atommota writes "After years of complaints of police misconduct, the ACLU is giving free video cameras to some residents of high-crime neighborhoods in St. Louis, MO to help them monitor officers. The ACLU of Eastern Missouri launched the project Wednesday after television crews last year broadcast video of officers punching and kicking a suspect who led police on a car chase. 'The idea here is to level the playing field, so it's not just your word against the police's word,' said Brenda Jones, executive director of the ACLU chapter. The ACLU has worked closely with the police to make sure they are aware of this program. This is in stark contrast to the recent Pennsylvania arrest for felony wiretapping of a guy who was videotaping a police stop."
While I do appreciate the funny mod, I was also being somewhat serious, if a cop has the authority to shoo you away from a "scene" and make sure you aren't taping him/her doing something, they can still get away with doing "bad things". I guess you just have to tape them covertly? I can also see all sorts of legal issues arising from this. ..good thing the ACLU is backing it up.
if a cop has the authority to shoo you away from a "scene" and make sure you aren't taping him/her doing something, they can still get away with doing "bad things".
My first thought was "well cops don't have the authority to shoo you away from a scene," then I realized I was wrong.
Cops have the authority to disperse a 'crowd' so that they can maintain order. Failure to disperse = failure to obey a lawful order = arrest/taser/mace
However, most video cameras have a pretty strong zoom on them. Usually at least 10x. It's probably pretty easy to be quite far away from the scene and still get a good shot at what's going on.
Lawyer: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, as you can see plainly here, some Pac-Man looking individual who we assume is the victim is being bumped into repeatedly by a dark blue blob....
Umm, no. My camcorder is almost 5 years old. It has 6x optical zoom and 200x digital zoom. If you had actually taken the effort to check at bestbuy.com, you'd have seen camcorders with at least 35x optical and 1000x digital zoom.
I saw someone pulled over on Monday and because I happened to be going through the one lane they were now blocking with the traffic stop, I pulled into a nearby lot and watched it all occur. 1. The officers were very rude and were completely intolerant of the individual's lack of English skills. I realize I live in a state where people find KQRS' resident racist Tom Bernard "entertaining", but the cops should at least be a little more understanding.
2. They were obviously mocking the individuals that they
"Except the US doesn't have an official "national language" that everyone is required to know."
According to Hillary on one of the debates the other night...she said we did. She said she was for the current designation of the 'national language' as being English. But, she voted against making it the "official" language...saying she was afraid that would do away with multi-lingual ballots, and govt. forms.
Frankly, I don't see the problem with that either...
Given that it is the ACLU, they may be hoping that some police department will sue so they can have a judgment in court stating that videotaping police in public is just as legal as videotaping anyone else in public.
While I may have issue with the ACLU's selective view on the Bill of Rights (they refuse to acknowledge the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right), I must admit I give kudos to them for taking this up.
While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.
I find it extremely distasteful that the "felony wiretap" case was in my home state o
Actually, IIRC, the ACLU has come out and said that the since NRA defends the 2nd Amendment so conscientiously, they defer such cases to them. That's not at all the same thing as refusing to acknowledge it.
While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.
I agree with that sentiment 100% (both parts of it).
What's interesting is that this case seems to be pitting two things the ACLU fights for against each other. Due process vs. privacy (of the cops). I think they're making the right call here, but I still find that conflict interesting. (Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?)
I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.
I'm pro-gun and pro-ACLU, just to name my own bias.
Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?
I've heard that most cops actually liked the idea of video cameras in their cars because it proved that they were good cops in most cases. If I had a job that involved me being accountable for something as serious as protecting and serving citizens, then I wouldn't mind being videotaped. In most cases I'm sure this will show most cops in good light, but we'll never see those videos on the evening news.
