything in New Jersey that isn't?


RE: It can be good...
By DanNeely on 5/16/2011 11:39:13 AM , Rating: 3
Their orchards and gardens? Hard for plants to be seedy when dead.


RE: It can be good...
By Omega215D on 5/16/2011 11:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
I've always wondered about the Garden State thing... I've also wondered why many NJ police officers have german looking uniforms.


RE: It can be good...
By tng on 5/16/2011 11:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
From the Newark Airport NJ is hardly the "Garden State", looks more like the "Petro Chemical Plant" state.....

I say that having really never spent any time there except the Newark Airport.


RE: It can be good...
By Hieyeck on 5/16/2011 12:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
I was in their airport once and I vow I will NEVER fly through Newark again. That airport employed the creepiest people. I was less terrfied in LGA.


RE: It can be good...
By delphinus100 on 5/16/2011 7:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
I spent the night there once due to a missed connection caused by a weather-delayed departure from Houston.

Interesting, but I'd rather not repeat it. And it seems just as well that I wasn't in a position to meet the street cops...


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:49:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've always wondered about the Garden State thing...

Check out Frank Rizzo and the Philadelphia PD back in the day. If you can't discern between fear and respect then this was one "well respected" police force.


RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2011 2:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
Epic reply.


RE: It can be good...
By Omega215D on 5/16/2011 11:42:41 AM , Rating: 2
I've had my run ins with POS cops but encountered greater number of professional ones.

The guys in SBPD didn't have a problem with me using my GoPro HD on them and certainly had no problem with me strapping it on my belt during the PAT...


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, Newark police (NJ) are some of the seediest I've seen in the tri-state.

While bad places obviously have their problems, it's become routine now where I am to have 2 cops in a car just to hand out traffic fines. That's in a good area and makes a huge statement about what cops have to deal with.


RE: It can be good...
By tng on 5/16/2011 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mark Donahue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, states in previous comments that his organization "absolutely supports" throwing those who tape police officers behind bars. He complains that citizens monitoring police activities for wrongdoing might "affect how an officer does his job on the street."


Well, my question here is this, can Mark explain just what the affect this would have on an officer and his job?

Can an officer of the law (of any type)do his job properly under any circumstances? Is not that the professionalism that we expect from a law enforcement officer?

Mark sounds like a Union hack.....


RE: It can be good...
By syphon on 5/16/2011 11:45:53 AM , Rating: 5
I will speak from a Law Enforcement background. I am a former law enforcement officer and I can say this. The ones that are upset over the recording are the ones that are abusing their power. When I was recorded, I would smile for the camera maybe even throw a "Hi Mom, Im on TV" joke.

If your doing your job right, there is no need to be afraid of being on camera. I honestly think it helps keep cops honest. In the academy, they teach the recruits, someone is always watching and you will be on YouTube within minutes of your arrest so behave! This mentality is what keeps cops honest. Just like at your job, if you knew you were being watched, you would make sure you do everything the right way.


RE: It can be good...
By syphon on 5/16/2011 11:51:35 AM , Rating: 3
Oh and on top of that...If I am getting my butt kicked by someone while trying to make an arrest, I would hope my backup would arrive and help me rather than try to catch all those recording the arrest. If it became illegal, it would be just another distraction that cops would be worrying about while trying to do their real jobs.

Cops watch you, why can't you watch them? Do you think they ask for your permission when they pull you over and record you with their dashboard cameras? That footage is public record and any one can request it and post it online or on tv. Why can't you do the same?


RE: It can be good...
By MrBlastman on 5/16/2011 12:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
All good points. I'm curious about one thing though--why'd you stop being a cop?


RE: It can be good...
By syphon on 5/16/2011 2:13:23 PM , Rating: 3
Truth...more money in the tech field. Grew up programming, went the Law Enforcement route and decided to go back to the tech field.

I also did not like the political crap. You get so buried in the CYA (cover your butt) paperwork that you do not have time to do real police work. Also, should you catch someone, the wrong signature, or missing signature, or one word wrong and that person walks, even if there are photos or a video of them committing the crime. Or even better, while arresting them and them cursing non stop at you, you slip up and say one curse word back, your now suspended. Just garbage.


RE: It can be good...
By MrBlastman on 5/16/2011 11:40:39 PM , Rating: 3
Speaking of cops, THIS will piss you off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

They totally were out of line. To top things off, they are now charging the kid with reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. He has done NOTHING wrong.


RE: It can be good...
By mindless1 on 5/18/2011 12:22:29 AM , Rating: 3
It doesn't piss me off at all, he was charged because he was being a jackass and trying to "control the situation" when police cannot allow that.

