New law(s) would hide police abuses

[Pangloss]

I probably should have posted my bump in the Miranda topic; sorry about that.

 

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.

 

Here's one argument that I believe will ultimately have some impact here, but not as much impact as police would like. Decades ago airline pilots were successful in suppressing, by law, the audio recordings of cockpit conversations. This is why, following an accident, you almost never hear the actual recording, but instead usually see a printed transcript. Pilots felt that it was an intrusion into their privacy, and the industry felt that it would undermine public confidence. Lawmakers agreed, and passed federal law to make this happen.

 

(Note that these recordings don't generally make it into public view even under Freedom of Information laws. I don't know the full legal story behind this situation, though.)

 

But of course those recordings are actually made, and they're not made by the public, they're made by an official mechanism. So a direct analogy is very difficult to make here, either in support or in opposition. But I think the reasoning can be applied to some extent, and it's not hard to see how it could help both sides. For example, official police videos (those recordings made from the dashboard camera) could be withheld. The recording could still be used to prosecute officers who break rules or violate civil liberties, but they could be legally barred from release to the public unless approved by a judge.

 

I realize that doesn't address the issue of public recording of events, but I believe there is some logic behind some aspects of what the police are asking here. People often see things as "bad" that really are quite normal and above-board, like taserings and even shootings that are completely justified, but look awful when viewed in the limited context of a video recording.

[Sisyphus]

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.

 

"Brutality?" I don't know. Probably not very. But then, I look like a yuppie, so my own impressions of police are probably a lot more positive than others. But abuse of power, in some form or another? I would say it's extremely prevalent. I think it's downright inevitable, given the dramatic power imbalance inherent to the system in pretty much all interactions with civilians, and the culture of "protect your own." You think cops ever get speeding tickets? I know cops who actually brag about helping each other avoid the rules.

 

What we're talking about here is not interfering with cops doing their jobs. I would never ever taunt a cop arresting somebody, nor would I resist arrest myself. But you're damn right I would record the event. Making more information available only hurts those who are lying. Yes, it can be taken out of context. That's what we have a legal system for, to determine what is and is not sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

[Mr Skeptic]

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 if people forget to exercise their right to life? Can I just kill people who don't know the Constitution protects their right to life? What about the fact that people are supposed to be informed about their 5th amendment rights, yet never told that to actually exercise them requires a magic phrase that they would have to know beforehand?

 

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.

 

Of course. This is why it is so convenient to be able to claim a person confessed.

 

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.

 

Or, maybe it's about 15%. Apparently, the odds of being found innocent increase dramatically for those on death row, especially if it is actual death row rather than that silly death row but with little chance of being executed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/99nov/9911wrongman.htm

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I realize that doesn't address the issue of public recording of events, but I believe there is some logic behind some aspects of what the police are asking here. People often see things as "bad" that really are quite normal and above-board, like taserings and even shootings that are completely justified, but look awful when viewed in the limited context of a video recording.

 

So what? You seem to not care much if people are ignorant of their rights; surely it matters even less if they are ignorant of critical thinking skills or of proper police procedure.

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

[Pangloss]

What if people forget to exercise their right to life? Can I just kill people who don't know the Constitution protects their right to life?

 

Just because people "forget to exercise their right to life" doesn't mean I've suddenly acquired the right to kill them.

 

 

What about the fact that people are supposed to be informed about their 5th amendment rights, yet never told that to actually exercise them requires a magic phrase that they would have to know beforehand?

 

Well as I indicated above, I'm not opposed to education. It's really the muddling aspect of pushing non-cooperation that I'm objecting to, and pointing out that the fact that somebody doesn't know their rights isn't really my problem, and mostly works in my favor.

 

Show me a looming police state and we'll talk. But since that's not the case I see a lot of benefit in letting people fend for themselves and not obsessing over whether or not Joe Sixpack knows all of his constitutional rights in precise detail.

 

 

Or, maybe it's about 15%.

 

15% of people currently on death row are innocent? Sorry to hear it, work to get them out, but I don't see that as a looming danger to me personally. That's obvious a tiny percentage of the total pop.

 

 

So what? You seem to not care much if people are ignorant of their rights; surely it matters even less if they are ignorant of critical thinking skills or of proper police procedure.

 

You're right, I don't. What does concern me is when they make things more difficult for the police officers I pay for with my tax dollars. Here's a good example of a cop being harassed by local bystanders and a video that makes the cop look really bad, when in fact he was basically under attack. I don't think he should have punched this woman as shown in the video, and he may need some training on dealing with situations like this, but the point is that the situation should not have come up in the first place. He's just giving someone a ticket for jaywalking, and these two girls (17 and 19) come up and starting laying into the guy, and when he tries to arrest them for accosting a police officer the REST of the public starts to harass him.

 

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

 

That sort of thing happens because people don't respect law enforcement. But the reason people don't respect law enforcement isn't because law enforcement doesn't deserve respect, it's because the media and political demagogues leverage singular instances of abuse and convince the public that the situation is something other than what it really is.

 

Limiting the video taping of law enforcement might help with this problem.

[Sisyphus]

 

Limiting the video taping of law enforcement might help with this problem.

 

Even if everything else you said is true, how does this follow? Recording the incident just gives the people in charge of deciding if there was wrongdoing (i.e., his superiors, IA, a judge, not an angry mob) more information. If the officer didn't do anything wrong, then the video evidence should help him.

 

Also, the public reaction is not the final say, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. If a bunch of people watch this on youtube and are pissed off, that doesn't mean they get to lynch the officer. It does mean, however, that the powers that be can't get away with simply ignoring incidents of actual wrongdoing.

 

Flight data recorders are actually a good example, because if there is a plane crash, you can be confident that the FAA is going to very carefully review everything. In stark contrast, this guy's sergeant has every motive just to sweep complaints under the rug, and you'd have to be extremely naive not to realize that this happens all the time.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Sisyphus

[padren]

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.

 

That's a little backwards I think. Police actions have always drawn crowds before video recording was common. They also do serve a purpose - they are witnesses. They can vindicate an officer if they are latter accused or vindicate a victim of police abuse.

They are definitely obligated to keep enough distance so as to not obstruct the officer - that's a given. In fact, it is already illegal to interfere with an officer in such situations.

Cameras do not change this. If anything cameras make the crowd calmer, as they reassure the crowd that if the officer gets out of line, they are on tape. If some people stay and watch specifically to record the event it is conceivable that some people would leave if all they could do is look, but people want and do watch.

 

As said, none of that is illegal until they interfere with the officer. Holding a camera in your hand doesn't change anything about whether your body is interfering or not, so I really don't think it's fair to blame the cameras.

 

It's also worth noting that while being disruptive

 

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.

 

I think it can be summarized as both "not very often" and "far far too much" at the same time. There is also a difference between brutality and misconduct, criminal or otherwise.

Police are in a very special line of work. Honestly the only time we are likely to be in a more vulnerable state is when undergoing surgery.

[Pangloss]

Even if everything else you said is true, how does this follow? Recording the incident just gives the people in charge of deciding if there was wrongdoing (i.e., his superiors, IA, a judge, not an angry mob) more information. If the officer didn't do anything wrong, then the video evidence should help him.

 

Indeed it might. But I am concerned about public behavior. The answer to your question is that if they're not allowed to video an incident then they might disperse or be less challenging of law enforcement. I don't think it's a great argument, but I think it has some validity, meaning I think it would actually happen that way sometimes. This would apply to a wide variety of events.

