New law(s) would hide police abuses

[ecoli]

Every charge, every ticket is disputable in a court 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.

 

Yeah its true... When I got a speeding ticket I noted that it said something to the effect of: "By paying the fine, you're admitting your guilt to the charge." People are too lazy to go to court if they think they're in the right. They'd rather pay the fine and bitch.

[Sisyphus]

Yeah its true... When I got a speeding ticket I noted that it said something to the effect of: "By paying the fine, you're admitting your guilt to the charge." People are too lazy to go to court if they think they're in the right. They'd rather pay the fine and bitch.

 

In the real world, though, going to court is often worse than paying a fine, even if you win. It generally takes an entire weekday, which for a lot of people means missing a day's pay. They also set up speed traps on interstates in order to get people who live far away, so disputing the ticket is not worth traveling back to that municipality, for even more time and expense. It's not so much "lazy" as "less than extremely stubborn." I once got a $150 ticket where I was quite sure I was in the right, but I calculated disputing it would have cost me $300 and taken an entire day. So I payed the fine, and bitched.

 

This is all off-topic, though.

[iNow]

I once got a $150 ticket where I was quite sure I was in the right, but I calculated disputing it would have cost me $300 and taken an entire day. So I payed the fine, and bitched.

 

And there is no guarantee you would have won had you arrived in court, despite your likely innocence, so taking that chance could have actually quadrupled the consequence to your checkbook.

[The Bear's Key]

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...

I agree that part of why cops are upset with filming is that it's been abused. But I think the case is overblown -- police ire is misdirected into unproductive channels, like challenging filmers on the street who are exercising their democratic rights correctly.

Alternate fix.

 

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.

[math]Description = exaggeration^3[/math]

 

I'd zip down to Florida right now so you can point to where in the video you saw people (besides the ONE woman) attempting a hostile move or even threatening the cop (verbally or physically).

 

And where did you see a ticket being given? All we ever saw from the very beginning is the cop's hands on the girl.

 

You completely ignore two possibilities: 1. Everyone was already there, i.e. the cop entered into the gathering of people, not the other way around. 2. If the people actually gathered, they might've done so because the cop's hands went on the girl, and not because he wanted to issue a ticket. (Honestly, which sounds more likely?)

 

Remember your own words concerning video recordings...

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.

Maybe you were right!

 

Could it be you fell victim to the limited context in the video? Definitely possible.

 

 

What an incredible assumption!

Street goes two ways.

 

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.

Or they heard the cop mention jaywalking and saw him acting like a newb, therefore deducting he'd be a lot more terrified if the small girl were on the Ten Most Wanted list.

 

 

Cops are assholes and its their job to be.

False, it's not their job. Your invention/perception/whatever, but definitely not their job.

 

Just because certain public servants don't have to be kind, and can legally respond with harsh or lethal force when absolutely necessary, doesn't mean their job is to be assholes.

 

 

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.

Well you're the one desiring for schools to instruct whatever version of reality they please.

 

So welcome to the reality that'd arise if everyone had personal and/or different versions of the legal procedures.

[ParanoiA]

Well you're the one desiring for schools to instruct whatever version of reality they please.

 

So welcome to the reality that'd arise if everyone had personal and/or different versions of the legal procedures.

 

Weird. You should have read this first.

 

Welcome to the reality that would arise? How about the reality that is? Here' date=' in [i']this[/i] reality, where you get to force everyone in the nation into the same pitiful standardized government education routine, they do have different versions of the legal procedures - entirely false ones generated by their damaged egos when a cop gives them a citation for a law they don't respect.

 

And that's without the method of education where institutions compete for students and parents have true freedom of choice. Maybe then even small portions of us would learn actual useful information instead of leaving economics in the 6th grade (in a capitalist country...brilliant ) and miserably failing to impart the function and design of a constitutional republic (in a republic for crying out loud).

 

 

Here, let me refer to rest of my paragraph that you conveniently left out in order to have something to say about it:

 

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.

 

See, the first sentence, "Cops are assholes and its their job to be." establishes the general topic of the brief paragraph.