He should have just STFU and waited to be released. Being a person that walks around with a gun being defiant to LEOs - even if he is correct that no law is broken - makes me feel he is reckless and disorderly. If he will do that to police officers how much more would he do it to the average citizen that merely rubs him the wrong way?

Some people should not have carry permits even if they haven't done anything that should disqualify them. All criminals were once non-criminals who put themselves into the wrong situation by their prior choices.

Towards this end I advocate psych evaluations of applicants before a license is issued and each time it is reissued because the truth is, the majority of young men who get into displays of weaponry are major tools that do it just to try to intimidate other law abiding citizens.


RE: It can be good...
By YashBudini on 5/18/2011 1:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Something like 40 years ago Playboy suggested that no matter what you're being arrested, how trivial or absurd the charge is, you just remain silent cooperate, and go through it. You get your chance when you ask for a lawyer.

quote:
Being a person that walks around with a gun being defiant to LEOs


The cop is asking himself, "Is this person a potential threat to the public?" I don't see many answer options to that question. It's ego, drugs, or mental issues and right now I don't care which.


RE: It can be good...
By BadAcid on 5/16/2011 12:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
They should just adjust training to include "You must tape record every arrest in full view."

Innocent until proven guilty needs to be adjusted to include greater expectations in proof. No charge of "resisting arrest" or "assaulting a police officer" should ever be brought if there's no tape recorded evidence, and I don't mean some dude taping some officer's backside at the entrance of an apartment they just busted into. "Yeah, we taped the incident, hurp durp."

I mean every action that could possibly lead to injury or a criminal charge during an arrest needs to be in plain view of the camera. If it's not taped, the cop should be 100% culpable.

You can see on COPS or such just how stupid some criminals are, running with their pants on the ground. That's fine, everyone can see that. But when you get a-holes pulling their guns out for a motorcycle stop thinking they have ultimate control over everyone else, that just doesn't fly.


RE: It can be good...
By fic2 on 5/16/2011 1:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
And if it is detrimental why are so many cops and their departments happy to be on the tv show Cops? They also don't seem to be that affected by their own cameras.


RE: It can be good...
By Dailyrant on 5/16/2011 12:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
If this was not public domain(the people) it would be considered illegal with the highest interest. How can we push this in the right direction. Send letters, to our politicians, they need as much cameras and surveillance then the police need them. What happened when wikileaks came out with all this information, they threatened us citizens!
Very good information came out of this that shows how corrupted it all is. Crony's like WSJ are now trying to derail any kind of accountability by creating a sort of leak site. We know, trust is not about corporations or government. So who is left, the majority. We the people. So if we say yes to cameras then what is to stop them!


RE: It can be good...
By kaosstar on 5/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: It can be good...
By FITCamaro on 5/16/11, Rating: -1
RE: It can be good...
By dgingeri on 5/16/2011 3:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
if you look in a box of apples and find that most of the top layer of apples are rotten, are you really going to go through the whole box to find the ones that are still good?


RE: It can be good...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 4:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing about apples is, you know, they don't have Constitutionally protected rights and what not.

Great analogy /sarcasm.


RE: It can be good...
By rcc on 5/16/2011 5:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on how hungry or wasteful you are.

I'd probably check, particularly if it was the last box of food in the pantry.

And, I'd get a video record too.


RE: It can be good...
By dgingeri on 5/16/2011 1:27:22 PM , Rating: 5
In all my dealings with the police, in cities like Omaha, Oklahoma City, Greeley, CO, Chicago, Denver, and LA, I have only known one "good cop", and he was my cousin.

In Omaha, I was passing through driving from Denver to Chicago to see family on vacation. It was late, and I didn't want to stop in town because the hotels are more expensive in town. So, I traveled on to get one just on the other side of the river. It was about 11:00pm when the cop pulled me over, supposedly for speeding. I was doing the 55mph speed limit, but that didn't matter. I told him that my speedometer was reading 55, and I was being careful not to exceed the speed limit, and that either my speedometer or his radar gun was malfunctioning. He told me flat out that he didn't clock me, but that his experience told him I was speeding. He proceeded to say that I must be hiding something and emptied out my car on the side of the road looking for drugs. Of course, he didn't find any. After finding nothing, he left me on the side of the road to pick up my stuff.

In Oklahoma City, I was driving from my college over to Walmart to pick something up. I couldn't smoke on campus, so I was finishing off a cigarette before going in. I was in my car for maybe 5 minutes at most to finish it. A cop came by and proceeded to interrogate me for over 2 hours before letting me go, saying he was investigating a series of armed robberies in the area. Despite the fact that I was attending a Christian college (and had the ID to prove it) and that I had no gun in my car (it didn't take him long to look through my car because there was almost nothing in it) he told me time and again that he "had his eye on me" for these robberies. This same cop proceeded to harass me for over 6 weeks, until they finally caught the guy who was robbing these places.