 

 

Also, the public reaction is not the final say, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. If a bunch of people watch this on youtube and are pissed off, that doesn't mean they get to lynch the officer. It does mean, however, that the powers that be can't get away with simply ignoring incidents of actual wrongdoing.

 

Flight data recorders are actually a good example, because if there is a plane crash, you can be confident that the FAA is going to very carefully review everything. In stark contrast, this guy's sergeant has every motive just to sweep complaints under the rug, and you'd have to be extremely naive not to realize that this happens all the time.

 

I think that's a good point, but I'm not sure that mob mentality is the best process for ensuring police review. Civilian oversight panels or review boards, for example.

 

I really think it's unlikely that public video will be affected by any law. But I do think it's possible we could see those dashboard camera videos disappear from the public eye.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Where does mob mentality enter into this? It's certainly possible for a civilian to make a video of a police officer abusing power, then take that video to the police chief or use it to file a civil case against the officer, rather than attempting to break down his door and beat him for his transgression.

 

I doubt most videos of officers are made in cases where the officer is confronted by a mob. They might be someone filming the scene of an accident out of morbid curiosity, someone filming an officer from a distance, or someone recording a protest or riot from a building.

 

Now, it might not be a good idea for someone being detained by an officer to try to film that officer, or for others to interfere to try to get the best video shot. But that's already covered under laws about obstructing an officer of the law or resisting arrest.

[padren]

Here's a good example of a cop being harassed by local bystanders and a video that makes the cop look really bad, when in fact he was basically under attack. I don't think he should have punched this woman as shown in the video, and he may need some training on dealing with situations like this, but the point is that the situation should not have come up in the first place. He's just giving someone a ticket for jaywalking, and these two girls (17 and 19) come up and starting laying into the guy, and when he tries to arrest them for accosting a police officer the REST of the public starts to harass him.

 

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

Can you explain how the video makes the police look really bad? In the first 25 comments on that page, 4 out of 5 are in absolute support of the officer. I've seen this video discussed in various places, and overwhelmingly people feel the officer was justified. Most of the criticism leveled at him has been with regards to his failure to call for backup, and whether he used best practices.

 

Honestly if I heard about this incident, especially in the context of genuine police brutality cases that have come up here recently I'd have probably suspected far worse transpired.

 

We have had a problem with violent officers here and it would be unfortunate to have nothing but hearsay to go on in evaluating this case in the recent atmosphere created by those events.

That sort of thing happens because people don't respect law enforcement. But the reason people don't respect law enforcement isn't because law enforcement doesn't deserve respect, it's because the media and political demagogues leverage singular instances of abuse and convince the public that the situation is something other than what it really is.

 

Limiting the video taping of law enforcement might help with this problem.

It would make it far worse. Already these girls in that video are getting a harsh civics lesson as they are mocked over most of the internet for being so mind numbingly stupid.

Without video, they would be sitting next to some activist (as some are getting fired up already) crying and telling their side of the story in front of a ton of video cameras, as some cheesy news station showed grainy stock footage of a cop walking in slow motion to dastardly music and a "Did you stop beating your wife?" caption appears across the bottom of the screen about the questions "people are asking" regarding his conduct.

 

All in all this video has helped highlight what actually happened. The officer clearly could have done a better job (should have called for backup) but was within his rights.

 

 

I also disagree with regards to why people don't respect police. People don't respect law enforcement because they believe they are unaccountable, and to a large degree they are right.

It doesn't matter if 99 out of 100 officers are good, or if 999 out of 1000 are good. When you have a dispute you need to know it will be handled fairly. If we elect "the best and the brightest" to the highest offices of running the country and still require checks and balances just to deal with human nature - why would law enforcement be any different?

 

That's all most people want - a fair shake. If an officer makes lewd sexual remarks you should be able to expect a complaint to be taken seriously, even if it is ultimately thrown out for lack of evidence. Simply knowing it was taken seriously actually helps, since while it was dismissed for lack of evidence, it keeps the level of "what can be gotten away with" to a minimum.

 

When law enforcement actually rallies and organizes the outright suppression of evidence simply because the mouth breathers might get the wrong idea from a video the range of what police can get away with goes through the roof.

 

That fosters disrespect.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well as I indicated above, I'm not opposed to education. It's really the muddling aspect of pushing non-cooperation that I'm objecting to, and pointing out that the fact that somebody doesn't know their rights isn't really my problem, and mostly works in my favor.

 

Well, it works against your favor in several ways.

1) This education is not optional, and failure to read someone their Miranda rights is grounds for dismissing a case or some of the evidence. Of course, the loophole is that even while they tell the people their rights, they tell them in such a way that they don't know how to invoke them via the magic phrase --essentially negating having told them at all.

2) Innocent people in jail cost you in several ways: the real criminal is out loose, you are paying for the guy's imprisonment, and the guy is no longer contributing to taxes and the economy.

3) Police being able to get away with this sort of abuse are much more likely to abuse others, such as yourself. It may or may not matter whether you know your rights.

 

Show me a looming police state and we'll talk. But since that's not the case I see a lot of benefit in letting people fend for themselves and not obsessing over whether or not Joe Sixpack knows all of his constitutional rights in precise detail.

 

Well that's an interesting idea. Do you have any evidence that police abuses do not occur except in a police state? Or were you just misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I said? As far as I know, police abuses occur even without a police state.

 

15% of people currently on death row are innocent? Sorry to hear it, work to get them out, but I don't see that as a looming danger to me personally. That's obvious a tiny percentage of the total pop.

 

People on death row are investigated more thoroughly, in case you were wondering. How can you be sure similar percentages don't apply to other areas, just that there is not the data to show it? Think about just how much has to happen to get from suspect to death row.

 

You're right, I don't. What does concern me is when they make things more difficult for the police officers I pay for with my tax dollars. Here's a good example of a cop being harassed by local bystanders and a video that makes the cop look really bad, when in fact he was basically under attack. I don't think he should have punched this woman as shown in the video, and he may need some training on dealing with situations like this, but the point is that the situation should not have come up in the first place. He's just giving someone a ticket for jaywalking, and these two girls (17 and 19) come up and starting laying into the guy, and when he tries to arrest them for accosting a police officer the REST of the public starts to harass him.

 

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

 

Interestingly, it seems the superiors did not review the tape. They relied upon the police report, and surprisingly found nothing wrong. Since jaywalking is, to my knowledge, not a criminal offense, I would be wondering why the police was trying to handcuff somebody for jaywalking.

 

Incidentally, there are about 312 municipal codes in Seattle concerning pedestrians. These laws and their enforcement do not promote the safety of neither pedestrians nor traffic: for example it is safer, but illegal, to cross when there are no cars present but a "don't walk" light, than when there is heavy traffic including turning cars but the light says "walk".

 

Incidentally, ignorance of the law does excuse breaking certain municipal laws. The proper course of action would have been for the girls to take the ticket and then give their reasons and request that it be canceled -- but this is not always possible to do.

 

That sort of thing happens because people don't respect law enforcement. But the reason people don't respect law enforcement isn't because law enforcement doesn't deserve respect, it's because the media and political demagogues leverage singular instances of abuse and convince the public that the situation is something other than what it really is.

 

People don't respect law enforcement because quite frankly some of the officers and some of the laws they enforce are not worthy of respect. You seem to be encouraging some of the disrespectful things the police do. Being respectable is hard and sometimes inconvenient -- but in the end it pays off.

