New law(s) would hide police abuses

[ecoli]

If this gains wider acceptance, this would be completely outrageous!

 

 

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

 

In response to a flood of Facebook and YouTube videos that depict police abuse, a new trend in law enforcement is gaining popularity. In at least three states, it is now illegal to record any on-duty police officer. Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists.

 

 

I understand why a police officer would have a legitimate concern: he wouldn't want to have misleading video that could damage his/her reputation simply because he's enforced an unpopular law or if edited video misrepresents the severity or violence of his actions.

 

 

However, outrightly banning filming in public spaces is not only unconstitutional (as it seems to me) it's unenforceable. It will be enforced, most likely, when cops don't want to look bad when they do something stupid.

 

 

When the police act as though cameras were the equivalent of guns pointed at them, there is a sense in which they are correct. Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.

 

 

Thoughts?

[Double K]

This law is all backwards!

There is something that politicians and peace-keepers trot out whenever they push forward with new laws that eat into our liberties;

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"

And yet it appears the same does not apply to those enforcing the laws.

 

If anything the police should be more under public scrutiny than the public themselves.

The police are public servants - they are there to serve and as such should be even more closely watched.

 

Who watches the watchers?

[Mr Skeptic]

This is backwards! I'd be all for a law prohibiting law enforcement or other officials from "confiscating" videos. Any confiscated video should not be destroyed (and if it is destroyed after being confiscated the cops involved may not testify on that case). Copies of any confiscated video should be publicly available even if the equipment remains confiscated, with the exception of very rare cases where there actually is a reason it needs to be kept secret.

 

However, I'd be OK with a law requiring whoever makes a video of law enforcement send a copy to the officials in question (or make publicly available) the unedited footage if requested, before they do any edits. This as an extension of politeness and/or libel.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, this is outrageous. Might as well just give police a license to abuse.

[padren]

I have to agree it's outrageous. I cannot imagine a good reason for this, unless the officer in question is undercover but such a situation would be incredibly rare.

[Sisyphus]

That is absurd. Exactly the opposite of what the law ought to be, which is as much publicly available footage of law enforcement as possible.

[Double K]

Here is a perfect example of why this shouldn't be introduced.

 

This is a bit of a mash up of a few cases, but the main story I remember seeing on local news, and at the end of it the baton wielding officer is seen taking a mobile phone from a bystander rather forcfully, and deleting the video and throwing the phone on the ground. He didnt realise it had also been captured elsewhere.

Edit: Actually at around 3mins 30sec you see the officer take the phone and arrest the bystander

 

Edited June 9, 2010 by Double K

[ecoli]

I should say, that I don't think this has been tested in higher courts yet.

[Phi for All]

Is it easy to tell if digital photos or video from a cell phone or camera have been edited? If so, then I would say cover the cops with a law making it illegal to edit and post a video in such a way that it misleads viewers into thinking it's "real time". Cops shouldn't have to put up with videos that have been pieced together to make them look bad. No one should, really.

 

But taking away our right to record the truth as it happened? Absurd.

 

Here is a perfect example of why this shouldn't be introduced.

Did I miss it when they told us what that lady and her son were being detained for? Why were the cops chasing them down? Did they ever arrest her for anything or was this just "resisting arrest" with the charges dropped only after the brutality was brought out on video?

[Double K]

Did I miss it when they told us what that lady and her son were being detained for? Why were the cops chasing them down? Did they ever arrest her for anything or was this just "resisting arrest" with the charges dropped only after the brutality was brought out on video?

 

Good question. I was also wondering that, but I do remember seeing this on the news when it happened, which was a few years back now so the details are too foggy for me to comment on, however I believe the officer was charged so I guess they were doing nothing wrong or at least nothing 'provable'.

 

However if you watch that footage again, the 2 sons appear to be communicating across the street, and it looks like they might even flip the bird but the footage is too small and grainy to be sure, so perhaps the police thought they were making trouble or something, still doesn't mean they have the right to spray and then beat people, and the fact the officer goes and deletes footage from a bystander just tells me he knew, somehow, that he had done the wrong thing, or didn't want that footage to be kept.

[Pangloss]

Here's a great article and video illustrating the vast stupidity of arguing with police on the scene. This cop is trying to issue a ticket for jaywalking when half the neighborhood surrounds him and starts to harass him, and two women directly confront him, starting a fight that ends up with punches thrown and people under arrest.

 

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/06/seattle_police_officer_caught.php

 

I can understand non-cooperation when you may be a suspect, but I think that the kind of anti-police attitude sponsored up and down this thread leads to THIS kind of abusive, confrontational, violent form of "non-cooperation". When you deliberately go out of your way to tell people not to trust police, when you don't support law enforcement, when you don't recognize the basic, obvious common value of what the police are there for, this is the result.