I went on a "ride along" with a cop for 2 hours my senior year in high school. It was supposed to expose me to what the officers experience and expand awareness and respect for the police. It did the opposite for me. I was there when this officer went to a domestic disturbance call, and let everyone off without stopping a thing when the mother and 7 year old son had obvious bruises on their faces and arms, leaving them to their own, obviously inadequate, defenses against the father. I watched as he and 4 other officers tied up a kid in a cell and bash his face into the concrete, with him hogtied and unable to move much at all, until they knocked out three teeth and left him bleeding on the floor. Then he sat around for the next hour "doing reports" that would have taken any literate person 10 to 15 minutes.

While living in Aurora, Colorado, I frequented an Old Chicago restaurant at Buckley and Iliff. There have always been a constant stream of police officers having lunch at that restaurant, as the owner is a former cop, and it always has 4-8 cop cars in the parking lot. (Aurora cops are not allowed to use the police cruisers when off duty. So these officers have to be on duty when they come by.) I have witnessed several officers drinking on the job, in uniform, and taking 4 to 5 hour "lunches". All this while there is an average response time in Aurora of 45-75 minutes for auto accidents.

I've had many other experiences, but the best example of the corruption that runs so deep in every single police department these days was when my cousin was shot and killed by one. Despite the evidence to the contrary (my cousin's right hand was covered with blood from finger tips to elbow from skull fractures before the shooting, yet the knife he supposedly pulled on the cop had one bloody thumb print on it, and it was the cop's, the travel of the bullets, blood spatter, and GSR showed that he was laying on the ground on his side when he was shot, the cop had no wounds, only a couple scrapes from concrete that had a couple day's healing before the pictures were even taken, the 13 foot blood trail showing my cousin had bled out for over an hour before he was shot to death. in all, 13 points of physical evidence to show this was a beating and execution of a helpless, wounded kid.) they declared that it was self defense on the part of the officer. (I have since mailed the crime scene photos and my analysis to the Colorado State Attorney General's office every year on the anniversary of his death. They finally opened an internal investigation on the matter last year, after 7 years. They haven't closed it yet.)

I have yet, in my 39 year life, to see one officer actually enforce the law top protect anyone.

If one officer if protected from punishment for abusing his power, they all share in that taint. They all lose credibility. If they protect each other like this, they should all share in that same guilt. They are all guilty of protecting the "bad apples" if they sit by and do nothing about it, and they share in the same corruption. These days, with as many bullies having badges as there are, they are bathing in that corruption. I don't trust a single one of them.

That's my take on cops.


RE: It can be good...
By MrBlastman on 5/16/2011 1:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that it is fully within your right to tell a cop that you don't want them searching your car, right?

They need probable cause to go through your stuff. Just thinking you "look funny" I don't believe is enough. If he thought you had drugs or contraband, make him call the dogs out to sniff your car down. If the dog finds nothing, they can't touch your car.


RE: It can be good...
By fic2 on 5/16/2011 1:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
And this is what happened to a 19 year old kid in Denver that didn't want his trunk searched and asked if they had a warrant:
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/01/alexa...

The city of Denver just wrote him a check for $795k.


RE: It can be good...
By dgingeri on 5/16/2011 2:13:24 PM , Rating: 3
That happened within 1/2 mile of where I live right now. Think I trust the police?


RE: It can be good...
By marvdmartian on 5/16/2011 1:28:50 PM , Rating: 1
As far as I'm concerned, if the police officers aren't doing anything wrong, they shouldn't have anything to worry about, by being videoed.

Unfortunately, it seems the only videos anyone ever sees are the ones where the cops are violating someone's rights, or stepping outside their lawful boundaries. Much like the news shows, good news doesn't sell as well as bad news.


RE: It can be good...
By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2011 1:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Amen, the founding fathers had a lot of experience with how giving people power can lead to abuse. Why do you think the bill of rights was put in place to protect us from the government(aka police). This law absolutely should not stand, the best thing in the world is for police to know that they are ALWAYS being watched. I hate to do it, but I'm going to have to give money to the ACLU. They seem to be the only group that can fight the police/DA's office.


RE: It can be good...
By rcc on 5/16/2011 5:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
For the most part I have very little respect for the ACLU. In practice if not in theory.

However, on this issue I'll support them. It's absurd to think that recording police/citizen interactions is a bad idea. Of course, the police departments better get some PR people trained on how to explain what's going on to clueless people.


"Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By jbartabas on 5/16/11, Rating: 0
RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By priusone on 5/16/2011 11:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
... then a plain clothed individual stepped out of a unmarked car, and started advancing towards the criminal, I mean civilian, with weapon drawn at the ready...

Happy now?


RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 11:46:50 AM , Rating: 2
Is that really all you saw?

The first five seconds of that could have been a mugging or car jacking. He doesn't announce himself or show a badge, he just jumps out with a drawn gun. The car is unmarked and stopped in the road, he doesn't even put the flashers on.

I don't know where you are from, but when some guy in street clothes jumps out of a car with a gun and yells "get off the motorcycle!" I'm feeling personally threatened. He's lucky the guy didn't run him over or worst.


RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By tng on 5/16/2011 12:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
I had a friend who sold his house to a drug dealer for cash.

The purchase of the house was done properly with correct paperwork and title transfer, etc...

The dealer paid with a briefcase of $100K cash. On the way to the bank, a plain clothes cop pulled him over because they were investigating the dealer. He came to the drivers window and with hand on gun demanded that he get out of the car. The cop was shot on the spot since he did not ID himself....

Judge sided with the guy who shot the cop, said that it was a clear case of self defense seeing the amount of money that was in the car. Cop was suspended. The cops used the purchase of the house as excuse to get the IRS involved and the dealer was arrested after he could not explain why he had that much cash when his day job only paid ~$5 and hour.


By InfinityzeN on 5/16/2011 12:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Cops get shot for not identifying themselves. It happens. Any state that has Castle Law applied to your car means that you don't have to retreat or ask questions if someone is threatening you with a weapon in your vehicle.

If the walk up with a drawn firearm and are not saying "Police" while showing their badge, then they are risking getting shot.


RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The dealer paid with a briefcase of $100K cash.


LMAO what an IDIOT.

Cool story too, man.


RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By rcc on 5/16/2011 5:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
Cool, yes.

Although, if someone wanted to pay me in cash for anything like that amount, I'd insist on making the transfer at the bank. Both for safety, and so they could check for counterfeits.


RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By tng on 5/16/2011 6:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Sacramento CA during the 80's, allot of meth-heads around, but not much sense.


By rcc on 5/17/2011 12:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
So, not al lot of change, eh. Just substitute politicians.


By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2011 1:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, it would have been a legal shoot for anyone in that line of cars to shoot the cop.


RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By jbartabas on 5/16/2011 5:03:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Is that really all you saw?


No, I also saw a State trooper in a state trooper marked car parked right behind the motorcyclist, with the state trooper being already out of his vehicle a mere 17 sec after the first cop gets out of his vehicle. I also saw the motorcycle guy checking his back 15 sec before stopping, like he knew someone was chasing him ... and for some reason the sound is muted on the video until the very last few seconds .... it could be because it recorded only loud wind, or because someone would like to hide the inconvenient sound of police siren from the state trooper chasing him.

Now I do agree that the cop could and should have identified himself clearly earlier, because any ambiguity in such situation could have had dramatic consequences, especially if the other guy was armed and feeling threaten ... except that here, I suspect we may be taken for a ride. The motorcyclist knew he was being chased by the cops. But bottom line is: even if the cop should have identified himself earlier, there is a huge difference between drawing his gun and pointing at the ground, or pointing it at the citizen ... by the way, what robber robs you pointing at the ground with a state trooper behind you!


By tng on 5/16/2011 6:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
.....even if the cop should have identified himself earlier, there is a huge difference between drawing his gun and pointing at the ground, or pointing it at the citizen ... by the way, what robber robs you pointing at the ground with a state trooper behind you!
Except that with the helmet on and him concentrating on the guy with the gun, he probably did not see the trooper behind him until he heard the door shut on the car. You did notice that he turned around at about that time and you seen the trooper after he exited the car.

The trooper probably seen the guy speeding but could not catch him and had the plain clothes guy pull him over for him. Guess you should watch all the cars closely


RE: "Cop Points Gun at Citizen", no he does not
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 9:32:35 PM , Rating: 1
Your whole post is bullshit. We all check our back when we're driving like a jackass, because it makes you paranoid. It does NOT mean he "knew" a cop was behind him.

quote:
there is a huge difference between drawing his gun and pointing at the ground, or pointing it at the citizen ...


Oh so I guess it would be okay for me to pull a gun, point it at the ground, and walk up to a cop huh?


By mindless1 on 5/18/2011 12:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously waiting till the person you are talking to acknowledges that you have told them you are a police officer, leaves a huge window of opportunity for the perpetrator to pull a weapon first, or attempt to ride away by plowing through the person (officer).