 

If people are afraid to talk to the police, and in fact anyone who is smart will be afraid to, that also does a lot more damage to the police's ability to conduct investigations -- far more than their being allowed to do such things as trick people into confessing or talking enough that they say something that appears self-incriminatory.

 

Limiting the video taping of law enforcement might help with this problem.

 

How so? People will tape the videos anyways, they will be shown on the news anyways. If not in the US, then elsewhere. What are they going to do, arrest the news agencies? I'm sure that will greatly improve people's respect of law enforcement.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Indeed it might. But I am concerned about public behavior. The answer to your question is that if they're not allowed to video an incident then they might disperse or be less challenging of law enforcement. I don't think it's a great argument, but I think it has some validity, meaning I think it would actually happen that way sometimes. This would apply to a wide variety of events.

 

If I were with a group of people and we saw what appeared to be a police abuse, and were not allowed to videotape (and with the knowledge that police get believed far more than others), I would be much more likely to come to that person's aid. Which would most likely mean forcing the officer to release the person, and if we wanted to avoid getting in trouble, we'd also have to knock him unconscious so he can't arrest the lot of us for helping. If instead we could videotape, that itself would suffice (both rescuing the person we think is being abused, and not getting into trouble for doing so). Except now this law would remove that option.

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

[Pangloss]

Where does mob mentality enter into this?

 

Take a look at the video in the article I linked in post #29 and see if you don't see mob mentality at work there.

 

 

It's certainly possible for a civilian to make a video of a police officer abusing power, then take that video to the police chief or use it to file a civil case against the officer, rather than attempting to break down his door and beat him for his transgression.

 

Yup. But do you think civil liberties advocates would be any more supportive of a law that, say, required civilians to stand 50 feet back and keep their mouths shut?

 

(That's actually a pretty good idea, come to think on it.)

 

 

Can you explain how the video makes the police look really bad?

 

It doesn't. You might've misunderstood my post?

 

 

In the first 25 comments on that page, 4 out of 5 are in absolute support of the officer. I've seen this video discussed in various places, and overwhelmingly people feel the officer was justified.

 

And yet this incident happened. The video counters your point all by itself -- obviously these particular folks thought something bad was going on, and decided that a violent verbal confrontation was in order.

 

 

It would make it far worse. Already these girls in that video are getting a harsh civics lesson as they are mocked over most of the internet for being so mind numbingly stupid.

 

Without video, they would be sitting next to some activist (as some are getting fired up already) crying and telling their side of the story in front of a ton of video cameras, as some cheesy news station showed grainy stock footage of a cop walking in slow motion to dastardly music and a "Did you stop beating your wife?" caption appears across the bottom of the screen about the questions "people are asking" regarding his conduct.

 

I think that's a pretty good argument.

 

 

...That fosters disrespect.

 

Some good points there, but I think you underestimate the power of the angry mob of poor people when well-lead by the news media and local "community leaders".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Bruce Schneier on the issue:

 

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/06/filming_the_pol.html

 

This is a horrible idea, and will make us all less secure.

 

He also links to an essay of his:

 

http://www.schneier.com/essay-208.html

 

This is the principle that should guide decision-makers when they consider installing surveillance cameras or launching data-mining programs. It's not enough to open the efforts to public scrutiny. All aspects of government work best when the relative power between the governors and the governed remains as small as possible -- when liberty is high and control is low. Forced openness in government reduces the relative power differential between the two, and is generally good. Forced openness in laypeople increases the relative power, and is generally bad.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Take a look at the video in the article I linked in post #29 and see if you don't see mob mentality at work there.

One incident does not justify a global ban. That incident may not be representative of the average encounter an officer has with someone with a camera.

 

Yup. But do you think civil liberties advocates would be any more supportive of a law that, say, required civilians to stand 50 feet back and keep their mouths shut?

 

(That's actually a pretty good idea, come to think on it.)

No. There are already laws against obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty, as I stated, so if recording becomes a problem, it's treated just the same as standing in front of the officer and refusing to let him move. I don't see why recording has to be banned entirely to prevent it from causing problems in a few cases.

 

Is there a particular case against recording an officer when you are not obstructing his actions in any way at all? For example, if you're in a building across the streat?

[Pangloss]

Well, it works against your favor in several ways.

1) This education is not optional, and failure to read someone their Miranda rights is grounds for dismissing a case or some of the evidence. Of course, the loophole is that even while they tell the people their rights, they tell them in such a way that they don't know how to invoke them via the magic phrase --essentially negating having told them at all.

2) Innocent people in jail cost you in several ways: the real criminal is out loose, you are paying for the guy's imprisonment, and the guy is no longer contributing to taxes and the economy.

3) Police being able to get away with this sort of abuse are much more likely to abuse others, such as yourself. It may or may not matter whether you know your rights.

 

Well these are interesting factors, but they're hardly absolutes. Sure, innocent people in jail means guilty people no the loose -- quite right. But since that happens only a tiny percentage of the time, clearly it's far more beneficial to me to NOT stick the police to absolute physical, forensic evidence. As previously discussed and evidenced, it's clearly in my best interest to let them do their jobs based on traditional techniques, which account for far more convictions than forensics. Maybe some day we'll live in that society, but we're obviously not there yet.

 

As to whether police are more likely to abuse others, such as myself, that's a slippery slope argument, with the corresponding pitfall. As I indicated before, show me that we've slid down it (show me that we're living in a police state) and we'll talk.

 

Regarding the first point, I was talking about general education.

 

 

Do you have any evidence that police abuses do not occur except in a police state? Or were you just misunderstanding/misrepresenting what I said? As far as I know, police abuses occur even without a police state.

 

I didn't say that they don't. What I said, rephrased, is that I don't want to so hamper law enforcement with rules designed to address a relatively small number of deviants and thus take society from a status of convicting most criminals who are caught, to a status of letting most of them go even though they're guilty because of a small chance that they're innocent.

 

BTW, civil liberties advocates like to pretend that they're absolute (the argument of all special interest groups and one-issue partisans), but they really are quite gray. I slide the bar a little more one way, you slide it a little more another way. There are no heroes here.

 

 

People on death row are investigated more thoroughly, in case you were wondering. How can you be sure similar percentages don't apply to other areas, just that there is not the data to show it? Think about just how much has to happen to get from suspect to death row.

 

Well if they are then I might have to reconsider the issue. Go get some numbers.

 

 

Since jaywalking is, to my knowledge, not a criminal offense, I would be wondering why the police was trying to handcuff somebody for jaywalking.

 

This is a great example of why the crowd shouldn't be getting in the officer's business.

 

Jaywalking is commonly considered an infraction but in some jurisdictions it is a misdemeanor or requires a court appearance. The penalty is usually a fine. In some cities (e.g. New York City, Chicago, and Boston), although prohibited, "jaywalking" behavior has been so commonplace that police generally cite or detain jaywalkers only if their behavior is considered excessively dangerous or disruptive. Penalties for jaywalking vary by state or province and, within a state, may vary by county or municipality. In Tempe, Arizona, as of June 2006 jaywalking carried fines up to US$118; a sampling of other U.S. cities found fines ranging from US$1[14] to US$750.

 

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

 

 

People don't respect law enforcement because quite frankly some of the officers and some of the laws they enforce are not worthy of respect.

