Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Citizens Given Video Cameras To Monitor Police

Comments Filter:
  • I do believe... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:19PM (#19611465)

    ...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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:25PM (#19611571)
    Cameras don't seem to deter the crooked cops in Las Vegas much. Then again, they did actually manage to take their victim to a place they knew the cameras mostly wouldn't see, and to post a guard near the doors so that any witnesses would be stopped before they saw anything... But you'd think an airport would be a difficult place to beat innocents. Seems not.

    Soldier beaten at McCarran Airport Parts 1 & 2:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kiPuyssrko [youtube.com]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQb7Aw2utRk [youtube.com]
  • Re:I do believe... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Endymion ( 12816 ) <slashdot...org@@@thoughtnoise...net> on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:27PM (#19611609) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:I do believe... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WarDog07 ( 743376 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:32PM (#19611661)
    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?

    Because who knows who out there that they didn't see is also recording?

    I just wonder how many of these tapes that make into court will show the incident from beginning to end, or only the part that shows what the person who recorded it wants you to see... just like the evening news. Like with a lot of stores CCTV systems, when it comes time to grab the tape, and the store employee is accused of assaulting someone... all of a sudden they "forgot" to put a tape in that day.

    It could be good or bad, cameras don't know how to lie.

  • Re:Right... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Endymion ( 12816 ) <slashdot...org@@@thoughtnoise...net> on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:33PM (#19611679) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Re:I do believe... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:41PM (#19611785)

    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 incidents where police officers act with complete impunity and abuse. Then, usually, after they finish abusing you, you get arrested and go through our joyful system anyway. My relatively tame experience, with its accompanying court procedural gauntlet upended a good six months of my life, and it only gets worse if the situation is actually 'serious', in the sense of allegations of abuse. It is a tough cost to bear, and while it has to be done by someone (as you rightly point out) I wish only that the cost to individuals trying to change things wasn't so life-damagingly steep. It is an idle (and some might say pointless) wish, and someone needed to, as you say, force the issue anyway, regardless of the police response.

    I suppose it wouldn't be half as bad if our culture didn't treat people with criminal records as if they had leprosy. Convicts, like as not, need jobs and opportunities too in order to live. Deprived of those, where can they turn but back to crime? Most people, for this reason, are not willing to risk criinal charges in order to pursue a just cause. Wasn't ther recently a BS wiretapping charge against someone videotaping a police officer? Fighting charges like those costs good money, and you can still lose and end up with a record.

  • by Normal Dan ( 1053064 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:46PM (#19611855)
    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.
  • Anybody Else (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:46PM (#19611863)
    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.

  • by LuxMaker ( 996734 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:47PM (#19611883) Journal
    You attempt to "police the police".
    You are a defender of the U.S. Constitution.
    You are a lone individual.

    http://www.welfarestate.com/pamphlet/ [welfarestate.com]

    In other words, this program to record the police seems like a good way to get on the FBI's watchlist.
  • by UseTheSource ( 66510 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:48PM (#19611905) Homepage Journal
    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 of Pennsylvania.
  • by BlackCobra43 ( 596714 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:51PM (#19611951)
    ...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.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:53PM (#19611995) Journal
    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.

    The cameras are needed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22, 2007 @02:56PM (#19612027)
    I support this move because I hope it will prove more officers to be in the right than in the wrong. Working as a STL city cop is a wretched job. The low pay and low respect goes without saying. The police officers work in incredibly dangerous parts of the city and are in real danger to their lives. A crackhead will not hesitate to take an officers life. If an officer takes physical action to protect him/herself then I think the public should understand that. However, if the officer(s) abuse power (rare but it does happen) then I think the public should rightfully be upset. As it is now, the public is upset over either action because it is the "law's" word against the "innocent's". Officer's can and do get fired for protecting their own lives because the Police Department does not have the money to fight lawsuits.

    As it stands now I can only worry that this will make St. Louis all the much more timid (and thus ineffective) in tackling its out-of-control crime problem.
  • 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?)

  • Re:Right... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Aim Here ( 765712 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @03:00PM (#19612107)
    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...
  • by BenVis ( 795521 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @03:09PM (#19612257)
    There is a trial going on right now where a police officer shot an off-duty airman named Elio Carrion. Carrion was shot three times, but he managed to survive. Anyway, a man across the street got the shooting on tape, and it pretty clearly shows Carrion complying with instructions to get up off the ground when the officer shoots him. There's some pretty good coverage of the case here: http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_6200154 [dailybulletin.com]

    The officer's defense has been that he thought Carrion was reaching for a weapon. The trial isn't over yet, but this case points out to me that cameras aren't going to be enough to prevent abuse. Of course, until the trial is over we can't really say if this was a case of abuse or not. I guess cameras can help, but if the officer's word is assumed to be infallible, even cameras aren't a real solution.

    As an aside, the guy who taped the event came forward to investigators on the scene later that night. The investigators noted that the guy seemed nervous and not everything he said made sense. In trial, the guy's response was pretty much: "yeah! i just saw a cop shoot a guy for no reason. It didn't really put me in a mood to be comfortable around other cops."
  • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @03:14PM (#19612333)
    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.
  • Re:Anybody Else (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @03:16PM (#19612353)
    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...
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @03:19PM (#19612391) Journal
    1. First, We are talking 1982.
    2. 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).
    3. When I told the attorney, they laughed and said that nothing would happen. And I KNEW they were correct.

    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.
  • Re:I do believe... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by WarDog07 ( 743376 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @04:40PM (#19613507)

    Somehow, I did miss something again. I never said that I support those laws, merely that I enforce them in my professional capacity. I get paid in part to enforce laws, not make policy decisions. That is best left to private citizens (like you and me when I am not on duty).

    When people mention legalization, they tend to mean only marijuana. I myself, wouldn't mind seeing booze go the way of the dodo... I've seen the bottle ruin more lives than the joint or pipe. That may be though because it is legal, and those people have addiction prone personalities, and that was what got them hooked. Maybe they would have ruined themselves for crack if you could buy it at 7-11.

  • by AmazingRuss ( 555076 ) on Friday June 22, 2007 @05:19PM (#19614031)
    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.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...