We all know police use unmarked cars, it would be a bit ridiculous to think that after excessive speeding that the person was anyone OTHER than a police officer without further reason to suspect as much... especially when you consider that for the other police officer in a marked car with flashers on had arrived so quickly on a SINGLE LANE RAMP where other cars HAD to be veering out of the way when it was passing so there would have been line of sight between the motorcyclist and the police car.

This is the problem with video, the same video can be used to support two different versions of the *truth*, but I do feel it is better to have citizens recording than not, and I also feel that once the motorcyclist had stopped, the plainclothes officer should have handled things differently, but then we are idealizing and if we want to do that then the motorcyclist wouldn't have been speeding in the first place so...


By Tyhr on 5/16/2011 11:39:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Jason, you may want to change that part of your text, because I do not think that is accurate (and it probably is very misleading). See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5bMSyJCsg

Misleading? I don't think so.
The "cop" (civilian clothing, civilian car) pulled out his gun without identifying himself and aimed it within 15 degrees of the civilian on the motorcycle, demanding that he "get off the motorcycle" 3 times before saying he is "State Police" (and doesn't show a badge) while waiting in a lineup of cars.

My initial reaction was that he was being robbed at gunpoint.

I'm quite sure if a "criminal" pulled out a gun on a cop in the same fashion that the cop, they would be acting to defend themselves.


Big brother
By chmilz on 5/16/2011 10:41:38 AM , Rating: 5
Meet little brother. We're watching you.




RE: Big brother
By priusone on 5/16/2011 10:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
Just make sure Big Brother doesn't see your camcorder, because he doesn't want Mommy to know what he's been doing.


RE: Big brother
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2011 11:33:04 AM , Rating: 2
Having met big brother, little brother probably isn't exactly "little".


RE: Big brother
By chmilz on 5/16/2011 12:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
And it's about damn time we use our collective might to keep governments in check. Let the police try to hide... there's probably a hundred million people walking around the US alone with video->YouTube capability at the touch of a button in their pocket. The police WILL lose this battle if the public desires it, and desire it they should.


RE: Big brother
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2011 5:41:29 PM , Rating: 1
I'm far more worried about fiscal policy and out of control entitlement programs than cops not wanting to be video taped.


RE: Big brother
By snakeInTheGrass on 5/16/2011 6:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Well, make sure you don't go to a rally against that out of control spending or you'll have a chance at being on a watch list or maybe beaten by a cop who you better not video! You really think you'll be able to voice your view on bad policies when the police can do whatever they want in enforcing the laws your 'representatives' have put in place? Sic semper tyrannis.


RE: Big brother
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2011 12:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
Been to several rallies on out of control spending. The cops there were polite and kind. There was no need to video tape them. Because unlike a liberal rally, the people there respect the police. The only rally I went to where the police had to get involved was when some liberals tried to pick a fight and ended up being escorted away.


RE: Big brother
By FITCamaro on 5/17/2011 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
And I have stated several times in this article that I am against people being arrested for video taping the police. I agree that the only ones who have fear of being taped are the ones doing something wrong. To me video taping a police officer arresting someone or some other action that is legitimate only serves as further video evidence that they didn't do anything wrong. And if they did do something wrong, well then they don't have anyone to blame but themselves.

Same as someone being subdued for resisting arrest while being arrested for video taping the police has no one to blame but themselves. If a cop tries to arrest me, it doesn't matter if I agree with the reason or not. Resisting is only going to get me hurt and another potential crime I've committed. If I know I didn't do anything wrong, it'll be worked out in court. I personally will video tape any action by a cop I see that appears to be wrong to me. If they ask me to turn it off, I will refuse. If they want to arrest me for that, I will let them. I trust that I'll come out the victor in the impending court case. Because there is no law that makes using a video camera in public illegal in my state.


Ah yes, the infamouse "Made a cop nervous law"
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 10:57:10 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
States Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, "They [police officers] need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be. We feel that anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving — an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad — could cost him or some citizen their life or some serious bodily harm."


Color me crazy, but I thought cops had to have something called "just cause" to arrest or detain you? In other words, you have to break a law.

Apparently if you film a cop, you can make him nervous, and that's justification for these rampant abuses of power eh Mr. Pasco? What do police tell citizens countless times? That if you have nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about, right? Well if officers are acting properly, why would they be worried about the "consequences" of them being filmed.

I'm just disgusted after reading this article. We're fast approaching a two class society; those with power (gov, police, etc etc) and everyone else.




By MrBlastman on 5/16/2011 12:00:15 PM , Rating: 5
Well sure, you'd think that you have to have broken a law to be arrested. From what I see though, the police only need to think you have broken a law--any law and as such in the arrest report can use any excuse they can find to do so. So... if you piss them off, they can find a way to throw you in their car.

quote:
That if you have nothing to hide, there's nothing to worry about, right?