 

Right -- that's exactly my point. A small number of bad police officers has been leveraged by the media and community activists to give the impression that law enforcement cannot be trusted.

 

 

You seem to be encouraging some of the disrespectful things the police do.

 

No, I don't believe that I am encouraging bad police behavior.

 

 

 

Being respectable is hard and sometimes inconvenient -- but in the end it pays off.

 

Sure, but since nobody except for you seems to dispute the fact that it's generally the case that police officers behave respectfully (iNow even going out of his way to make that point in order to make me look like I'm using a red herring, which your posts clearly indicate that I am not), I think the onus is on you to show that a general disrespect for law enforcement has been legitimately earned, instead of awarded falsely through media frenzy and demagoguery.

 

 

 

If people are afraid to talk to the police, and in fact anyone who is smart will be afraid to, that also does a lot more damage to the police's ability to conduct investigations

 

So you support "don't snitch" movements. Understood.

 

I believe you're wrong, I believe you're operating on a false assumption, and I believe that your position is detrimental to the overall good of society.

 

And I think you enjoy the leisure of a largely crime-free existence because of the hard work of people you say you disrespect, in spite of your efforts to make their jobs more difficult for reasons that involve only a tiny number of bad apples.

 

 

If I were with a group of people and we saw what appeared to be a police abuse, and were not allowed to videotape (and with the knowledge that police get believed far more than others), I would be much more likely to come to that person's aid. Which would most likely mean forcing the officer to release the person, and if we wanted to avoid getting in trouble, we'd also have to knock him unconscious so he can't arrest the lot of us for helping. If instead we could videotape, that itself would suffice (both rescuing the person we think is being abused, and not getting into trouble for doing so). Except now this law would remove that option.

 

Wow.

 

Just the fact that you are willing to go to the aid of someone who is in the process of being assessed and possibly arrested by law enforcement speaks tremendous volumes about the dangerous, ill-informed actions you're advising people to take here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

One incident does not justify a global ban. That incident may not be representative of the average encounter an officer has with someone with a camera.

 

I agree.

 

 

Is there a particular case against recording an officer when you are not obstructing his actions in any way at all? For example, if you're in a building across the streat?

 

I don't know, that's a good question.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is a great example of why the crowd shouldn't be getting in the officer's business.

 

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

 

In Seattle, jaywalking is not a misdemeanor:

 

http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CODE&s1=11.40.100.snum.&Sect5=CODE1&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=1&f=G

 

Note the conspicuous absence of anything specifying it as a criminal offense. It's a city ordinance.

 

Right -- that's exactly my point. A small number of bad police officers has been leveraged by the media and community activists to give the impression that law enforcement cannot be trusted.

That's not my experience at all. I find that most negative stories about police come from random people I meet who are pissed about how the officer treated them when they got their last traffic ticket.

 

So you support "don't snitch" movements. Understood.

 

I believe you're wrong, I believe you're operating on a false assumption, and I believe that your position is detrimental to the overall good of society.

 

And I think you enjoy the leisure of a largely crime-free existence because of the hard work of people you say you disrespect, in spite of your efforts to make their jobs more difficult for reasons that involve only a tiny number of bad apples.

It's that "tiny number of bad apples" that makes everyone distrust the police as a collective whole, and makes their jobs harder. The police have to demonstrate that they are trustworthy, and anyone who has had a negative experience with the police do not regard them as trustworthy. It's as simple as that.

 

I also think you're understating the "tiny number."

 

Wow.

 

Just the fact that you are willing to go to the aid of someone who is in the process of being assessed and possibly arrested by law enforcement speaks tremendous volumes about the dangerous, ill-informed actions you're advising people to take here.

Dunno. If someone's being abused by police and you're not legally allowed to record it, or a recording would not be admissible in court because of its illegality, there's nothing else you can do. It's the only course of action that has a chance of preventing or stopping the abuse.

 

Now, the idea of committing an illegal act because the alternative is also illegal is kind of weird, but one action works, and the other doesn't.

 

Incidentally, calling the idea dangerous and ill-informed isn't really an argument.

 

I don't know, that's a good question.

If there isn't, what justification is there for banning recording? At all?

[padren]

It doesn't. You might've misunderstood my post?

Maybe I got the wrong impression from:

Here's a good example of a cop being harassed by local bystanders and a video that makes the cop look really bad, when in fact he was basically under attack.

 

What where you trying to convey? I thought you were trying to say this is a video that makes the cop look really bad, when in fact he was basically under attack.

 

If it actually "made him look bad" I doubt people would overwhelmingly support his actions. To the contrary it appears to vindicate him.

 

And yet this incident happened. The video counters your point all by itself -- obviously these particular folks thought something bad was going on, and decided that a violent verbal confrontation was in order.

How does it counter my argument at all? How does the fact that some of the people in that group haves camera phones recording in any way impact their concern that "something bad was going on?"

I don't understand at all how you are tying this together.

 

Secondarily you can expect a crowd to gather with mixed reactions. Some will feel the cop has his hands full and others will be worried and stick around to watch. It's also heated and in the moment. With the exception of the two girls people do not interfere, though they stand somewhat close in my opinion.

 

It's also worth noting that people record when they are concerned something bad may occur, a reasonable assessment of such a tense situation.

 

 

I think that's a pretty good argument.

Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand the implications of this statement.

 

Some good points there, but I think you underestimate the power of the angry mob of poor people when well-lead by the news media and local "community leaders".

I think you underestimate the impact of the destruction and criminalization of evidence. The power of any single piece of video evidence in the hands of "community leaders" is dwarfed by the power given to them when you have police confiscating cameras and arresting people.

 

You basically hand them the entire narrative to write themselves and while it may not be swallowed by everyone, it will galvanize and polarize those that do. Add to that one instance of "illegal footage" surfacing of a cop committing a crime and then destroying a bystander's camera and you'll have done far more damage that you tried to mitigate in the first place.

 

If you think Joe Sixpack had trouble before, just wait till he sees cops arresting people for breaking the law by filming cops breaking the law. Explain that one to him.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If I were with a group of people and we saw what appeared to be a police abuse, and were not allowed to videotape (and with the knowledge that police get believed far more than others), I would be much more likely to come to that person's aid. Which would most likely mean forcing the officer to release the person, and if we wanted to avoid getting in trouble, we'd also have to knock him unconscious so he can't arrest the lot of us for helping. If instead we could videotape, that itself would suffice (both rescuing the person we think is being abused, and not getting into trouble for doing so). Except now this law would remove that option.

Wow.

 

Just the fact that you are willing to go to the aid of someone who is in the process of being assessed and possibly arrested by law enforcement speaks tremendous volumes about the dangerous, ill-informed actions you're advising people to take here.

 

What he is saying is actually entirely reasonable, and at times a moral obligation. It doesn't say very much about that event - more about the state of affairs that would lead to such an event.

 

The single most key element in this scenario is faith in the system. We all participate in whatever our society calls "the social contract" because we find it reasonable, fair and agreeable. We have faith that when life is unfair, it'll be unfair in a fair way. We have faith that despite the imperfections in our system, it's fair because we all deal with the imperfections.

 

When something destroys that trust and you have no civil recourse at all - not because of some human limitations but due to systematic legalized suppression and criminalization of evidence you are left with very few options you can have faith in.

 

You can stand by and watch a police officer illegally victimize someone criminally because you can defend that person. You can do it in court, you can use your video camera and you can get that person justice.

Without that recourse, what do you have left?