 

The average Joe Sixpack simply can't split the hair you folks are asking him to split.

[Sisyphus]

Here's a great article and video illustrating the vast stupidity of arguing with police on the scene. This cop is trying to issue a ticket for jaywalking when half the neighborhood surrounds him and starts to harass him, and two women directly confront him, starting a fight that ends up with punches thrown and people under arrest.

 

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/06/seattle_police_officer_caught.php

 

I can understand non-cooperation when you may be a suspect, but I think that the kind of anti-police attitude sponsored up and down this thread leads to THIS kind of abusive, confrontational, violent form of "non-cooperation". When you deliberately go out of your way to tell people not to trust police, when you don't support law enforcement, when you don't recognize the basic, obvious common value of what the police are there for, this is the result.

 

The average Joe Sixpack simply can't split the hair you folks are asking him to split.

 

So you're arguing what, exactly? That police should be above the law, because the only alternative is anarchy in the false dichotomy in the mind of Joe Sixpack?

[Double K]

I'm not advocating violence against police, I'm also not suggesting non-cooperation. I'm saying there is a limit to how much you are obliged to give when cooperating, which only serves to PROTECT yourself. This has nothing to do with aggressing anyone, or causing anarchy, this is knowing your rights and exercising them.

[padren]

The average Joe Sixpack simply can't split the hair you folks are asking him to split.

 

If folks like us don't attempt elucidate the issue in a manner that actually models the relatively minor complexities involved in a concise, sensible way and try to relate with "Joe Sixpack" than they (and us) are left living with a false dichotomy in which neither option is viable.

 

I could simplify an entire issue down to "overall it's better to trust cops" but that is all Joe Sixpack has to go on for that side of the argument when they see

.

 

 

From what I can see no one is advocating resisting arrest. No one is advocating contempt for the law or officers in general. Police abuses happen, its a real problem and it needs to be addressed. It is not the contempt for the police, but the contempt for the system of accountability that gets most people fired up. This law only increases that contempt and does so for good reason.

 

People talk about arrests with friends all the time, pretty much anywhere they happen to anyone they know. They share horror stories, they point to the rather blatant processes that routinely protect police at the expense of civilians. Of course, they'll have their own bias, but there are legitimate complaints in the mechanisms for accountability. If you want to change these contempt behaviors, you need to address that issue first.

 

If someone feels they are being subjected to abuse by an officer, how they react and whether they are violent has more to do with whether they feel like "they'll have their day in court" or not. It's not confidence in the officer - that's immediately shot - it's confidence in the system.

 

 

Now, if Joe Sixpack can't figure that out, I'd rather keep hammering on Joe, than try and simplify an argument to a level that fails to model reality in any way.

[Pangloss]

So you're arguing what, exactly? That police should be above the law, because the only alternative is anarchy in the false dichotomy in the mind of Joe Sixpack?

 

No, what I'm saying is that it's not the place of bystanders, who almost by definition cannot have the full facts, to openly challenge law enforcement officials at the scene of an incident.

 

And that for ostensibly intelligent people to go around telling Joe Sixpack that cooperating with police is a Bad Thing, even if what he really means is in the calm, after-the-fact environment of a criminal investigation rather than the heated moment of an incident, is problematic, because Joe Sixpack cannot make the subtle distinction you're asking him to make. (See crowd reactions in video for evidence of this in action.)

 

In short, the police aren't the enemy. They're actually doing something we WANT them to do. If we need to fine-tune our understanding of how they do it, great, but frankly I don't care that Joe Sixpack doesn't fully understand his rights, because (a) it's not my fault that he hasn't taken the time to learn them, and (b) if he's guilty then the fact that he doesn't know them works in my favor. If he's innocent he can hire a lawyer, and if THAT's a problem then the system can work on THAT problem and not blame police for the shortcomings of the legal profession.

 

That's not the path to anarchy, it's just plain common sense.

 

 

I'm not advocating violence against police, I'm also not suggesting non-cooperation. I'm saying there is a limit to how much you are obliged to give when cooperating, which only serves to PROTECT yourself. This has nothing to do with aggressing anyone, or causing anarchy, this is knowing your rights and exercising them.

 

I agree with that, and I have no problem with general education opportunities.

 

 

Now, if Joe Sixpack can't figure that out, I'd rather keep hammering on Joe, than try and simplify an argument to a level that fails to model reality in any way.

 

Well it's a free country, but this looks like a waste of time to me. I don't really stand to gain by Joe's increased knowledge of police procedure.

[iNow]

Well it's a free country, but this looks like a waste of time to me. I don't really stand to gain by Joe's increased knowledge of police procedure.

 

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

 

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

 

THEN THEY CAME for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up."

 

 

 

You seem to be blatantly ignoring the core issue by asserting repeatedly how good cops are. Yes, there is no disagreement on that point. That's not the issue, though, so it's a total red herring. The point is the abuse, and how the system screws people, and how we might go about understanding that and potentially improving things.

[Pangloss]

I reject your appeal to ridicule and disagree that this is a case of not defending the rights of others, because we already teach people their rights; it's not my fault if they ignore their education. You can also stop putting words in my mouth; nobody's defending "how good cops are" and I haven't denied that there is abuse.

[iNow]

I reject your appeal to ridicule

<...>

stop putting words in my mouth

I did not appeal to ridicule.

 

An appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. ...

 

 

I presented a poem which addressed your final comment, and then went on to express how I perceived your posts and where I felt you were missing the core issue. I'll take ownership of the misunderstanding and apologize for any ruffled feathers.

 

 

(I) disagree that this is a case of not defending the rights of others, because we already teach people their rights;

Where and when are you suggesting this happens? I'm a little confused on your argument. How is it that "we" teach people their rights?

 

I'm not seeking to ridicule you, just get clarification. I do not recall this aspect of my own education and hope you can elaborate.

 

 

nobody's defending "how good cops are" and I haven't denied that there is abuse.

I agree, that was never in question. My feelings were that you were brushing aside too easily the core issue of abuse and the core issue of misunderstanding among two otherwise innocent people. My preference is to focus there, and I apologize for assuming that preference was shared by others.

[Pangloss]

How is it that "we" teach people their rights?

 

In post #15, in response to Double K. Doesn't everyone get a basic civics class, an introduction to law, and so forth? Please tell me if that's wrong. Of course, given our recent discussion on Texas schoolbooks, for all I know the cdesign proponentsists have changed this as well.

[iNow]

Doesn't everyone get a basic civics class, an introduction to law, and so forth? Please tell me if that's wrong.

 

I never had anything even remotely similar to that... not in any grade or any college level government course... and I consider myself among the more educated members of our citizenry. I'd have loved to have taken such a course for the pure practicality of it, but it was never available... and most of my pre-college education was not done in Texas.

[Double K]

In post #15, in response to Double K. Doesn't everyone get a basic civics class, an introduction to law, and so forth? Please tell me if that's wrong. Of course, given our recent discussion on Texas schoolbooks, for all I know the cdesign proponentsists have changed this as well.

 

In Australia there is no school or college based 'civics' course, and no education regarding the law and your rights. Absolutely ZERO.

 

However you could always take a law subject or something as a Minor i guess, but there's definately nothing during the early school years.

[Mr Skeptic]

In short, the police aren't the enemy. They're actually doing something we WANT them to do. If we need to fine-tune our understanding of how they do it, great, but frankly I don't care that Joe Sixpack doesn't fully understand his rights, because (a) it's not my fault that he hasn't taken the time to learn them, and (b) if he's guilty then the fact that he doesn't know them works in my favor. If he's innocent he can hire a lawyer, and if THAT's a problem then the system can work on THAT problem and not blame police for the shortcomings of the legal profession.

 

What about the fact that the criminals would be more likely to be interested in learning said rights (and benefiting from them) than would Joe Sixpack? What about the fact that most people don't know that the police can lie to them six ways from Sunday, and pressure them into a confession pretending that it will be better for them to due so, due to the lies and fabricated evidence they have shown and told them? What about the fact that this sort of behavior means we can't trust the police, that they are not our friends (unless of course we are not involved in talking to them)?

 

Anyhow, you might want to think about why we considered the right to no self-incrimination so vitally important that we put it in the Constitution? I casually note that the existence of police themselves, is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

because we already teach people their rights; it's not my fault if they ignore their education.

 

Oh, are people only entitled to have the rights that they know they have?

Edited June 16, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

Well I'm surprised you guys didn't have anything like that in school. I wonder if that's the rule or the exception.

 

 

Oh, are people only entitled to have the rights that they know they have?

 

I didn't say they weren't entitled to their rights. I said it's not my problem if they choose not to exercise them.

 

 

What about the fact that the criminals would be more likely to be interested in learning said rights (and benefiting from them) than would Joe Sixpack?

 

That's their right, same as everyone else.

 

 

What about the fact that most people don't know that the police can lie to them six ways from Sunday, and pressure them into a confession pretending that it will be better for them to due so, due to the lies and fabricated evidence they have shown and told them?

 

Lock 'em up and throw away the key. If they're guilty I have no problem with that police tactic, and neither does the United States Supreme Court.

 

 

What about the fact that this sort of behavior means we can't trust the police, that they are not our friends (unless of course we are not involved in talking to them)?

 

It doesn't mean that. But clearly even if it did you'd still mistrust the police, because they're in the business of putting people behind bars with less than absolutely conclusive evidence. That is what they do. That bothers you, apparently. Okay, sorry to hear it, but that's your prerogative. But it does not bother me.

 

I think people have this strange notion, perhaps born out of programs like CSI, that evidence must be absolute and that the criminal justice system would operate just fine, putting away 99% of the criminals using nothing but absolute, incontrovertible evidence. In the real world, criminals use gloves, acquire alibis, and wash gunshot residue and blood off their hands. In the real world thousands of rape kits never get processed because of backlogs. In the real world evidence is sometimes just not there. And in the real world, the vast majority of crimes are never even solved.

 

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00206/text_help_subject.htm

 

This society has been putting actually-guilty criminals behind bars for hundreds of years, long before technology came along to make it easier. Eventually we MAY live in a world where nobody goes to jail unless there is absolutely conclusive evidence. But this is not that day.

 

But if it makes you feel any better, the odds of being falsely accused of murder are probably less than winning the lottery or being in an airplane crash. Haven't you ever wondered how Horatio Caine could possibly be given a NEW battered-woman case every single week? Come on man, it's just Hollywood. The Innocence Project has a whopping 40 cases to its credit. Out of, what, millions? Hollywood.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Pangloss

[padren]

Pangloss, aside from police tactics in the interrogation room, can we stick to the topic of what this thread is about - police abuses, ie: illegal acts conducted by the police that, if made public they would be held accountable for?

 

I am not concerned at the moment about cops that push interrogations into uncomfortable territory or use practical but discomforting methods. It's an interesting topic but entirely aside.

 

What I want to know is - what tools of redress does a citizen have when they have a complaint to lodge against a police officer, and are those tools satisfactory? I honestly believe that if as the article in the OP suggests...

 

"The selection of "shooters" targeted for prosecution do, indeed, suggest a pattern of either reprisal or an attempt to intimidate"

 

...is resulting in felony charges that the system is absolutely broken. Can you give me one good reason why the filming of a police officer while in public should be illegal? Why should the DA have the green light to selectively charge any individual with a felony at some time after the fact and only after someone decides they don't like it?

 

You realize this means it is illegal to film damage to your car on your phone following a traffic accident should a police officer walk into frame? Sure - that's not likely to result in a charge because chances are you won't have any dispute with the officer, but it is still out there as an iron-clad felony-on-demand should at any time they simply change their mind.

 

And that's just the practical exceptions I take with this. I'd like to understand how using your phone to record an officer in public is the same as illegal wiretapping - the felony often brought up. I'd like to understand what exactly we are shielding these officers from when we add laws that explicitly criminalize the filming of an on duty officer.

 

Why do they need this addition of the law?

 

To my knowledge, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that suggests videotaping a peace officer in public on duty in any way hurts that officer. The only way it hurts the officer is if it brings evidence they committed a crime or some breech of conduct.

In those cases, it's worth noting that the victim of such abuse is encouraged to testify to that end and will only be ruled against in the event that there is not enough evidence to support their allegation.

 

So seriously - we already know people are expected to witness and observe police officers on duty in public. We already know if they appear to demonstrate misconduct, the witnesses are supposed to report it. And we know, if the witness is shown to be credible, that the officer would face consequences.

That's all part of how things have and still work. The only difference, is it has become a lot easier to show when the witness is credible, by the aid of video.

 

So why do we need this "no video" law, and why do we have to resort to wiretapping laws and felony charges where no such explicit law exists?

 

The only benefit I can see is to those who wish to make the truth harder to see, considering nothing else about how 'witnesses to police abuses' are handled have changed.

There are still allegations, investigations, and people who are bound by duty to reprimand the officer should the allegations bare out.

 

Please explain how this does anything other than make it harder for those people to do their job?

[DJBruce]

I believe that there should definitely be a watchdog for the police, however I do see the problem with people video typing police actions. It seems to me that when most people video tape a police action they are inserting themselves into a situation, which they have no part of being in. This seems to complicate the situation, and makes it more difficult for the police to effectively do their jobs. Not to mention the fact that a person standing by a cop with a video camera definitely has the potential to draw a crowd.

 

An example of this is Pangloss's video. Did the person filming this have an reason to be standing near a cop attempting to arrest a person? No. Did the camera-person interfere with the cop doing his job? Well I would say that yelling at the officer definitely would make an orderly arrest harder. It seems to me that a lot of the problems with cops arise when a crowd builds up around officers and they feel as if they are threatened, and that case in Seattle shows just that. Had there been no crowd no video camera the officer would have not even had to deal with the woman in the pink.

 

Pangloss at least in Michigan it was required to take a full year of government and civics to graduate from high school, I think I might have been changed to one semester of civics and one semester of economics, but it is a state mandated requirement.

 

As a question how prevalent do you guys think police brutality is? I honestly would think that the percentage of accidents that end in police brutality is incredibly tiny probably >1%, and that the shock value and the media make the amount seem much more.