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."
Level Playing Field (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
ACLU (Score:2, Insightful)
"to help them monitor officers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"to help them monitor officers" (Score:5, Insightful)
Make friends, not enemies. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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
Re:I do believe... (Score:1, Insightful)
Not as hard as it would be to confiscate and destroy *all* recording devices. If a significant number of citizens have them, then the cops can't be sure that somebody else isn't filming them beating somebody and confiscating their camera. And I imagine a judge would look rather harshly on a cop beating somebody and then destroying that person's own evidence of it.
This could create an environment where corrupt officials are afraid of citizens. That's awesome.
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
If you've done nothing wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is just asking for abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as the privacy issues go, there are relatively few. Yes, someone could record you getting pulled over for a traffic stop and post it on YouTube. Personally, I would be far more worried about a drunken college video of me getting out then a video of a police officer hanging in my window as we politely exchange words and documents. Further, the nation has legal proceedings and a presumption of innocence, such that it is trivial to look up someone's police record and find out if they have actually be convinced of crimes. I would happily take a marginally embarrassing video of me getting pulled over for blasting through a red light, then I would NOT having a video of a police officer beating the shit out of me because my hair is too long or what not.
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.
Re:I do believe... (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 will like the cops again.
Yes, fighting violent crime is hard, but those that actually do go out and fight that good fight are generally well supported.
You could say the police are a victim of the political idiocy in this country, and forced to take part is such mess that hurts their reputation a lot, but the "I was just following orders!" defense was invalid in Nuremberg, and it's just as invalid here.
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.
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?
Re:Make friends, not enemies. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make friends, not enemies. (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.
America's Funniest Home Videos? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can see it now . . . a brand new show in the time slot right after Cops. "America's Dirtiest Police Videos"
In my opinion, this has as much of a chance of protecting citizen rights as it does to hinder legit police activities and responses to emergencies. Cops start paying more attention to the cameras and neglect the crime/crimals they were called to investigate and put themselves and others at risk.
I'm all for accountability, but does the ACLU also provide similar equipment to folks so they can monitor/document actual crimes in their communities as well?
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"to help them monitor officers" (Score:1, 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.
Re:I do believe... (Score:2, Insightful)
And it's this deep level of ignorance and idiocy demonstrated by your post which is keeping our country well and truly fucked.
Look, you fucking moron, *legal* hookers will not be in your front yard. *legal* drugs will be sold in a fucking store like everything else.
All of the "problems" you listed are caused *entirely* by these criminal laws, not by drugs or prostitution.
Please pull your head out of your ass and look around just for a second for once in your god damned life.
If you are truly stupid enough to believe that idiotic nonsense you spewed out (clearly without having ever given it one second's thought) then you really are a tremendous liability to everybody around you.
Your utter failure to understand simple cause and effect is doing nothing positive and is only providing support for the single biggest cause of violent crime and police state government we've ever had.
Please try to think in the future. Even a little bit would help.
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.
Re:In fact, you are screwed (Score:2, Insightful)
When I hear ppl say that our cops are better or that there are worse jails than in America, I know that I am looking at an idiot. We are no better. It is just that we use to hide it. Now, it is out in the open.
Wow. When I hear somebody say that our cops and jails are as bad as any other place in the world, I know I'm responding to an idiot. Please try to understand there are gradients between "absolutely perfect" and "absolutely flawed."
I would not want to trade our system for something from South America or the Mideast.
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't ever visit France, you'd hate it (unless you speak French).
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.
Yeah, you kind of covered this behavior in pt. 1. Though I wonder if you consider it equally ignorant to move to a country and not even attempt to learn the language? (Strictly speaking, the cops were not "ignorant" in their behavior, though the non-English speaker was ignorant of English. Though I realize that "ignorant" has certain connotations in some parts of the US apart from its literal meaning.)
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.
What would you have done differently, if presented with a drunk driver who had zero command of the common language of your country? How do you expect the cops to behave in a situation like this? Really, I'm curious.
Re:What do you do it. . . (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'....but, you are expected to learn or try to learn how to get by in another language while visiting other countries. Aside from resort areas in MX...I dare say you don't find English translations alongside the Mexican writings on offical postings or menus, etc....
For some reason our Govt. officials are too much of a p*ssy to vote for the obvious need for making English the 'offical' and required language for the US. When I took Spanish and French classes in school, after the first day, no English was spoken in there...it sure did force you to learn those langugages quite quickly. Forcing long term visitors to learn English in the US would help them in the same way AND help them to meld into our society quicker. I kinda miss the old 'melting pot' theory of the US...where the immigrants come in to the culture, bring with them their 'gifts', but meld into the greater culture, rather than segregate themselves into a mini-society within the US society.
Re:Having had the crap beat out of me by cops... (Score:3, Insightful)
Secondly, perhaps whoever modded me up was modding me up for other reasons. My post did have multiple parts.
Thirdly, I did not say a shady demeanor justified physical force. I said it made them suspicious (weary was the word I used). The fact that he would not cooperate justified the physical force. But I do not know the real story, so I cannot say who was really just.
I think that's what I said anyway. I can't remember, it was a while ago. I suppose with just a few clicks I could read what I wrote. Why bother? No one is going to be reading this anyway. No one of any significance anyway. HAH! suck it blue. Just kidding.
I wonder what else is going on... eh, I think I'm starting to ramble. Eh, whatever.. good night.
Re:The ACLU and the 2nd amendment (Score:1, Insightful)
not really, because the cops are not acting as private citizens, but as a representation of the government. They are not trying to film the cops in their off hours as private citizens. it's the same thing as your boss wanting to keep an eye on you so that you do your work - he could care less about the perverse things you do at home, but when you are at work, you are expected to represent the business well and do your job.
Re:The ACLU and the 2nd amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The ACLU and the 2nd amendment (Score:2, Insightful)
The founders intended for people to have the ability to mount an armed insurrection against an injust government, and the tools of the day included everything up to and including field artillery (the tanks and planes of the day). The founders also knew that technology would change, which is why they said "arms" and not specifically firearms. The important part was that people would have the ability to resist a tyrannical government (and provide a deterrent against a government becoming so), and nowadays the people are all but denied these tools. No, you may not need a machine gun to hunt, but that's not the intended purpose of the Second Amendment.
Also, for the "there's no way regular people could mount an effective insurrection" crowd, one has only to look at the current situation in Iraq, or historically Vietnam. Guerilla tactics and rudimentary equipment can be effective against NVDs, smart bombs, and all the other technology in a modern military's arsenal.
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a big difference between carrying a guide book and speaking basic phrases like "Hello! Where is the bathroom?" and being able to cope with a normal conversation, much less a high-pressure situation like dealing with the police (especially if they are being belligerent). If you had been stopped by the police in one of those 40 countries, would you have been able to explain your situation clearly? Like you, I lived in a foreign country for a year; in my case Japan. Unlike you, I had studied Japanese for a few years before arriving there, and after that year specifically studying the language, I still would not have trusted my language abilities to clearly explain myself in a situation where subtleties are very important, such as dealing with law enforcement.
Whether or not you've actually been around the world, my statement that you sound like someone who hasn't still stands. I've known people like you before; you take the moral high ground by being able to spout a few phrases in a language and claim that those who don't take that effort are 'intolerant racists' and culturally insensitive. Yet you've never put in the effort to understand what people around you are saying. You will do anything to make the people around you think that you're smart; hence why you care more about being able to speak than understand. Even a quick check of your blog dealing with fine wines shows this quite clearly. Really, truly understanding a language is very difficult (near impossible for someone who starts after puberty), and to ridicule and attack someone who's just learning shows how self-centered you are.
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I wonder if you consider it equally ignorant to move to a country and not even attempt to learn the language?
From Wikipedia's entry of "Languages of the United States" [wikipedia.org]:
Although the United States currently has no official language, English has long been the de facto national language, which is spoken by about 82% of the population as a native language. (emphasis mine)
From Wikipedia's entry of "Languages of France" [wikipedia.org]:
There are a number of languages of France. The French language is by far the most widely spoken and the only official language of France. (emphasis mine)
And while there is currently a bill waiting in the House to change the official language of the United States, it is only because of pressure by our President who believes that you should learn the language to live in our country. The "melting pot" or "salad" comparisons of our country's "welcoming" of years' gone by are now replaced with the ignorant suggestions that we eliminate those same ideals we have held since our inception.
What would you have done differently, if presented with a drunk driver who had zero command of the common language of your country? How do you expect the cops to behave in a situation like this? Really, I'm curious.
I work in the admissions office of a community college and I work daily with those individuals that do not have a command of the English language or are otherwise difficult to communicate with verbally or by writing (you would be surprised by the number of people who grew up in this country and should know English 100% but still spell phonetically or cannot adequately convey their thoughts to others). I take my time and attempt to treat every individual with the same respect, patience, and understanding that I am capable of.
This particular drunk driver, aside from being intoxicated and not understanding English as well as the arresting officers, did nothing that I could see that deserved the ire of those arresting him. I can't tell you if these particular officers were trained poorly, if they were having a bad day, or if they are always lack professionalism but in my experiences during traffic stops with them, I haven't been treated nearly as poorly as the two I have described in my original post. So, I would hope that if I was an officer of the law with arresting powers that I would be able to apply the courtesy and patience that I do day in and out with the same population I currently work with. Obviously their job is quite a bit different than mine in many ways but I don't see how police officers in the situation I encountered are any less customer service oriented than my job.
I hope that answers your questions adequately.
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I love the way that was written. I am sure you didn't do it intentionally but it's spoken like many Americans I know and is fairly arrogant. Using the words "force" and "visitor" as well as putting quotes around your choice word "gifts" really shows how you feel about these people and it's quite sad IMHO.
These people are not necessarily "long term visitors", they may be very interested in living here permanently and we shouldn't "force" anyone to do anything. This used to be America, land of the free and not some fucking shithole where everyone is an arrogant fucktwit douchebag that believes are still the world's "Superpower" even though we are slipping in the rankings of everything worldwide.
Pointing out that the traditions, customs, and languages of these immigrants are 'gifts' seems to me like you feel that they are unimportant compared to the "greater culture" that has been amassed by the immigrants to the United States in the last 200 or so years (most of which in the last 120). Just because the current loud-mouth consensus of the United States happens to be that we should ignore those that are interested in keeping their heritage does not mean that the rest of us need to fall into that. That thinking is not open and certainly doesn't meet the ideals we have held so close to being American all those years ago. Honestly, it's disappointing and sad that we have been reduced to this.
Re:What do you do it. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
It's certainly advantageous, and I'd encourage them to learn it, but it's ultimately their choice. And I can't realistically expect them to learn it in a day(how long had that person been living in the US anyway? If I move to South Korea to hang out with the old people, I'll try to learn Korean. I'll probably eventually become pretty good at it. But for quite a few years I expect I'll suck quite badly. As long as I'm able to make do though, I don't see any really good reason to restrict my freedom to move there.
What about people born here, who have problems with language(english or otherwise)? Should someone who's suffering from a stroke-induced Broca's aphasia [wikipedia.org] be forced to leave? How about dysarthria [wikipedia.org]? I bet you'll have an easier time understanding that moved-here-from-Korea-a-month-ago guy than someone with pronounced dysarthria.
Re:Not all our rights. (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Similarly, I was thinking about helping out Habitat for Humanity, but they don't work for gun rights, so I decided not to.
The ACLU fights for some rights. Maybe they pick and choose for poor reasons, but they aren't fighting against gun rights, so their failure to fight for them is no more relevant than the NRA's failure to fight malaria.
aclu vs. police vs. the residents (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sorry, you should drive around North City. It's sad. If you cant, pull up http://64.218.68.50/slmpdweb/crimestats/ [64.218.68.50] or http://64.218.68.50/slmpdweb/safecity/index.htm [64.218.68.50] and see the sad nature of these neighborhoods. Police actually admit to not patrolling certain parts of District 9 (a specific area of North City) late at night, for officer safety [sorry, no citation, just actual conversations with police].
I in no way defend the police acting poorly, but I feel the ACLU is off here.
I guess that's why I moved out of the city too.
This is just how downtown, the police fear dealing with any of the homeless because they will get sued by a local reverend. http://www.aclu-em.org/legal/legaldocket/recentca
9/10 vs 1/10...which is the bigger number? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACLU doesn't oppose gun rights, just as the NRA doesn't oppose the other 9 Amendments, but if someone is faulting the ACLU for being selective, it seems they'd be much more critical of the NRA. But the aren't, and we don't see the same argument used against the NRA, even though it would be vastly more appropriate for them. Why?
Perhaps because many NRA members happen to believe that warrantless surveillance is okay, torture-induced confessions should be allowed, prayer should be part of the school day, habeus corpus only helps the terrorists, and so on? Not all pro-gun people are like that, but if you're around long enough you see a rough correlation between being pro-gun and a certain tepidness towards aggressive defense of the 9/10 of the Bill of Rights that the ACLU champions.
Similarly, ACLU types (myself included) are generally skeptical that guns need to be as available as they are. So though charges are bandied about of whom is more faithful to the Bill of Rights and who isn't, it still falls out along political lines. But even so, 9/10 is still a larger number than 1/10.
Re:Make friends, not enemies. (Score:3, Insightful)
"ok, go home take all your tapes all your albums and burn them."
--Bill Hicks
The fact is that they will be whatever types of influence on society they'll be. Exactly like everyone else.
Would you care to refute "nobody gets hurt" with an actual argument instead of just a denial? Now be very careful. Almost everyone who tries actually makes an argument for the harm of drug laws rather than the harm of drugs.
It's not up to the cops to decide which actions are lawful or not.
In fact it entirely is. If they didn't make such a decision then they'd never arrest anyone. The courts decide if they were right (or if the "criminal" has a good lawyer). The cops could quite easily decide to ignore them and go after some actual crime that harms people. You know, do the fucking job I pay them for?
So the cop shouldn't be the "bad guy" when enforcing narcotics laws.
Sorry, but that excuse went out at Nuremberg. Enforcing criminal laws is a criminal act. Drug laws are immensely harmful and have no hope of ever providing any positive results. Congress had no right or positive reason to pass them, so enforcing them is an act of aggression against the nation.
I'm sorry you feel that if Congress passes a law criminalizing your daily dog walk (or whatever) that the cops who kidnap you and shove you in a cage to get beaten and raped for doing something that simple are the good guys and you are scum.
Maybe you shouldn't let some sleazy politicians define your character for you.