 

Violence is always an option. It's a horrible, horrible option that is an absolute last resort when there is literally no other recourse left to us through civil means. That's the nature of society - we are still all the same animals, but we have other options so we don't have to act like ones. Some people do anyway, but most people don't. As civil options are eroded, people still have to act and are faced with making decisions with fewer choices. Hence we act more and more like animals.

 

That's the whole point, as I've been stressing that we need to have clear and effective options - even if some people act like animals anyway - society is based on having those other more civilized options.

Edited June 16, 2010 by padren
Consecutive posts merged. - clarified quote ownership

[ewmon]

These laws have inverted the sense of "public servant", as the public can no longer record their servants in the workplace.

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Apparently, nemo (ie, no one).

 

The odd part is that it's okay if the recording is "obvious"; why so? Would public servants act differently, smile for the camera, make sure they get their best side, etc? I think people holding their cell phones in front of their faces is pretty obvious. Or do we simply need to say that we're recording them? That should satisfy the "obvious" requirement.

 

Then this should hold true for all video recordings of everyone everywhere ... retail businesses, the workplace (ie, everyone's workplace), private homes, government buildings, etc. So nanny videos are also illegal?

 

Blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.

 

So, do police avoid patrolling areas or responding to scenes recorded by all those not obvious private, corporate or government security cameras, or do they now have the right to storm such properties and confiscate whatever equipment they deem appropriate?

[Mr Skeptic]

Well these are interesting factors, but they're hardly absolutes. Sure, innocent people in jail means guilty people no the loose -- quite right. But since that happens only a tiny percentage of the time, clearly it's far more beneficial to me to NOT stick the police to absolute physical, forensic evidence. As previously discussed and evidenced, it's clearly in my best interest to let them do their jobs based on traditional techniques, which account for far more convictions than forensics. Maybe some day we'll live in that society, but we're obviously not there yet.

 

And maybe you would like to point out where I demanded absolute forensic evidence? That doesn't even exist! The point is that you can't count on confessions being an indication of guilt either (like any other evidence). Both the police and courts acknowledge this fact, and will occasionally ignore someone's confession to a crime and go after someone else instead.

 

As to whether police are more likely to abuse others, such as myself, that's a slippery slope argument, with the corresponding pitfall. As I indicated before, show me that we've slid down it (show me that we're living in a police state) and we'll talk.

 

I've already shown it (police abuse).

 

But if you want to talk police state, how about the fact that we have more laws than anyone can possibly know and yet are expected to follow them all and not use ignorance as an excuse?

 

Regarding the first point, I was talking about general education.

 

And I was talking about loopholes being used for the legal obligations.

 

I didn't say that they don't. What I said, rephrased, is that I don't want to so hamper law enforcement with rules designed to address a relatively small number of deviants and thus take society from a status of convicting most criminals who are caught, to a status of letting most of them go even though they're guilty because of a small chance that they're innocent.

 

And I've yet to see how videotaping police officers will let most criminals walk free.

 

BTW, civil liberties advocates like to pretend that they're absolute (the argument of all special interest groups and one-issue partisans), but they really are quite gray. I slide the bar a little more one way, you slide it a little more another way. There are no heroes here.

 

I understand that giving some people certain rights will by necessity conflict with other rights for other people. I don't like it, but its sadly unavoidable. My preference is giving rights to people rather than governments.

 

Well if they are then I might have to reconsider the issue. Go get some numbers.

 

Well this website estimates about 10% of the convicted are innocent. However, most of the info still comes from estimates based on the rates for murder and rape (because they leave plenty of DNA evidence and are higher stakes).

 

This is a great example of why the crowd shouldn't be getting in the officer's business.

 

Well it's a good thing they were videotaping instead of rescuing, wouldn't you agree?

 

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

 

Right, but since this occurred in Seattle, that's where the status of jaywalking matters. Not criminal. Of course, there are plenty of things that the girls could have done after being accused of jaywalking that would be criminal, such as the girl on video fighting the officer (but one would have had to occur before this for the officer to be handcuffing her buddy).

 

Right -- that's exactly my point. A small number of bad police officers has been leveraged by the media and community activists to give the impression that law enforcement cannot be trusted.

 

I'd agree, but most people also know that the media cannot be trusted. However, since police do routinely lie to aid their investigations, and this is in fact standard policy, there really is no reason to believe that the cops are being honest with you. Mostly this applies if you are a suspect.

 

No, I don't believe that I am encouraging bad police behavior.

 

You are cheering on people who want the police to be able to act without any accountability for their actions -- in exchange for possibly not looking bad on some videos.

 

Sure, but since nobody except for you seems to dispute the fact that it's generally the case that police officers behave respectfully (iNow even going out of his way to make that point in order to make me look like I'm using a red herring, which your posts clearly indicate that I am not), I think the onus is on you to show that a general disrespect for law enforcement has been legitimately earned, instead of awarded falsely through media frenzy and demagoguery.

 

I'd agree that almost all of them behave very respectfully when you are not a suspect.

 

So you support "don't snitch" movements. Understood.

 

I believe you're wrong, I believe you're operating on a false assumption, and I believe that your position is detrimental to the overall good of society.

 

I believe you misunderstand/misrepresent my opinions. By all means, do go ahead and tell the police everything you know. Just don't come crying to me if you end up a suspect for your efforts and what you said used to convict you. I appreciate that many people are willing to do so regardless, but am disappointed that it is dangerous to do so.

 

And I think you enjoy the leisure of a largely crime-free existence because of the hard work of people you say you disrespect, in spite of your efforts to make their jobs more difficult for reasons that involve only a tiny number of bad apples.

 

When Paraguay had a dictator (Strossner), the crime rate was incredibly low. Many of the people really did appreciate him if only for that, and some people didn't despite it.

 

Wow.

 

Just the fact that you are willing to go to the aid of someone who is in the process of being assessed and possibly arrested by law enforcement speaks tremendous volumes about the dangerous, ill-informed actions you're advising people to take here.

 

I'm not advising people to do this, just saying that this policy (no videotaping officers) would force that to be the only morally acceptable action that certain people could take in certain circumstances. Just because someone belongs to a gang which has the protection of local law enforcement and was hired to enforce some laws, does not mean they can do anything they like.

[Pangloss]

In Seattle, jaywalking is not a misdemeanor:

 

Okay, that's fine, but it doesn't really matter what she did, and it doesn't matter if she's innocent. If Jesus Christ beamed down in front of you and heralded the second coming, and a police officer stepped forward and instructed him to turn around and put his hands behind his back, you'd be incorrect in challenging that officer.

 

There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to challenge a police officer on the streets. None. And there are good reasons why this is the case. There are appropriate ways to deal with errant law enforcement officers, but direct challenge in public is not one of them.

 

 

That's not my experience at all. I find that most negative stories about police come from random people I meet who are pissed about how the officer treated them when they got their last traffic ticket.

 

I know very few people who haven't saved face by lying to their friends about why they got a ticket.

 

 

It's that "tiny number of bad apples" that makes everyone distrust the police as a collective whole, and makes their jobs harder.

 

I also think you're understating the "tiny number."

 

Well in my opinion it would have to be the majority that's corrupt in order to justify the kind of drastic actions Mr Skeptic is advocating.

 

 

The police have to demonstrate that they are trustworthy, and anyone who has had a negative experience with the police do not regard them as trustworthy. It's as simple as that.