I had EXACTLY that occur back when I was 22 (sadly, that would be a LONG time ago) in Fort Collins, Co. I was a passenger in a 1 car crash. The driver was put in cuffs and a female cop started beating the driver. I stood a distance away but was telling her to stop. She told me to leave right then and there. I pointed out that would be leaving the scence of an accident, to which she replied yes, but that I was to be arrested one way or another. I chose for her to arrest me for "interfering with a lawful arrest". Once she had cuffs on me, she started to hit and kick at me. Once the 2'nd squad got there, she stopped. But of course, she had the 2 of us in cuffs, with me hoping mad. The interesting thing was that the DA dropped the charges for the interfering with a lawful arrest, but got me on some other items. Of course, had she not been beating on the driver, or had not arrested me in the first place, then the later items would never have occured. Sadly, last I heard, she and idiot (ernie telez) from FC were still working there.
Second, I use to work in the local hospital as EMT. The ED had had dealings with Telez and several other officers (1 person came in with multiple broken bones, bruises all over, etc and he was being transported from FC. jail to Larimer County jail by Telez; City Attorny laughed when told about it; oh, the prisoner was a simple thief, not a child molester).
When I told the attorney, they laughed and said that nothing would happen. And I KNEW they were correct.
...that while the ACLU is absolutely right in this context, the practical upshot of this is that many more folks in that community will become victims of Police "misconduct" due to their conspicuous wielding of cameras. And while fighting the good fight and filming anyway is great in the best of all possible worlds, that world isn't this one, and police officers know how to hurt you in real ways, not to mention the system of, ahem, Justice they represent is heavily stacked against someone who has a legit beef re: a police officer.
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
While I agree that on a practical side, you are probably correct, I love that the issue is being forced. Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and that bridge will have to be crossed eventually. (well, short of a miracle)
By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.
By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.
I couldn't agree more. My only thing is, I've been at protests that have ended up in arrests (and been arrested at same) and those were tame in comparison to the sorts of inc
The victims hate the cops as much as the criminals.
And that is the problem.
The solution isn't to just "give up" on areas like that, it's to fix the police behavior (and political mess that's related).
Do away with the things people hate the cops for, like the War On (some) Drugs, idiotically stupid traffic enforcement, enforcement of morality, etc, and people will like the cops again. Do away with the abuses of power they have by quickly and publicly punishing those cops that commit the abuses, and people wi
I can see this now, similar to police cars having cameras mounted in them, new cars begin to offer mounted cameras as optional equipment. Perhaps this would be more useful than a DVD player in the backseat.
if the criminals were being monitored, then they wouldn't be able to commit all the crimes and then the area wouldn't be described as 'high crime' areas now would they.
Besides, who are the ACLU giving these cameras to? Law-abiding citizens who live in these areas and are worried that the local scroats might have their civil liberties abused whilst they were committing vandalism, burglary and violent crimes against the person?
In addition to reporting any misbehavior by the police, I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation. A little positive reinforcement can go a long ways.
Agreed, too few people give positive feeback, they only like to complain.
I hope they also keep the cameras running to catch any criminals. They're the ones who terrorize neighborhoods and then scare possible witnesses into keeping silent.
In addition to reporting any misbehavior by the police, I hope that the ACLU has enough integrity to also publicly commend any officer that is recorded acting responsibility in a difficult situation. A little positive reinforcement can go a long ways.
I don't agree. I am a nurse. I have seen other nurses out there that steal narcotics, make dangerous medical decisions, etc. Those nurses suck, and make the rest of us look bad. I don't think I should be commended for doing my job right just because there are those out there that do it badly. I am not a cop, and couldn't speak for them, but if someone tried to commend me for doing the right thing, I would be a bit disgusted. That's like saying, "Thanks for giving your patients those pain meds, instead of stealing them." or the cop equivalent, "Thanks for making that arrest without beating that guy to death." People should not be commended for doing what they are required to do by the job, and what should be a socially accepted standard of moral ethics.
Thanks for making that arrest without beating that guy to death. Almost. More like:
"Thanks for making that arrest without beating that guy to death as he repeatedly tried to stab you and kill and bite you and spit on you and kick you while you made the arrest."
There's doing your job, and then there's doing your job under horribly abusive conditions.
Funny, I thought their job was to act responsibly in difficult situations?
I will, and have, thanked officers personally for doing good work, because I appreciate it. But it's pretty ridiculous to even insinuate that an organization with a serious focus should waste its time and resources thanking people for doing their jobs.
That would be the job of the police department itself, to recognize its own employees that do exemplary work, and reward them, not the ACLU's job, right? The ACLU's job is to make sure they do not abuse the additional power (and thus, additional responsibility) that has been accorded to them by the people they have power over.
What about privacy? Not of the police but of the person being stopped, questioned or possibly arrested?
With other folks taking the suspect's picture it is going to become common for these photos to make their way onto the web and into TV news. So you now have even worse situations with "Look who got arrested today!!!" even when no arrest was made.
Think about it - you are stopped by the police for going through a yellow light. No ticket issued, just a warning. Next day you find your very recognizable picture on some web page and half your co-workers think it is very funny. Of course the caption on the picture makes it seem like you are being hauled off to jail. Funny? Not when you have a public-facing job and people now believe you are "some kind of criminal." Even if all you do is work in a shoe store you are going to get canned if you spend more time explaining the picture than selling shoes.
If you are a public figure how much do you think a picture of you being questioned by the police would be worth? To tabloid newspapers? To your opposing candidates in an election? Think these pictures won't be sold because "oh these are ACLU cameras" - think again.
The only way this makes sense is with an underlying assumption that all police officers are violent thugs that need to be monitored constantly. If that is even remotely the case there are other ways of dealing with that problem than getting photographs and video of people being stopped or questioned by the police.
All police officers DO need to be monitored constantly. I would be completely for mandating that every single police officer has a shoulder mounted camera that is always one when they are on the job. When you give someone the level of authority that a police officer gets, you also need to increase the monitoring. If you get wrongly abused by a police officer, most people are rightly terrified to do anything about it. Openly monitoring the people with the authority to use force is the only method of prev
...so basically you'd want to prevent the widespread use of video cameras, ACLU or otherwise?... a bit too late for that my friend, most police cruisers come with a dashboard camera....a good number of stoplights have cameras....if you live in the UK, the damn street corners have cameras. They're already everywhere.
The charges in the Pennsylvania case referenced in the posting have been withdrawn [cumberlink.com].
From the article:
"When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges."
The fact that this made the national news doesn't surprise me. This is Pennsylvania where our new state motto is:
If it were anybody other than the ACLU doing this, I'd be more in favor of it. I simply don't trust the ACLU to have my interests best in mind, nor have implemented it in an even, fair, or unbiased manner.
This might even be an attempt to antagonize and create incidents with the police over the whole video taping issue, rather than a valid method of checks and balances. It wouldn't be the first time the ACLU has done such things.
Nor was the incident cited in TFA the first time a citizen has gotten in trouble for video taping police against their wishes. Just a couple of years ago a man, in his home, on his property, using installed surveillance cameras covering his property, got arrested when he taped officers coming to his door. That's simply wrong!
Of course, if you can manage to get away with the actual taping at the time, anyone with a video camera and YouTube can make their case without the ACLU at all.
Ummm, the ACLU pays more attention to your rights than YOU do! When most of the nitwits in this country were gleefully handing over their civil liberties via the Patriot Act, the ACLU was our champion. They're the ones who defend transgressions against us when YOU would be too blinded by snap judgment to see the indignity. When government wants to take away rights, it won't be in a landmark case against a nun. It will be against the terrorist, murderer or child molester. This is the organization that defended one of its biggest deriders in Rush Limbaugh simply because they view encroachments on our rights through an agnostic lens.
Now, if you can cite an example to validate your distrust...
It's tailored more to finding local stories that impact you and report on them as an amateur, but has also been lent in the same way the ACLU is working now.
I am a big fan of the police, but dirty cops make me sick to my stomach. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't worry about the cameras.
As someone who has given money to the ACLU from time to time, this is a GREAT use of my money. If it can catch some of the cops abusing the power of the gun that they wield, it's a huge win. Also, similar to how concealed-carry weapons lower crime even for those who are not carrying, the knowledge that there's a lot of people out there ready to catch the police abusing their power can act like a great deterring factor, which is an even better win. Stopping the abuse before it starts is a much better solution
Here in the UK, each police force's budget has a large amount of taxpayer's money earmarked for 'we don't admit any liability' compensation settlements for the inevitable cases where the police have been caught wrongfully arresting or assaulting innocent people each year. If this ACLU initiative deters police wrongdoing, it could easily end up saving the US taxpayer money...
Seriously? They beat the crap our of you because you have long hair? Or were they weary of you because of your long hair and shady demeanor? Did they really beat the crap our of you, or were they trying to subdue you using physical force when you failed to cooperate with them?
Stopping police brutality is a good thing, but we have to be sure it is REAL brutality. Now, I do not know your situation, but I have heard so many stories similar to yours. Many backed up by video evidence. When digging further into the stories, I often find either the police did nothing wrong, or they were antagonized to the point where even a saint would have problems.
I do belive the easiest way to stop police brutality is to be polite and cooperative. I have long hair and have a very suspicious demeanor, but when I get pulled over, I get treated with nothing but respect. I attribute this to me being polite and cooperate. Either that or I just happened to run into the only nice cops in my area.
I was in a bar when a fight broke out, and was doing my best to get out of there when I was grabbed by two portly cops, slammed against the wall, cuffed, thrown to the ground, sat on, and then punched what felt like about 100 times (probably only 10 or 15...im a sissy). The left side of my head swelled up pretty good, and I had a good bit of road rash on other parts. I was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The cops wrote outright lies on the arrest report, the judge naturally took their word over mine (look at his spotty grooming habits!), and I spent almost a month in jail. You can't imagine what a surreal experience it is to stand there in front of a judge, black and blue, weiging 150lbs soaking wet, and hearing two beefy cops carry on about how hard you were to subdue...and having the judge act like he beleives it.
Had I even SEEN the cops, I would have been polite and cooperative. As it was, all I got to be was a punching bag. Maybe somebody else antagonized them...I dont know. I do know they flat out lied about what happened, and I went to jail for it. If there would have been video of the event, you can bet they would have beat up the videographer too.
I have friends that are cops, so don't think I'm down on the profession, but it does draw psychos...probably 30-40% of cops are like the ones that beat me up. Probably 30-40% of the judges are crooked or brain dead. I suppose it has always been so...but up until that happened I had thought America was special.
Firstly, people in hand cuffs can still be feisty. Put me in a pair and try to fight me. I guarantee you will win, but I also guarantee you will loose a good chunk of flesh. The point is, if this man was still struggling while in hand cuffs they may have had to use physical force to keep him from causing problems. Now physical force could mean a lot of things, as could "beating the crap out of me." I am not saying he is right or wrong, I am simply saying people have a tendency to reword stories to make
What do you do it. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops have the authority to disperse a 'crowd' so that they can maintain order. Failure to disperse = failure to obey a lawful order = arrest/taser/mace
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Lawyer: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, as you can see plainly here, some Pac-Man looking individual who we assume is the victim is being bumped into repeatedly by a dark blue blob....
Parent
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:4, Informative)
Umm, no. My camcorder is almost 5 years old. It has 6x optical zoom and 200x digital zoom. If you had actually taken the effort to check at bestbuy.com, you'd have seen camcorders with at least 35x optical and 1000x digital zoom.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. The officers were very rude and were completely intolerant of the individual's lack of English skills. I realize I live in a state where people find KQRS' resident racist Tom Bernard "entertaining", but the cops should at least be a little more understanding.
2. They were obviously mocking the individuals that they
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to Hillary on one of the debates the other night...she said we did. She said she was for the current designation of the 'national language' as being English. But, she voted against making it the "official" language...saying she was afraid that would do away with multi-lingual ballots, and govt. forms.
Frankly, I don't see the problem with that either...
I don't mind multi-lingual at 'border crossings'.
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:5, Funny)
English is the language of the land. [xkcd.com]
Parent
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Hopefully not in that order.
Parent
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.
I find it extremely distasteful that the "felony wiretap" case was in my home state o
The ACLU and the 2nd amendment (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, IIRC, the ACLU has come out and said that the since NRA defends the 2nd Amendment so conscientiously, they defer such cases to them. That's not at all the same thing as refusing to acknowledge it.
I agree with that sentiment 100% (both parts of it).
What's interesting is that this case seems to be pitting two things the ACLU fights for against each other. Due process vs. privacy (of the cops). I think they're making the right call here, but I still find that conflict interesting. (Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?)
Parent
Re:The ACLU and the 2nd amendment (Score:5, Informative)
Here's what the ACLU says about it. [aclu.org]
I don't see what's "selective" about that. While any particular person (including me) may disagree with the philosophy behind it, this is a very well reasoned stance... there is ambiguity in what the constitution says and means on this issue, the ACLU protects constitutional rights when such rights are clear.
I'm pro-gun and pro-ACLU, just to name my own bias.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?
I've heard that most cops actually liked the idea of video cameras in their cars because it proved that they were good cops in most cases. If I had a job that involved me being accountable for something as serious as protecting and serving citizens, then I wouldn't mind being videotaped. In most cases I'm sure this will show most cops in good light, but we'll never see those videos on the evening news.
In fact, you are screwed (Score:5, Interesting)
The cameras are needed.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When I hear ppl sa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Tomorrows headlines (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tomorrows headlines (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Tomorrows headlines (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I do believe... (Score:4, Interesting)
...that while the ACLU is absolutely right in this context, the practical upshot of this is that many more folks in that community will become victims of Police "misconduct" due to their conspicuous wielding of cameras. And while fighting the good fight and filming anyway is great in the best of all possible worlds, that world isn't this one, and police officers know how to hurt you in real ways, not to mention the system of, ahem, Justice they represent is heavily stacked against someone who has a legit beef re: a police officer.
Besides, on a purely practical note, after the police finish beating the crap out of you and your friend(s), how hard is it for them to confiscate and destroy a recording device?
Re:I do believe... (Score:4, Interesting)
By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By forcing the issue now, hopefully the issue can be brought to light and fixed, and the increase in police issues could hopefully be a temporary condition. By not doing it, things just stew longer and get worse. Hopefully, the sooner it is addressed, the shorter and milder the "dangerous increase in police issues" period could be.
I couldn't agree more. My only thing is, I've been at protests that have ended up in arrests (and been arrested at same) and those were tame in comparison to the sorts of inc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And that is the problem.
The solution isn't to just "give up" on areas like that, it's to fix the police behavior (and political mess that's related).
Do away with the things people hate the cops for, like the War On (some) Drugs, idiotically stupid traffic enforcement, enforcement of morality, etc, and people will like the cops again. Do away with the abuses of power they have by quickly and publicly punishing those cops that commit the abuses, and people wi
Level Playing Field (Score:3, Insightful)
"to help them monitor officers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"to help them monitor officers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:"to help them monitor officers" (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, who are the ACLU giving these cameras to? Law-abiding citizens who live in these areas and are worried that the local scroats might have their civil liberties abused whilst they were committing vandalism, burglary and violent crimes against the person?
Parent
Make friends, not enemies. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Make friends, not enemies. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope they also keep the cameras running to catch any criminals. They're the ones who terrorize neighborhoods and then scare possible witnesses into keeping silent.
Parent
Re:Make friends, not enemies. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree. I am a nurse. I have seen other nurses out there that steal narcotics, make dangerous medical decisions, etc. Those nurses suck, and make the rest of us look bad. I don't think I should be commended for doing my job right just because there are those out there that do it badly. I am not a cop, and couldn't speak for them, but if someone tried to commend me for doing the right thing, I would be a bit disgusted. That's like saying, "Thanks for giving your patients those pain meds, instead of stealing them." or the cop equivalent, "Thanks for making that arrest without beating that guy to death." People should not be commended for doing what they are required to do by the job, and what should be a socially accepted standard of moral ethics.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost. More like:
"Thanks for making that arrest without beating that guy to death as he repeatedly tried to stab you and kill and bite you and spit on you and kick you while you made the arrest."
There's doing your job, and then there's doing your job under horribly abusive conditions.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make friends, not enemies. (Score:5, Insightful)
I will, and have, thanked officers personally for doing good work, because I appreciate it. But it's pretty ridiculous to even insinuate that an organization with a serious focus should waste its time and resources thanking people for doing their jobs.
That would be the job of the police department itself, to recognize its own employees that do exemplary work, and reward them, not the ACLU's job, right? The ACLU's job is to make sure they do not abuse the additional power (and thus, additional responsibility) that has been accorded to them by the people they have power over.
Parent
This is just asking for abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
With other folks taking the suspect's picture it is going to become common for these photos to make their way onto the web and into TV news. So you now have even worse situations with "Look who got arrested today!!!" even when no arrest was made.
Think about it - you are stopped by the police for going through a yellow light. No ticket issued, just a warning. Next day you find your very recognizable picture on some web page and half your co-workers think it is very funny. Of course the caption on the picture makes it seem like you are being hauled off to jail. Funny? Not when you have a public-facing job and people now believe you are "some kind of criminal." Even if all you do is work in a shoe store you are going to get canned if you spend more time explaining the picture than selling shoes.
If you are a public figure how much do you think a picture of you being questioned by the police would be worth? To tabloid newspapers? To your opposing candidates in an election? Think these pictures won't be sold because "oh these are ACLU cameras" - think again.
The only way this makes sense is with an underlying assumption that all police officers are violent thugs that need to be monitored constantly. If that is even remotely the case there are other ways of dealing with that problem than getting photographs and video of people being stopped or questioned by the police.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Pennsylvania case is over (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
The fact that this made the national news doesn't surprise me. This is Pennsylvania where our new state motto is:
Doing our best to become the next New Jersey.
Anybody Else (Score:3, Interesting)
This might even be an attempt to antagonize and create incidents with the police over the whole video taping issue, rather than a valid method of checks and balances. It wouldn't be the first time the ACLU has done such things.
Nor was the incident cited in TFA the first time a citizen has gotten in trouble for video taping police against their wishes. Just a couple of years ago a man, in his home, on his property, using installed surveillance cameras covering his property, got arrested when he taped officers coming to his door. That's simply wrong!
Of course, if you can manage to get away with the actual taping at the time, anyone with a video camera and YouTube can make their case without the ACLU at all.
Re:Anybody Else (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Peter Gabriel setup something similar a while ago. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's tailored more to finding local stories that impact you and report on them as an amateur, but has also been lent in the same way the ACLU is working now.
I am a big fan of the police, but dirty cops make me sick to my stomach. If they have nothing to hide, they shouldn't worry about the cameras.
In a related story... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, similar to how concealed-carry weapons lower crime even for those who are not carrying, the knowledge that there's a lot of people out there ready to catch the police abusing their power can act like a great deterring factor, which is an even better win. Stopping the abuse before it starts is a much better solution
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Having had the crap beat out of me by cops... (Score:5, Interesting)
Stopping police brutality is a good thing, but we have to be sure it is REAL brutality. Now, I do not know your situation, but I have heard so many stories similar to yours. Many backed up by video evidence. When digging further into the stories, I often find either the police did nothing wrong, or they were antagonized to the point where even a saint would have problems.
I do belive the easiest way to stop police brutality is to be polite and cooperative. I have long hair and have a very suspicious demeanor, but when I get pulled over, I get treated with nothing but respect. I attribute this to me being polite and cooperate. Either that or I just happened to run into the only nice cops in my area.
Parent
Re:Having had the crap beat out of me by cops... (Score:5, Interesting)
Had I even SEEN the cops, I would have been polite and cooperative. As it was, all I got to be was a punching bag. Maybe somebody else antagonized them...I dont know. I do know they flat out lied about what happened, and I went to jail for it. If there would have been video of the event, you can bet they would have beat up the videographer too.
I have friends that are cops, so don't think I'm down on the profession, but it does draw psychos...probably 30-40% of cops are like the ones that beat me up. Probably 30-40% of the judges are crooked or brain dead. I suppose it has always been so...but up until that happened I had thought America was special.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent