Citizens Given Video Cameras To Monitor Police 434
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."
Re:Right... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:What do you do it. . . (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 pulled over because they spoke very little English. Waving (princess style) and "shooing" with their hands while saying "bye bye" and "adios" was ignorant as can be.
3. When they told the driver that "if you put your tongue in front of the mouthpiece one more time we will take you to jail without question", I wasn't surprised when the drunken driver was more than a little confused when they spun him around and cuffed him.
I, knowing the brutality and hostility that police officers have been exerting lately, wasn't about to say anything to them but I certainly am willing to pass the information off to everyone that needs to know.
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.
The Penn wirtapper had charges dropped (Score:2, Informative)
Interestingly, the reason was because the police cruiser was already recording the stop, the officer had no expectation of privacy, therefore it didn't matter if someone else also recorded him.
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/06/20/new
Double Standards Anyone? (Score:2, Informative)
1. That there was an article in the KC Star about this same information November of last year and people are now talking about this.
2. In the same paper I found an article about installing camera's at known areas of the city where violence, gang "discussions", and or drug dealers were known to hang out, but the ACLU came out against this policy stating that "we were drifting toward a surveillance society".
3. The police department that want the cameras to watch for criminals, find something wrong with people videotaping their disgressions.
Double standards are great, and I bet the lawyers can't wait until the lawsuits start coming in...
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.