 

Okay, but ultimately this is not my problem. My problem is whether police really ARE trustworthy, and whether those who don't think they are trustworthy are out in the streets challenging law enforcement.

 

I can't make everyone recognize the fact that most police officers are trustworthy any more than I can tell a creationist that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. What I can do is make sure that creationists do as little damage as possible.

 

 

What where you trying to convey? I thought you were trying to say this is a video that makes the cop look really bad, when in fact he was basically under attack.

 

Ok, I understand now. The video made the cop look bad in the sense that it showed him appearing to punch that woman in the redish-colored outfit. That sort of thing looks really bad to the public, even though, as you pointed out, most of those comments were in support. It's a polarizing visual, and that's my point -- people don't need to be polarized by visuals.

 

 

How does the fact that some of the people in that group haves camera phones recording in any way impact their concern that "something bad was going on?"

 

By giving them a sense of empowerment which is quite obvious in the video, such as when one bystander asks the camera operator if he "got that".

 

 

Secondarily you can expect a crowd to gather with mixed reactions. Some will feel the cop has his hands full and others will be worried and stick around to watch. It's also heated and in the moment. With the exception of the two girls people do not interfere, though they stand somewhat close in my opinion.

 

It's also worth noting that people record when they are concerned something bad may occur, a reasonable assessment of such a tense situation.

 

As you say, they stand close, and are clearly making the situation worse, both by motivating the two girls and by raising the stress level of the lone police officer (who, granted, probably needs more training).

 

 

Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand the implications of this statement.

 

I think your argument that if there were no video these two girls would be sitting next to a community activist who'd be screaming into a TV camera is a valid one and raises the bar in the argument. It's a good point -- a factor worth considering in the debate.

 

Not so much your "violence is always an option" argument -- I can't join you there. The problem is that that sort of thing is fine for a high-level intellectual discussion (yes, understanding that what you're saying is not an intellectual point at all). But when you translate that into Joe Sixpack-speak, what it means is "challenge the cops at every turn", and "if you see something going down with the cops on the corner, assume the cops are wrong and STEP IN".

 

 

I've already shown it (police abuse).

 

Not to the extent that I feel justifies the kind of anarchy you're advocating.

 

 

But if you want to talk police state, how about the fact that we have more laws than anyone can possibly know and yet are expected to follow them all and not use ignorance as an excuse?

 

See I think that's what's really motivating your argument. Are you an anarchist, or just sympathizing with their POV? Not that it matters, of course -- I'm just curious, because you seem to be way out on a limb compared with others here.

 

Anyway, if you want me to go along with that kind of thing you'd have to show me that it's a real problem for me, and not just an ideological concern. Maybe if I were out spiking trees or protesting free trade on a daily basis it might be a problem for me. But I'm not, and I don't see it that way. Convince me.

 

 

I understand that giving some people certain rights will by necessity conflict with other rights for other people. I don't like it, but its sadly unavoidable. My preference is giving rights to people rather than governments.

 

I'm not advocating giving rights to governments. I'm advocating giving rights to people who don't spike trees or march in the anti-war movement. I'm advocating that the majority should have the same rights as the minority, not fewer rights because they're the majority. I'm advocating continuing to fight crime, and not assuming that present society's crime level is some sort of default, rather than the daily, hard work of hundreds of thousands of hard-working, not-corrupted law enforcement officers. I'm advocating not throwing away our ability to not live in fear over an ideological theory that is far, far from proven.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, that's fine, but it doesn't really matter what she did, and it doesn't matter if she's innocent. If Jesus Christ beamed down in front of you and heralded the second coming, and a police officer stepped forward and instructed him to turn around and put his hands behind his back, you'd be incorrect in challenging that officer.

 

There are no circumstances in which it is appropriate to challenge a police officer on the streets. None. And there are good reasons why this is the case. There are appropriate ways to deal with errant law enforcement officers, but direct challenge in public is not one of them.

 

And if you ban recording, there are no other ways to deal with errant law enforcement officers. If you complain about them, they simply deny it. If you can record them, you can prove it.

 

Denying someone the ability to record video of an officer denies them the ability to collect evidence of that officer's conduct, meaning they are at the whim of whatever the officer says happens.

[Pangloss]

Well that's why I suggested earlier that we may see some sort of compromise in which the recordings are allowed, but not popularized. I don't know that you could prevent public videos from reaching YouTube, etc (though if Viacom can have its IP taken down, it seems possible at least to some extent), but if the source is controlled by the government, such as a security camera or dashboard cam, then those videos could be retained and not distributed.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why should the recordings not be popularized or released?

 

The officers are acting in view of the public. Anything that could be recorded could be publicly seen anyway. There's no expectation of privacy as there would be (to use your previous example) in an airplane cockpit.

[padren]

Well that's why I suggested earlier that we may see some sort of compromise in which the recordings are allowed, but not popularized. I don't know that you could prevent public videos from reaching YouTube, etc (though if Viacom can have its IP taken down, it seems possible at least to some extent), but if the source is controlled by the government, such as a security camera or dashboard cam, then those videos could be retained and not distributed.

 

By which you mean, distributed in a sensationalized fashion. I don't know who you think shouldn't see it, but if it's recorded, the people most likely to yell "RISE UP!!" with their anti-conformist tinfoil hats in place will still distribute it, or at least point to it, and Joe Six will be looking around to see what the fuss is about.

 

Nothing can do more for the sensationalizing of any thought, any idea, in any medium than it's banishment from the public marketplace of ideas.

 

 

And since most of your arguments revolve around the practicalist perspective that deals not with "what we strive for" but "how it will be seen" it is worth taking into account how, for all practical purposes, how such videos will get to and be seen from the perspective of the public at large.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ok, I understand now. The video made the cop look bad in the sense that it showed him appearing to punch that woman in the redish-colored outfit. That sort of thing looks really bad to the public, even though, as you pointed out, most of those comments were in support. It's a polarizing visual, and that's my point -- people don't need to be polarized by visuals.

But how do you counter the polarizing effect of words? My argument is that the polarizing effect of hearsay, based on it's inherently subjective nature, is more polarizing. Images can be spun, but when spun they are far easier to counter with yet more images. Consider the selective cropping of those Israeli flotilla photos - it is very damaging to see an original series of photos, but the impact is highly countered when you show the broader context and how they were intentionally clipped to hide the weapons people were carrying. Two sets of views with nothing but conflicting eye witnesses can't even hope to hold a candle to such an impact.

Even when video or photographic evidence is twisted, when more comes out that can broadly and unambiguously demonstrate how the previous evidence was twisted it has an immense impact.

 

I get the impression that part of your argument is that, when images or video is spun, it can be more damaging. It is also subject to the same counter-images we saw in the flotilla photos - which makes it a more pure form of truth in my opinion.

 

It can be spun, but the risks are higher. There is a higher chance that manipulation will bite the manipulator when it comes to video than hearsay.

 

As a people who exalt the purity of truth I think the benefits of video far outweigh any potential abuse. The impact of abusing video footage to twist events may be more severe simply because it is such a vivid testament, but it is just as easily countered when footage puts that footage in perspective it is dangerous to abuse.

 

When we consider the value we still as a society place on eye witness accounts, and how subject to abuse that medium can be, I cannot understand how video evidence could be considered any worse. It seems universally better from my point of view.

By giving them a sense of empowerment which is quite obvious in the video, such as when one bystander asks the camera operator if he "got that".

Do you think that sense of empowerment occurred in a vacuum? What would exist there had that sense of empowerment not existed? Would it be respect for the law? Would be contempt? I know it's hard to really nail this down in an objective fashion, but I see people who I honestly feel were held back from interfering in a physical way. There are two groups who chose not to interfere:

 

1) Those who thought the cop should have had the crap beaten out of him, but felt they would be better served by letting the video of his horrid abuses speak for itself

 

2) Those who were unsure what to make of the situation and were especially anxious about how it would play out - but were genuinely relieved that as long as they got it on tape they did their part and didn't have to interfere physically.

 

The wonderful thing is, both parties are composed of the sort of people who could make this situation far far worse, and they didn't. Both had another option - they were able to record video and allow better people than themselves evaluate the results.

 

Most people like that (specially the second category) really don't want the responsibility of having to make the call. They really want to feel secure that someone else far more proficient and experienced will be able to make it. They just want to do the least they are morally obligated to and get out.

 

Video is their outlet. Ironically, the people with tinfoil hats who consider this abuse also consider this their outlet. They are too deep in their own perspective to realize others will disagree - but that is enough to keep the officer safe because they have faith that as long as the video is recorded, justice will be done.

They just don't realize they have no idea of what that actually is.

 

As you say, they stand close, and are clearly making the situation worse, both by motivating the two girls and by raising the stress level of the lone police officer (who, granted, probably needs more training).

They are human and make imperfect decisions. As did the girls. As did the officer. My argument is they would have done that anyway, cameras or not. I also argue that the "boost of confidence" if far outweighed by their confidence in a civil resolution that would not exist if such options were criminalized.

 

I think your argument that if there were no video these two girls would be sitting next to a community activist who'd be screaming into a TV camera is a valid one and raises the bar in the argument. It's a good point -- a factor worth considering in the debate.

I appreciate that comment, I just don't know what you take from it. I argue such damage eclipses the damage that can be done by video even when it is selectively presented, since often counter-video will be presented. I know my stance but don't know how you consider it in the debate, though I appreciate that you do.

Not so much your "violence is always an option" argument -- I can't join you there. The problem is that that sort of thing is fine for a high-level intellectual discussion (yes, understanding that what you're saying is not an intellectual point at all). But when you translate that into Joe Sixpack-speak, what it means is "challenge the cops at every turn", and "if you see something going down with the cops on the corner, assume the cops are wrong and STEP IN".

 

See I don't see it as my argument, I consider it more an observation. It's hard to express to what ends I would go to in order to preserve what I feel we have in terms of a social fabric that allows for a sanctuary from the violence of the natural, even human world.

I only mention that to convey that I don't take the issue lightly. I may talk about civility as something that can be discarded without a second thought without any inherit substance - but that honestly what makes me appreciate it's frailty and value that much more.

It is to me the single and most valuable thing humanity has been able to cultivate over the generations and on it's face far more valuable than even science. It is still nothing more than an idea that can be easily forgotten.

 

It's as Reagan said "Trust, but verify" that keeps everyone content to participate in this civil experiment that has brought us so many benefits.

When I mention violence it's not because I advocate it, but because it's the real world consequence of the erosion of civility.

 

We all primarily have animalistic needs.

 

We have civil options to meet those needs.

 

Since we have developed intellects, we generally choose the civil options to meet those needs.

 

To me that is the most wonderful thing that can exist. It's absolutely grand. it also stresses the absolute importance, due to the sheer frailty, that those "civil options" must be protected at all cost. They aren't up on the block for consideration as they are weighed against the civil waves they may cause.

Not only do I take issue with the argument they cause more waves than they prevent - but I take issue with whether they can be done away with at all.

We need them if we are to meet our needs in anything but an animalistic way.

 

We are deeply primal creatures. When another human rushes towards us with the power to end our life, yelling and cursing for us to get on the ground our adrenaline kicks in high gear, and every instinct responds. If we are smart, we cooperate because that is the best (and most civil) option available. We don't need to fight or take flight. We can trust that the system works, and we will be dealt with fairly.

And even in this situation, when we are breaking nearly every instinct and submitting our very survival to a complete stranger we have something that gives us a reason to feel secure - the social contract.

As long as they behave as a cop is expected to behave, we can expect to be treated as an arrestee is to be treated. We can see that they adhere to the nuances of that contract as inconsequential as they may appear to an outsider, and it makes us relieved. We may see them breech certain aspects and it may make us nervous, but not too much since there is only so much a person can get way with in bending the social contract.

 

That extra degree of faith is actually very important, since we rarely see people objectively and what we consider to be "bending the rules" may be their own adrenaline running at full tilt.

 

And then comes the rub - the very definition of "what they can get away with" in breaching that contract. We are all animals with very primal instincts. If it is illegal to even collect evidence for civil remedy, what they can get away with becomes unimaginably broad.

 

Within the context of the social contract, can you see how that's a problem to Joe Six? It's not about what I advocate - it's what I consider self evident in the nature of the world. Some things are just more foundational than others.

[The Bear's Key]

Pangloss just a heads up. If any parts of the following seem like an insult to you, be aware it's not intended as such, merely written either in humor, a friendly jab, or a "get real" sentiment. But no harm meant.

 

And now for the roasting

 

I kid, I kid (to borrow from Mr Skeptic)

 

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

Wow, you have video clairvoyance -- seeing events that occurred before the clip even starts.

 

 

To me it seems the crowd's already there when the vid began, plus the cop's already wrestling the girl's hands.

 

Really, you need to examine the video a lot closer.

 

1. There's a few people, not "half the neighborhood". The rest are onlookers from the big park.

2. Someone goes near the cop, but only to forcefully pull away the girl in pink dress.

3. The cop at the end of vid finally does official procedure, loudly telling the guy to "stand back".

 

Both the cop and girl might deserve blame. Was it so ultra important for the cop to score a jaywalking "violation"?

 

 

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

Quite off.

 

Most everyone here seems to be anti-"being-denied-the-tools-to-help-ensure-more-accountability-to-citizens".

 

 

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

From what I've seen (attended a few different schools) it's usually the *rule*.

 

But clearly even if it did you'd still mistrust the police, because they're in the business of putting people behind bars...

No, the courts are the ones in that business. Unless you meant the holding facility where (arrested) suspects go temporarily.

 

And not people, but suspects. (Remember your civics lessons )

 

 

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.

That's great.

 

Also, for me it reinforces why certain aspects of education need to be more standard. If a higher number of people learned Civics, then maybe....

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.

...the entire scenario could've played out quite a bit differently.

 

 

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%

Oh definitely, as a whole U.S. average. But it's likely higher in certain areas, mostly where the (civic) education's bad and/or the police department's corrupt.

 

Brutality's not as frequent.

 

Abuse of power, though, is likely much higher everywhere. But still, there are lots of decent cops, way more than unscrupulous ones I'll bet.

 

 

Take a look at the video in the article I linked in post #29 and see if you don't see mob mentality at work there.

Nope, don't see it.

 

Gawkers, witnesses, a camera guy, and one person interfering who might've been the girl's friend.

 

 

But do you think civil liberties advocates would be any more supportive of a law that, say, required civilians to stand 50 feet back and keep their mouths shut?

*No* to that Pangloss law, but *yes* to standing back to give room when instructed and not making threatening remarks to the officer -- probably already covered by law.

 

 

The video counters your point all by itself -- obviously these particular folks thought something bad was going on, and decided that a violent verbal confrontation was in order.

 

 

As I indicated before, show me that we've slid down it (show me that we're living in a police state) and we'll talk.

How can anyone show you, when the right to videotape's all gone?

 

 

I think the onus is on you to show that a general disrespect for law enforcement has been legitimately earned, instead of awarded falsely through media frenzy and demagoguery.

Where's the onus for you to prove that....a general disrespect for law enforcement has been awarded falsely through media frenzy and demagoguery?

 

 

If people are afraid to talk to the police, and in fact anyone who is smart will be afraid to...

So you support "don't snitch" movements. Understood.

Or perhaps misunderstood? I think he was referring to questions when you're the target of suspicion.

 

 

And I think you enjoy the leisure of a largely crime-free existence because of the hard work of people you say you disrespect...

If anything, he seems to disrespect only the brutality cops. And they're not responsible for a largely crime-free existence. But good teachers, volunteers, families/friends, philanthropists, cops, government and business leaders, etc...yes, they're all responsible for a largely crime-free existence.

 

 

Wow.

 

Just the fact that you are willing to go to the aid of someone who is in the process of being assessed and possibly arrested by law enforcement speaks tremendous volumes about the dangerous, ill-informed actions you're advising people to take here.

He didn't advise anyone here to do anything.

 

But even so, they're perfectly normal feelings. I actually like cops for the most part, rarely ever have a problem with them, and often defended good cops when people make false generalizations to say they're all corrupt or power-trippers. Yet seeing the vid link from post #14, I felt a natural urge here and there to wanna kick each douchebag abuser in the screen.

 

I'll rarely (if ever) feel like that when it's someone random beating up another unknown person. The difference is because of risks vs authority -- one's mandated by law to not hit back, with potentially severe consequences for doing so. That results in feeling awfully powerless in a severe way for the victim. And knowing they're feeling it eats at me in an instant.

 

 

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.

But the girls* in your video do stand to gain from increased knowledge of police procedure.

 

*and the cop too

 

 

I don't understand at all how you are tying this together.

Get used to it, he's an inventive guy

 

And maybe you would like to point out where I demanded absolute forensic evidence?

See above.

 

 

I know very few people who haven't saved face by lying to their friends about why they got a ticket.

Oh, and you alone happened to get the truth?

 

C'mon, really?

 

 

By giving them a sense of empowerment which is quite obvious in the video, such as when one bystander asks the camera operator if he "got that".

So who cares, if he got a "sense of empowerment"? Does it hurt anyone? The guy would find out soon the captured film were junk.

 

 

 

how about the fact that we have more laws than anyone can possibly know and yet are expected to follow them all and not use ignorance as an excuse?

Are you an anarchist, or just sympathizing with their POV?

Is there an exaggeration fallacy? He clearly didn't mean no laws should exist, just a fewer number of them and/or plainly visible to everyone.

 

 

Not that it matters, of course -- I'm just curious, because you seem to be way out on a limb compared with others here.

No, he's on a similar territory as many of us, I bet. It's you who seems to be on a distant limb in some alien world.

 

Come back to us!

 

 

I'm advocating giving rights to people who don't spike trees or march in the anti-war movement.

You don't want people to have rights if they march in anti-war demonstrations? Just to clarify.

 

 

It might be Pangloss, that your life's been sheltered against police harms occurring either to you or friends. And if so, you might not understand it, but people with strong feelings on the issues perhaps had or were close to bad police encounters that might jar the core of your relatively virgin sensibilities.

[Pangloss]

Padren you made some good points in a very long post that I thought was very thoughtful and interesting, so please don't take my only responding to part of it as a dismissal.

 

Do you think that sense of empowerment occurred in a vacuum?

 

Not at all, but it's pretty clear that people can be riled up. I agree that part of why people are upset with authority is that authority has abused its privilege. But I think the case is overblown -- people's ire is misdirected into unproductive channels, like challenging law enforcement on the street when it's actually doing its job correctly, or slamming politicians because of something they heard on Fox News that isn't true.

 

 

There are two groups who chose not to interfere:

 

1) Those who thought the cop should have had the crap beaten out of him, but felt they would be better served by letting the video of his horrid abuses speak for itself

 

2) Those who were unsure what to make of the situation and were especially anxious about how it would play out - but were genuinely relieved that as long as they got it on tape they did their part and didn't have to interfere physically.

 

Right -- they were ready to go to war over a cop who was just giving someone a ticket. And you think that's okay? That that actually makes sense?

 

They shouldn't even be there. They should not even be on the scene.

 

 

Most people like that (specially the second category) really don't want the responsibility of having to make the call. They really want to feel secure that someone else far more proficient and experienced will be able to make it. They just want to do the least they are morally obligated to and get out.

 

Exactly -- they're there because they think they've seen something that's wrong, and the reason why they think they've seen something that's wrong is because they've been mislead to think that any time a police officer pulls someone over or questions a person on the street and they cannot personally see what the reason for that questioning is then something is wrong.

 

What an incredible assumption! How do they know that the person the police officer is questioning isn't right at the top of the Ten Most Wanted list? They don't! They ASSUME.

 

They shouldn't even be there. They should not even be on the scene. They're not qualified to make the judgment you're demanding that they make.

 

 

Video is their outlet.

 

And in this case, at least partly their instigator.

[ParanoiA]

Right -- they were ready to go to war over a cop who was just giving someone a ticket. And you think that's okay? That that actually makes sense?

 

They shouldn't even be there. They should not even be on the scene.

 

I hear your frustration man.

 

I couldn't view this video' date=' so I can't comment on it, but I've seen this general anti-police attitude and it's essentially the association fallacy amplified. One cop is an asshole, so now all of them are assholes. Folks can get pulled over by good police officers their whole life, but one bad experience and suddenly the entire establishment is called into question.

 

Cops are assholes and its their job to be. They aren't supposed to represent tolerance and understanding, they're supposed to represent intolerant, strict application of law. Go to court to get your understanding.

 

Every charge, every ticket is disputable in a [b']court[/b] of law. That's what courts are for. The public making assumptions and then stepping in is just flat out stupid. To me, this goes back to the general ignorance by the public about how the branches of government work. They take way too much offense to a citation. As if it's all finalized and their guilt has been presumed and concluded.

 

Tickets are more like accusations - charges by the officer. They aren't proof of any guilt at all whatsoever. They are not judges, they are officers. You go to courts to argue guilt and innocence. This is why police are not interested in arguing with you about anything. This is why they annoyingly obssess over controlling the situation - this person over here, that person over there, you sit down here, you go over there - this isn't about setting up court in the street, this is about keeping the peace. And keeping the peace is not about assigning guilt or innocence, or right and wrong.

 

This is where everyone goes wrong with police. All of my buddies and their stupid war stories in dealing with cops always come down to arguing with them about a citation, or warning by a police officer. They all seem to think it's reasonable to strike up an argument with the police and circumvent the entire court system. This begins a chain reaction of disobedience by the citizen and reactionary tactics by law enforcement, that escalate. Rinse and repeat..same ole story. I hear them at every party.

 

 

 

Of course, this video recording ban is not an answer either. Free speech isn't perfect speech. Never has been. It's not convenient, it's necessary. Particularly in checking the performance and ethics of our civil servants. I'm firmly against any attempt by the government to stop video recording of their work. As long as their video recording behavior doesn't interfere with the commands of the officer - such as controlling the situation - then I see no wrongdoing at all.