 

The following sentences explain and clarify it: "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."

 

So, you see, a respectable argument that's worth reading would contest my actual position - contained in the paragraph, not limited to the opening sentence.

 

I could ask that you stop cowardly grabbing one liners out of my posts and then beating them up with two or three liners, or whole paragraphs, misrepresenting my entire position - but we both know that won't happen.

[Pangloss]

TBK, I'm going to stick with the reporting until I have some reason to suspect that it's inaccurate, but certainly if you have some reason to suspect that it is inaccurate you're welcome to pass it along.

 

As for the level of challenge in the crowd's actions, I left that for the viewer to decide, so certainly if you don't think they're being confrontational, you're welcome to your opinion. (Though if you do want to fly down here you're always welcome to join me for a beer, bro.)

[DJBruce]

In the real world, though, going to court is often worse than paying a fine, even if you win. It generally takes an entire weekday, which for a lot of people means missing a day's pay. They also set up speed traps on interstates in order to get people who live far away, so disputing the ticket is not worth traveling back to that municipality, for even more time and expense. It's not so much "lazy" as "less than extremely stubborn." I once got a $150 ticket where I was quite sure I was in the right, but I calculated disputing it would have cost me $300 and taken an entire day. So I payed the fine, and bitched.

 

This is all off-topic, though.

 

I know this is off topic, but I just want point out that I think your experience not be the exception and not the rule. At least in Michigan contesting a traffic ticket takes under an hour, I've actually been in and out in 15 minutes, and usually end in the cop changing the ticket to a slightly higher fine, but no points, which saves your insurance.

 

"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.

 

I am not saying that abusing their power is right, but does not everyone abuse their power at their work place in some way. I realize it is not quite the same thing, but how many people who work at restaurants get undue discounts, or people who work at an office get free personal copies or supplies. I feel like the majority of the population abuse whatever power they have, it seems to be human nature.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A interesting case of cameras involved with police actives actually just occurred in Detroit a month ago. In May the Detroit Police Department executed a warrant on a house containing a murder suspect. During the chaos that surrounded the raid a shot was fired. The shot hit a 7 year old girl sleeping on the living room couch killing her. The raid was being filmed by a professional camera crew filming for A&E's show The First 48. This tragic indecent has led some to say that camera's have no place in police raids. Saying it causes cops to play to the camera.

Edited June 17, 2010 by DJBruce
Edited Spacing

[The Bear's Key]

Weird. You should have read this first.

 

Welcome to the reality that would arise? How about the reality that is? Here, in this reality

Yours, not everyone's. But the reality you describe below that is more like hyper fiction.

 

 

Here, let me refer to rest of my paragraph that you conveniently left out in order to have something to say about it:

.....

See, the first sentence, "Cops are assholes and its their job to be." establishes the general topic of the brief paragraph.

 

The following sentences explain and clarify it

My apologies, that wasn't intended. But the way I see it, there's no real context removed in a work of fiction. I decided it wasn't relevant and it seemed to me the rest was just rephrasing your point.

 

Now that I see your point it's just as irrelevant to reality.

 

 

"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."

I'm gonna print this statement of fiction, jaywalk it to my vehicle with a cop nearby, affix it to my dashboard, then go pass a highway cop within 10 (or so) miles over the speed limit -- and neither cop's gonna bother applying the law.

 

Do you want a picture?

 

And maybe you've never been left off by a cop for violations (alcohol, traffic, noise, whatever), but I have -- plenty times. Also...

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.

 

(Though if you do want to fly down here you're always welcome to join me for a beer, bro.)

One day mate, I shall

[Mr Skeptic]

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.

 

I disagree -- being polite is an important part of a cop's job. The cop's job will ruin people's day, and everyone (the public, the "customer", and the cop's boss) will appreciate that the cop at least be polite when doing so. I've seen cops take amazing amounts of verbal abuse without so much as raising their voice, and they also manage to respond politely. I'm pretty sure that this is the norm for cops, and far exceeds the tolerances to rudeness of normal people. Of course, should the case arise it is also their job to take no shit from anyone. Firm but polite, but if need be also violent.

 

As to the second bit, they are also supposed to show a limited amount of tolerance and understanding. Doing otherwise would cause even more disrespect for the law and law enforcement, and in addition cost the government more money in court fees. Hence why they will on occasion give you a warning when by law they could give you a ticket.

[Pangloss]

I disagree -- being polite is an important part of a cop's job. The cop's job will ruin people's day, and everyone (the public, the "customer", and the cop's boss) will appreciate that the cop at least be polite when doing so. I've seen cops take amazing amounts of verbal abuse without so much as raising their voice, and they also manage to respond politely. [b']I'm pretty sure that this is the norm for cops, and far exceeds the tolerances to rudeness of normal people.[/b]

 

Why would you think that? They're not robots, Skep.

 

I think that's part of the problem right there. Like I said before, you're splitting a very fine hair, which is pretty easy for a smart person who's spent time considering this subject. For Joe Sixpack, what you seem to be telling him is that he should go right up to every cop he sees and challenge them right up to the exact point of what the law allows. But cops are normal human beings, not robots staring at a list of options on a heads-up display, so what this means in practice is that there are going to continue to be problems -- and for what? What is the gain from this dramatic action?

 

The rare problem of some of them being bad apples is insufficient to justify the kind of pressure-cooker behavior you're advocating as not only normal, but necessary for a free society. Your hypothesis is interesting, but you're asking society to cook itself off like fireworks in a bonfire for no reason at all.

[The Bear's Key]

If someone learns to expertly maintain control of impulses and reactions, they're an expert -- not a freaking "robot". They've learned new mental skills -- for example: which consistent/ingrained habits are triggering the usual massive frustrations in life, and how to sidestep those.

 

Similarly, good real-life police instruction methods enable the officer to handle things an untrained person might completely lose it with (if facing the same).

 

I think that's part of the problem right there. Like I said before, you're splitting a very fine hair, which is pretty easy for a smart person who's spent time considering this subject. For Joe Sixpack, what you seem to be telling him is that he should go right up to every cop he sees and challenge them right up to the exact point of what the law allows. But cops are normal human beings, not robots staring at a list of options on a heads-up display, so what this means in practice is that there are going to continue to be problems -- and for what?

The real problem is we perceive something as so obviously true, yet end up wrong and keep faithful to it via ignorance. So what's *obvious* doesn't matter, you gotta keep testing and exploring possibilities.

 

Right now you're assuming Joe's gonna love the idea of testing the cop's limits of restraint.

 

But why assume that?

 

Maybe your perception of Joe is wrong. He might only like to prey on the weak, or maybe he seeks confrontation. So for Joe, either option's incompatible with an expertly trained cop.

 

However, our knowledge is limited.

 

But there are good police training systems (who make experts of newbs), and I'm certain they studied the Joe issues psychologically much better than us.

 

In essence, your *obvious* conclusion might be poorly deduced. It happens all the time.

 

For instance, let's examine how people reacted to Trolls when the internet began. Many people fed them, because GOLLY, yelling and reacting angry will surely make them go away -- "obviously".

 

But after people began the "Don't feed the troll" campaigns, the smart forums groups knew the best way to avoid flame wars or persistent trolls is to simply ignore them, let mods handle discipline.

 

Problem solving that improved certain forums a lot without anyone becoming a *robot* or pressure-cooker.

 

 

More to examine..

 

Another *obvious* misconception people have is their supposedly good approaches to certain forms of discipline that obviously *works*. Like rubbing a dog's nose in the wet spot on the carpet. Epic fail.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29780984/?pg=7#Health_CreatureComforts_PetMyths

Myth 6: Rub a dog's nose in its 'business' to housetrain it

 

That only makes your dog afraid of you. Instead of learning to potty outdoors, it will find hidden places to go in the house

.....

“Punishment is often overly harsh and used incorrectly,” Dr. Bain says. “The best way to train any animal is to reward the appropriate behavior.” .

 

 

Lots of people up north think you catch a cold from being out in the cold weather. But as a leading expert (quoted below) informs us, that's not what really happens...

Viruses are pure undead malevolence encoded into genetic material and wrapped up in a creepy protein shell. They aren't even technically alive, so temperature has no affect on them. They're just tiny zombies that you can't even shoot in their microscopic zombie heads.

 

 

And finally there's one I use with the locals to reveal our simple flaws in perception -- especially if an *obvious* fallacy happened earlier.

 

But, not as a counter or reply to their fallacy. Just to hope a critical thinking lesson slips in and begins developing roots.

 

Usually when it's hot and someone's fan is on, I'll ask if the fan cools the air or temperature. Of course many are bound to say yes as the fan's direct breeze is just ahhhhhhhhh great.

 

"If we put a thermometer into the fan's air 15-20 minutes, it won't show any drop in temperature"

 

The assumption was challenged, my one friend surprised there was no apparent cooling. I'm guessing the reason we feel cooler is because the rushing air strips off a layer of warm body-heated air usually lurking just over the skin. It's a hunch, I never tested it, but originally I did make a calculated assumption based on several real factors/variables...

 

1. If you turn a fan the other way, suddenly it's not cool.

2. A fan doesn't work like the AC, which cools even the parts it's not facing.

3. A similar mechanism is outside wind chill factor, but notice how the official weather still reports the higher temperature. So it stands to reason the air outside isn't cooled by mere wind.

4. The best protection against that wind chill is layers, jacket, and hat. Probably lets your otherwise escaping body heat accumulate.

5. I placed objects in the fan's air too see if they would cool down. Nope.

 

 

Always test it.

Edited June 18, 2010 by The Bear's Key
A little clarity

[ParanoiA]

I'm gonna print this statement of fiction' date=' jaywalk it to my vehicle with a cop nearby, affix it to my dashboard, then go pass a highway cop within 10 (or so) miles over the speed limit -- and neither cop's gonna bother applying the law.

 

Do you want a picture?

 

And maybe you've never been left off by a cop for violations (alcohol, traffic, noise, whatever), but I have -- plenty times. Also... [/quote']

 

I didn't say police don't use discretion when applying the law - but I did say that discretion is not based on how sorry they feel for you or your really impressive begging skills on the side of the road. When they ticket you for jaywalking or speeding, they're applying the law, not their personal value system.

 

They may personally understand quite well that you're having a bad day, or that some guy on a forum threatens you. But you're still getting the ticket. That's objectively applying the law. I suppose I'll have to concede that discretion implies subjectivity, but it's important to distinguish discretion based on priority and conviction potential from discretion based on a convincing citizen that needs understanding and sympathy - the latter is laughable.

 

I was trying to share the notion that of course we think cops are assholes - they are generally ticketing us or bothering us for something we think is stupid. That's why I included the bit on objective application of law. They don't care how stupid the law is, they only care that it is a law and that we broke it. It's not their job to understand my really good excuse for jaywalking. The judge might however, and that's the venue to share my argument - not on the side of the road.

 

 

 

The police came to my house about a year ago over some kid that ran away and his mom and dad suspected he was in our house. I invited them to look inside and they refused. In my mind, this was complete bullshit. They have no issue blaming us for harboring a runaway, but they wish to do nothing to confirm it. It's as if they wanted to be able to stand in the driveway all night and just enjoy accusing us.

 

Then my son asks me if he could have a root beer. Officer ****head pipes up and *gives" him permission. I glared at the officer and told my son that *I* give him permission, that we are within our rights to go inside and watch TV and let officer ****head and his buddies stand out here in the dark if they wanted.

 

I took offense that they thought this was a situation for them to control - this wasn't a domestic dispute call, this was a request to speak with us that we granted. The police were trying to use their shiny badges and pretty lights to shape the situation to their advantage.

 

As far as I'm concerned they were assholes. I bitched about this for weeks afterward and it still pisses me off when I think about it because most people don't know their rights and would allow them to completely control the situation.

 

But aside from the stupid decision to *not* search my house when I invited them, it's entirely reasonable to expect them to do exactly what they did. They were trying to apply leverage, in any way they could think of, to resolve a potential crime - even as subtle as changing the nature of cooperation to appear more obligatory than voluntary. That's what we want them doing. If my son is actually being held against his will, and we have no proof, then I want the police using every tactic at their disposal to work around it.

 

That's why I say their job is to be assholes. Not to be a jerk to everyone in terms of attitude and treatment, but in terms of strict, objective application of the laws and a tenacious, uncompromising approach to the protection of the citizenry. We all have our roles to play, and this is theirs.

 

We're always going to think they're assholes when we're on the business end of it.

[iNow]

I didn't say police don't use discretion when applying the law - but I did say that discretion is not based on how sorry they feel for you or your really impressive begging skills on the side of the road.

I'd encourage you to support this assertion with evidence, retract it, or perhaps soften it away from the absolute. My understanding of basic human nature shows that what you've put forth is, quite simply, not very accurate.

 

 

They may personally understand quite well that you're having a bad day, or that some guy on a forum threatens you. But you're still getting the ticket.

Again, you assert this as absolute when it hardly is. Officers are humans first, and humans by their express nature alter their behavior based on their emotional state or empathic connection.

 

 

I suppose I'll have to concede that discretion implies subjectivity, but it's important to distinguish discretion based on priority and conviction potential from discretion based on a convincing citizen that needs understanding and sympathy - the latter is laughable.

You keep asserting this, but you're wrong. You can laugh all you want, but the simple fact remains that many officers in many instances use discretion based on understanding and sympathy.

 

You may have a point that they are not supposed to do this, but your posts imply that they simply never do this, and that's quite simply inaccurate.

 

 

I think we might agree, however, that discretion itself depends on the situation, and depends entirely on the severity of the issue. More severe crimes tend to result in less discretion, where more mundane ones result in more. Can we maybe find some agreement on that small point?

[ParanoiA]

You keep asserting this' date=' but you're wrong. You can laugh all you want, but the simple fact remains that many officers in many instances use discretion based on understanding and sympathy.

 

You may have a point that they are not [i']supposed[/i] to do this, but your posts imply that they simply never do this, and that's quite simply inaccurate.

 

I'm not sure where my posts suggested anything other than how this is supposed to be. I was talking about their jobs and the role they're supposed to play. If I implied otherwise, it was unintentional.

 

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

 

That's the quote TBK has challenged and I have defended. That's my position. Cops aren't supposed to be "understanding and sympathetic", they are supposed to apply the law fairly and equitably to all, which should mean strictly and objectively in order to qualify.

 

Shit, in practice cops let people off the hook for all kinds of human reasons - including in trade for sexual favors, roadside bribery, or a pregnant mother who's water just broke.

 

But they're job is to apply the law objectively, and I think they do that 99% of the time and I think most of us consider them assholes when they've done their job perfectly.

Edited June 18, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

But they're job is to apply the law objectively, and I think they do that 99% of the time and I think most of us consider them assholes when they've done their job perfectly.

 

I agree completely. It's like lashing out at a referee for making a call that goes against your team... even though the call was perfectly accurate and precisely what should have been done... If it goes against your side, you think the ref is a jerk who should be tossed out of the stadium.

 

Back to the core of the thread, though... I do wonder how anyone can possibly argue that we should make it illegal to document police activity with technology... aka: allow people to record police actions on video so long as they do so without interfering. I'm curious to return to that side of the discussion. I've yet to read a compelling point on that front.

[Pangloss]

If someone learns to expertly maintain control of impulses and reactions, they're an expert -- not a freaking "robot". They've learned new mental skills -- for example: which consistent/ingrained habits are triggering the usual massive frustrations in life, and how to sidestep those.

 

Exactly. They're trained human beings, with limits. Pushing them to the very edge of those limits on a regular basis, when it's not actually necessary and gains us nothing, doesn't strike me as a good idea.

 

 

The real problem is we perceive something as so obviously true, yet end up wrong and keep faithful to it via ignorance. So what's *obvious* doesn't matter, you gotta keep testing and exploring possibilities.

 

I think history is full of examples of small groups of people who "perceive something as so obviously true", and therefore feel compelled to "keep testing and exploring possibilities". This is where the uninvolved step up and analyze the situation and determine objective accuracy. What is the error in the reasoning? In this case the error is that we stand to lose a lot more than we stand to gain.

 

But I don't disagree that law enforcement must operate under a microscope, and be held to a higher standard. It should also be regularly reviewed and checked for corruption.

 

 

Back to the core of the thread, though... I do wonder how anyone can possibly argue that we should make it illegal to document police activity with technology... aka: allow people to record police actions on video so long as they do so without interfering. I'm curious to return to that side of the discussion. I've yet to read a compelling point on that front.

 

Yeah I think you're right. I think there have been some interesting side discussions here, and I've tried to raise a couple of points that might shed some light on some potential areas where police could apply for a little more protection without violating civil liberties, but I really don't see a lot of logic or benefit to stopping all public video taping of law enforcement.

[ParanoiA]

Back to the core of the thread, though... I do wonder how anyone can possibly argue that we should make it illegal to document police activity with technology... aka: allow people to record police actions on video so long as they do so without interfering. I'm curious to return to that side of the discussion. I've yet to read a compelling point on that front.

 

And you won't get one from me as I'm of the same opinion. Recording police actions isn't perfect, and can be exploited, and yet that doesn't invalidate its usefulness and necessity for a free society.

 

The same arguments I see against recording government servants are the same arguments that could be used against free press.

[padren]

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.

I've actually felt a bit guilty for writing so much - I appreciate your taking the time and don't consider it a dismissal. I've meant to get back to this for a while but work has been nuts, haven't really had the chance to give it it's due attention.

 

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.

I agree that challenging law enforcement on the street is the wrong channel - an officer would have to be breaking the law and exposing a person in imminent harm before I would consider interference justified.

 

The question really to me is, whether keeping a non-obstructive distance while filming is considered interfering. I entirely support the laws in place that prevent people from obstructing officers in the line of duty.

 

I just don't think filming itself should be a reason to arrest someone. There are many good reasons - many of which people who are filming may be guilty of - to arrest people. Arrest them for those - not for filming.

 

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.

Can you please define "the scene" in a meaningful way? It was a high traffic area with pedestrians getting to and from school I believe. Personally I have no problem with them "going to war" if the war they are engaging in is legal and not violence in the street. If they want to march down to the court house and file a lawsuit that's their right - in such a case as the one filmed, it would be dismissed I'm sure, but they still have the right to have their case heard.

 

For the record, I am not referring to people crowding or interfering with the officer - just the people who film at a distance.

 

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.

Filming is not an act of violence or obstruction. Just because someone thinks "Wow this cop must be doing something wrong" doesn't mean they have video evidence proving such is the case - it is good for them to have the film and thus a legal option to address whether the officer is out of line.

It all just becomes evidence, which will then be viewed in court and in the media within the context of the event.

 

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.

I don't understand why you group people obstructing an officer in the course of their duty and people filming at a non-obstructing distance. I don't understand how making the judgment of "this should be taped, just in case" crosses over into "I'm going to interfere with this officer because I think he's out of line."

 

This is not a distinct singular group of people. You have two types of actions, that sometimes overlap. I don't understand how people exercising their right to observe police action in public is suddenly criminal when a camera is involved.

 

Should we ban all observers when the police are engaged in any activity?

 

 

That seems to be what you are moving towards, but I believe that as it stands now, people are free to move about in public as long as it doesn't obstruct the officers or place people in danger. What they witness and can testify to, and where they are allowed to be is not being questioned or challenged in this legal precedent - only their right to film during such times, in public is. This includes people up on balconies far removed from interfering with the scene.

 

 

And in this case, at least partly their instigator.

 

We may have to disagree, but I think that video has calmed people more than it has gotten people riled up. If you mean instigated during the arrest it's worth noting the officer had the right to tell people to back up - and cameras or not he can exercise his right to control the scene in terms of where people are.

 

 

Just as an aside: I haven't seen anyone say that filming an officer in public should be considered the same as wiretapping, with the full felony charge applied.

 

Do you agree or disagree with this point? I just haven't really ready anyone standing up for that court ruling, so it appears to be generally unpopular.

 

 

Aside from that, I'd just like some additional clarification:

 

Do you think it should be illegal to film police actions in public even when the filming individual is across the street on a balcony? Are they interfering with the scene?

 

Do you think that the use of a camera automatically makes an individual part of a hostile crowd, regardless of whether they adhere to all police requests to place themselves out of the way?

[Mr Skeptic]

Just as an aside: I haven't seen anyone say that filming an officer in public should be considered the same as wiretapping, with the full felony charge applied.

 

If there's audio, as there was in this film, it could be illegal under the laws of various states that require consent of both parties being taped. Then again, so would the camera crews from the news companies. I think there may be an exception if it is considered obvious that the recording is happening and its in public.

 

Anyhow, this is the sort of mess you get when extending laws that dealt with private phone calls and then extending them to other audio.

[padren]

If there's audio, as there was in this film, it could be illegal under the laws of various states that require consent of both parties being taped. Then again, so would the camera crews from the news companies. I think there may be an exception if it is considered obvious that the recording is happening and its in public.

 

Anyhow, this is the sort of mess you get when extending laws that dealt with private phone calls and then extending them to other audio.

 

I definitely agree that wiretapping laws have their place and are important - what I disagree with is their application to cell phones being used to record in public.

 

I wonder if the law would equally apply to a 911 call that was recorded during a crime in progress where the caller drops the phone but the call continues - the carjacker/burglar/rapist wouldn't have consented after all and the victim could face felony charges and years in prison, or would the 911 operator be criminally liable? Perhaps it would be considered a conspiracy?

 

I believe the footage in the wire-tapping case was considered inadmissible for his defense, so it would probably be the same when brought against 911 operators.

 

If the state has some sort of exceptions for 911 calls I wonder if a victim could get in trouble if they called a friend instead. It seems like the sort of angle a slimy defense attorney would try after this sort of case precedence.

[Pangloss]

The question really to me is' date=' whether keeping a non-obstructive distance while filming is considered interfering. I entirely support the laws in place that prevent people from obstructing officers in the line of duty.

 

I just don't think filming itself should be a reason to arrest someone. There are many good reasons - many of which people who are filming may be guilty of - to arrest people. Arrest them for those - not for filming.

[/quote']

 

I don't think interference was something that was part of the complaint, was it? Maybe it was and I just missed it, but it's not what I would call it either (I agree with you on this). My main interests were privacy (e.g. airline pilots) and performance under the additional pressure of camera attention. But over the fullness of this discussion I really have not found a valid reason to support such a law. The only thing I could see might be some restrictions on the release of dash-cam videos under some circumstances, including public incitement.

 

 

Can you please define "the scene" in a meaningful way? It was a high traffic area with pedestrians getting to and from school I believe. Personally I have no problem with them "going to war" if the war they are engaging in is legal and not violence in the street. If they want to march down to the court house and file a lawsuit that's their right - in such a case as the one filmed, it would be dismissed I'm sure, but they still have the right to have their case heard.

 

For the record, I am not referring to people crowding or interfering with the officer - just the people who film at a distance.

 

I was talking about the crowd in that quote, not the filmers. The crowd was pressing the officer and elevating the situation. Some individuals appear to deliberately brush past him and enter his immediate vicinity in a manner that makes it look like they just want to move by but which seems designed more to instigate a reaction.

 

All of it is unacceptable, and if there were a law against idiotic and unproductive behavior virtually everyone that crowd should have gone to jail that day. It's high time this country did a better job of educating people on how to behave, instead of Hollywood and "community organizers" selling them the benefits of bad behavior for a few beer commercials and a neighborhood stimulus grant.

 

But this has little to do with this subject at hand; just answering your question.

[Mr Skeptic]

And if we didn't have countless laws the majority of which are summarized as "don't be stupid", then this whole situation wouldn't have happened either.