This is the biggest fallacy in the book they want you to believe. Your best response... at all times with the police, is nothing. Don't open your mouth. Don't reveal anything to them at all other than what is absolutely neccessary. This rule also applies to any other Government agency, actually. If they're going to abuse their power to use the system against you, then exercise your fifth amendment rights at all times.

Of course, if you do, they have this neat thing called "obstruction of justice" that they can try and charge you with. So, even if we are within our right, they still find a way to get us.

These problems and many more are exactly what the framers of our Constitution were afraid of. Funny, how people who lived hundreds of years ago were intelligent enough to forsee what could happen. The reality is though, these types of abuses of power were exactly what lead to people leaving England. Just look at how bad it is there now.

America--this is where we are headed if we aren't careful. Unfortunately, this mentality of if you have nothing to hide there is nothing to worry about is getting us there faster. It is a sick mentality--an illness that needs to be stopped. If we don't stop it, our freedoms are going to vanish.

I for one, fear a Police State in America. The police should accept and deal with us taping their actions. They are public servants, they work for us. In a Police State, though, we work underneath them. It is their rules or else. So, by allowing them to get away with crap like this now will only add to what absues they can force upon us later.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 12:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
Man, +6 post IMO. I agree with everything you said. Especially the Founders tie-in.

These are getting to be scary times we live in. I mean, not WWII scary, but still.


By bitterman0 on 5/16/2011 12:59:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I for one, fear a Police State in America. The police should accept and deal with us taping their actions. They are public servants, they work for us. In a Police State, though, we work underneath them. It is their rules or else. So, by allowing them to get away with crap like this now will only add to what absues they can force upon us later.


I strongly second this.

I feel that the general public of the US has grown weary of all the freedoms and liberties it has. And as just as soon part with them "for the greater good" or no reason at all.

Alas, I immigrated here for the very reason of having those freedoms and liberties in the first place. Imagine my surprise :)

For a truly Police State, though, the politicians have got to strip off our guns first. They are getting there, but as long as there are responsible citizens around who are not eager to part with their liberties, we just might avoid the cold and inhuman reality of the Police State... for now...


RE: Ah yes, the infamouse "Made a cop nervous law"
By nafhan on 5/16/2011 1:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
Even more alarming:
quote:
They [police officers] need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be.
Shouldn't they be doing the exact opposite and putting a lot of thought into what the adverse consequences of their actions might be? I mean, they're at least as likely to cause serious bodily harm by not thinking stuff through. One can certainly be proactive without going in guns-blazing-screw-the-consequences!

As an aside, public servants getting watched by the public... there's something that just seems right about that.


By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2011 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well no I agree that there are times where officers have to act instantly, but in those cases, I doubt they have time to be concerned about being filmed anyway.

quote:
As an aside, public servants getting watched by the public... there's something that just seems right about that.


Yup, if we don't, who will?


Expectation of Privacy
By phantom505 on 5/16/2011 11:09:09 AM , Rating: 5
Last I knew you had no expectation of privacy in a public place. None of those places were on private property. So how can they even pretend they are protected? Additionally, isn't deleting anyone's videos evidence tampering? Even if it is illegally gotten by a citizen (in this case it doesn't seem to be), it's still evidence.




By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/16/2011 12:17:47 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for posting that. That is really the end of the discussion here. For the very reason that cameras can be placed in public locations to record activity, as they are all over London (which has similar laws on the subject) you can just as well film the cops. They have no RXP in their public activities, and should not have additional protections that private citizens do not have. IF the cops are successful in demanding these extra protections, then all speed cameras, red light cameras, street cameras etc should also be removed for parity.

I don't agree on the evidence tampering issue, but it was at least theft.


RE: Expectation of Privacy
By kraeper on 5/16/2011 12:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
^^ This. That is how the law reads, and it doesn't make exceptions. Besides, in the days of dSLRs with video and long telephotos.. bans on videoing police are entirely un-enforceable. Not to mention stupid.


Don't overlook
By villageidiotintern on 5/16/2011 10:42:14 AM , Rating: 3
The Derek Colling-Mitchell Crooks taping in Las Vegas.




RE: Don't overlook
By villageidiotintern on 5/16/2011 10:43:24 AM , Rating: 3
It is every citizen's responsibility to oversee the work of government officials when they are out among the public.


To the cloud
By Mitch101 on 5/16/2011 10:50:03 AM , Rating: 3
My Windows Phone 7 will upload the video to the cloud. Go ahead delete it from my phone I have a backup.




RE: To the cloud
By villageidiotintern on 5/16/2011 1:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
The Eye-Fi app for Android and iPhone both will upload phone photos and video to a wide assortment of sharing sites without the Eye-Fi card in use.


If the cops arent doing anythign wrong
By DoeBoy on 5/16/2011 11:01:44 AM , Rating: 3
If they aren't doing anything wrong then why would they be worried about getting captured on film doing what they were trained to do? You guys are supposed to work for us and believe in freedom and liberty. This is why people hate cops and it will just get worse as these problems become more frequent. I trust a lawyer more than a cop.




By Omega215D on 5/16/2011 11:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
The flip side is what I see in NYC. The lowest of the low would try to make the good cops look bad any way they can and some have succeeded.

Not all of us in law enforcement are bad. Being a motorcyclist I remember the notion of how the non riding public views ALL riders as reckless a-holes just for the very visible few.


Cops should be held to the same standard
By trisct on 5/16/2011 5:25:04 PM , Rating: 2
Sure they have a difficult job, but that doesn't translate into their having carte blanche to treat citizens in a shoddy manner and get away with it. If they aren't doing their job professionally, then they need to go and find a different occupation, just like anyone else would. Their conduct should stand up to examination after the fact.

I think the FOP's viewpoint here is self-serving at best.




By Lerianis on 5/18/2011 3:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed totally. I burst into laughter reading some of the FOP officials reasoning behind these laws being 'good for society'. HARDLY! If anything, what is good for society is having the police know that eyes AND cameras will be on their butts at all times, recording what they are doing.


Speeding and popping a wheelie
By gixser on 5/16/2011 8:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so he was riding pretty fast and he popped a wheelie. (Quite a nice one really.) Other than the speed his riding seemed very good. Very aware of other road users despite the inherent danger.

But then I read the following and felt things were getting even more stupid. Guess they didn't have enough evidence eh?

4/7/2010: 6 Cops show up at my house with a search and seizure warrant for all of my computers, cameras and electronics.. They also bring an arrest warrant for "wiretapping" and 2 additional traffic violations. I could not go to jail due to health issues (surgery).
4/14/2010: I turned myself in and spent the night in jail. I was charged with "wiretapping." Felony- 5years $10k max fine. Bail set at $15k?
4/15/2010: Bail review - Released on my own recognizance.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/user/nikotyc#p/a/u/1/BHjjF5...




By MechanicalTechie on 5/16/2011 9:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
I guess its more about saving face than upholding the law. I wonder if slipping them a $50 we could make this go away... hint, hint, nudge, nudge ;)

Probably not they would want at least a 4 figure sum... shame i'm not that rich :(


Time to stop the madness.
By Geminiman on 5/16/2011 11:56:29 AM , Rating: 3
Our first ammendment protects the recording of police officers. The police and all other government officials do not have a 4th ammendment protection while doing their job. The freedom of information act confirms this, and there is no possible way that you could construe them to be protected from being observed by the public for any reason short of national security, which none of these cases are.

Keep up the good work people and keep recording these guys. They need to be in the public eye. They need to know that at any given moment they could be recorded. They need to know that once again they work for us, not the other way around.

There are far too many thugs in the police. i.e: The police are 10 times as likely to commit a violent crime per capita as the general public and 2 times as likely to commit murder. And that's after they white wash away all but the most obviously criminal cases. (FBI's own crime stats)

Your first amendment rights are at stake. The courts have ruled that you CAN record the police. Do so. Put a stop this this stupidity now. Anyone that has been arrested, get the EFF involved immediately. They will represent you and they will take down these thugs.

And to the police: The law is clear, the courts have ruled. You're now prosecuting people maliciously. Not only are we going to fight and get these thrown out, we're going to sue you and your boss for malicious prosecution. You're out of control and you need to be stopped. We will do so. You work for us. We need not fear you, and the surest way to ensure that is to keep a watchful eye on you at all times. Only then will you not bully and attack us and then cover it up.

To the good cops out there: You need not fear to be recorded. You're doing your job and if you're doing it within the law, then your public service will be noted. And in your private life your 4th ammendment rights are still protected. It is only when you are acting in PUBLIC SERVICE that you need be aware that we are watching you.




When dealing with cops...
By Demon-Xanth on 5/16/2011 10:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
Whenever I have had to deal with a law enforcement officer I generally assume that they are going to be filming me. Dash cams in cop cars are almost standard equipment at this point. I don't see any reason why police officers should be overly concerned about cameras. I have a security camera here at my job overlooking me right now.

I do have family and friends who are police/former police officers. I am not "anti-police" by any means. But when you do take video of a cop in action, remember that the police can use that as evidence as well.

Cameras are very much double edged swords; and very powerful ones at that.




Mirror, mirror
By SiliconJon on 5/16/2011 12:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
...on the wall
Who's the whip=crackers of us all?

Why, it's not the police alone, but the people, one and whole
For it is they who cry for the liberty toll

They cower and flake when displeasure they take
And call for the police for oppression's sake
To subdue that which they do not condone
Forgetting that freedom must be allowed to roam

But alas the people's minds are blank
So in the police they send to shank

Where does the buck make its final stop?
Not with a police force who's allowed intellect has a limited top

Not with the legislature that sleeps with your salary
Not with a media that thrives on your anxiety
and knee jerk reactions free of complexity
for which you submit to fallacy
All in the sake of simplicity

But it is YOU who hold the universal key
to you and your neighbor’s liberty

If you give up your responsibility
then the cost will be your autonomy

Do you care that you gave up not just your own
but also your neighbor's sovereignty?
Or do you not notice
just another walking zombie?




Dirty Cops don't want to be recorded
By btc909 on 5/16/2011 1:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
A legit cop should have no problem with an arrest being recorded & should even request that a copy of that recording be sent to a catchall email account that can be used to add to the officers report. Now a dirty cop will theaten you, detain you, delete any recordings. Or better yet confiscate your recording device or conveniently lose it.




Power of the Press
By VooDooAddict on 5/16/2011 2:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
Here's where this completely falls apart for me:

If a news camera captures a cop doing something is that news organization going to get tossed in jail?

They are on a very slippery slope trying to criminalize this.




Civil War is Coming...
By mmatis on 5/16/2011 9:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
and soon. "Law Enforcement" has spit on their oath to "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..." and have become nothing more than Thugs with Guns, who make the Mafia Enforcers look noble in comparison. Even the so-called "good cops" merely look the other way as their brothers-in-blue do their thing.




Two sides to every argument.
By YashBudini on 5/17/2011 2:12:16 PM , Rating: 2
Every action has a reaction, even inactions.

Yes, cops should not just go postal on someone, but at the same time being too mindful endangers cops as well. When dealing with "disorderly" teenagers give an inch and they take a mile. Every interaction what that person and his friends will try to get away with more the next time. This slippery slope does not end well.

I recall a time when officers here didn't want to be recorded by the department. What they soon discovered was such recordings were helping them by proving civilians were filing false accusation against them.

As for me as a civilian taping cops and going to jail, I'm not financially equipped to take such a case to the Supreme Court, but I'd certainly would take steps to ensure the public understands the downside of such a law and to embarrass them by all legal means at my disposal. And since this is a non-violent crime I'd better end up in a place like Club Fed with all the scumbag bankers. Oh wait, there are no bankers in jail. Well you get the idea.

And if I place such a video on a foreign website do you think they'll be able to figure out all the jurisdictional issues with such an arrest? What a financial debacle that could turn into.




Cops
By CColtManM on 5/17/2011 3:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
How is this different than watching Cops on Fox?




Cops are our employees
By ipay on 5/20/2011 1:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
Your employer has a legal right to video and audio tape you on the job. They can record you in the bathroom, intercept anything you do on the company's computer, etc. all without your permission or knowledge.

I'm not some stupid cop-hater, but it should be a constitutionally protected right to video AND audio tape public servants while they're doing the jobs we hired them to do, with or without their permission. If they try to stop you, they should be sent to jail, not you.

How does "wiretapping law" apply to audio recording someone in a public place, anyway? There are no wires involved. They don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.




By CColtManM on 5/22/2011 11:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm having this issue in debate with cops, help me out!

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?16...




biggyAward for justice
By littlebiggygirl on 5/25/2011 11:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
for bringing to light on the job accountability for the police departments everywhere 17yo Kaliah Fitchette has been given the 19may2011 biggyAward for justice: http://littlebiggy.org/biggyAward




Responsibility of the media
By Mumrik on 5/16/2011 7:27:02 PM , Rating: 1
This shit needs to stay in the news. If it doesn't, this development will continue.




By MechanicalTechie on 5/16/2011 7:39:38 PM , Rating: 1
Your politicians are corrupt, working for anyone that provides them enough funds to stay in power. Your mass media is bais and more interested in the type of tooth paste the Kardashians use than important national/world events. Your law enforcement can take away your constitutional rights while they kick your head in for too many drinks(and I'm sure a few meaty zapppps from the tazor too). A large part of the world hates you with a passion and your previous President (Yay Mr Bush), helped run your country's economy into the toilet!

Wow... can I live in America too?? Sounds like such a great place!!!




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki