More police fun

[TrueMetis]

Wait wait wait. Videotaping is now a right? When did that happen?

All in favour of putting cameras fucking everywhere raise your hand. Sure it's Orwellian but it would solve most of this shit. Hell most of them don't even need to be real.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Who is going to monitor them?

[TrueMetis]

Who is going to monitor them?

The biggest issue to me wouldn't be who monitors them, if we bothered to monitor them at all, but who would have access to the raw footage.

[Greywolf2375]

Ironic that this was in the news today:

http://www.wggb.com/2012/03/05/mass-appeal-court-allows-for-taping-of-police/

[Sturn]

Ironic that this was in the news today:

http://www.wggb.com/...ping-of-police/

As a popo I'm not scared of the actual taping. There are other things I'm worried about such as the selective editing (see posts above) that makes the incident appear something it wasn't tarnishing my good character or even getting me fired.

Who wants a camera in their face while at work? It's human nature not to want it there unless your job happens to be in the celebrity field. Even if I worked at McDonalds I wouldn't want a camera in my face 8 hours a day. I know, I know, police need to be scrutinized more, I get it. A corrupt McDonalds worker's worse crime may just be eating free Big Mac's on the job, a corrupt cop is something much, much worse. But, it still makes me uncomfortable even when my own police camera is running. I'm human.

Some jurisdictions have proposed "shoulder cams" being run 100% of the time while cops are on-duty. I really don't want my co-workers getting glimpces of Sturn Junior (not talking about my child).

I read the link above, and I can already see some problems with the statute based upon the article (I don't have the actual statute wording hopefully it isn't vague but they usually are):

"An appeals court ruling in Boston says people can record police officers while they are doing their job as long as it doesn’t hinder police and it’s done in the open.

This is way to open to interpretation and just made the job of Mass. police tougher and more unsafe. How?

So I tell someone to get back and out of the way while myself and 2 other officers are trying to wrestle a large suspect to the ground. I've already had to glance the camera man's way to make sure that camera isn't something else. My attention was already pulled away from the real threat so he is already making my job more difficult and unsafe. Then I notice the guy with the camera getting closer and closer as we are trying to cuff this guy. Is he a friend of the suspect? For safety's sake I still have to keep my attention on him while trying to help subdue the real suspect. He doesn't back off, I keep telling him to stay away while he is yelling, "I'm just taping! The Court of Appeals said I could do this! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" He now has the attention of 2 of 3 of the cops trying to arrest the man. I make a decision and arrest him for Obstruction of Justice. My report says I told him to back off more then once and he wouldn't. He says he was just taping (he was) and the law is very vague on just how close he can get (it doesn't say anything like "stay back 10 feet or more") so he is found not guilty and tries to sue me in civil court. Fun, fun.

So the next time I just ignore him? Put my back to him? Assume that camera is a camera, he isn't a friend of the suspect, and he isn't a threat himself? I've had a friend shot in the back of the head while on duty. This ruling may make some police in Mass. ignore what could be a threat for fear of getting sued, getting in trouble for making a false arrest, etc.

If this ruling comes to my state I guess I will just get used to it like all of the other rulings that have made my job more unsafe and difficult. But, please understand that police who complain about cameras in their faces may not be complaining because they are corrupt, there are many other honorable reasons.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sturn,

You make a very fair point about the tactical difficulties faced by police when being filmed. The tactical problems faced by officers are why, when I am pulled over, I'm polite I have my DL, Registration and, proof of insurance out with my hands on my steering wheel. I want the officer to know I am not a tactical threat.

That said, because of the nature of police work I still believe police should be subject to being filmed. Nothing the police do, in the course of your work where you are in contact with the public, is private.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/12/when-police-videos-go-missing

Of course, police aren't the only ones in danger of selective editing, are they?

...1,300 dash cam videos from the Nashville police department have been erased...

...The officer who made the unusual arrest claimed there was no video of the incident. The woman's lawyers were finally able to obtain the video last week, though portions of it are missing...

...beating at the hands of riot police after a basketball game last year was captured by several cell phones, but was mysteriously missing from the footage taken by a police surveillance camera pointed at the spot where the beating took place. The police officer in charge of the campus surveillance system is married to one of the officers who was disciplined in the McKenna case...

... Prince George's County officials never gave McCarren's attorneys dash cam video of the incident. Their excuse? They said all seven dashboard cameras were malfunctioning on the day McCarren was pulled over...

...Birmingham police beat an already-unconscious driver after he crashed during a high-speed police chase. One officer turned the dash camera off in mid-beating. The police department then gave the district attorney's office a version of the video with the police beating edited out...

But, of course, it's the police that need to worry about selective editing. They might look silly on TV, or even get put on 2 weeks of paid leave! Us mundanes on the other hand must deal with piddling consequences such as beatings, prison, or death.

[Greywolf2375]

http://reason.com/bl...deos-go-missing

Of course, police aren't the only ones in danger of selective editing, are they?

...1,300 dash cam videos from the Nashville police department have been erased...

...The officer who made the unusual arrest claimed there was no video of the incident. The woman's lawyers were finally able to obtain the video last week, though portions of it are missing...

...beating at the hands of riot police after a basketball game last year was captured by several cell phones, but was mysteriously missing from the footage taken by a police surveillance camera pointed at the spot where the beating took place. The police officer in charge of the campus surveillance system is married to one of the officers who was disciplined in the McKenna case...

... Prince George's County officials never gave McCarren's attorneys dash cam video of the incident. Their excuse? They said all seven dashboard cameras were malfunctioning on the day McCarren was pulled over...

...Birmingham police beat an already-unconscious driver after he crashed during a high-speed police chase. One officer turned the dash camera off in mid-beating. The police department then gave the district attorney's office a version of the video with the police beating edited out...

But, of course, it's the police that need to worry about selective editing. They might look silly on TV, or even get put on 2 weeks of paid leave! Us mundanes on the other hand must deal with piddling consequences such as beatings, prison, or death.

I don't think anyone above actually said that police are the only ones that need to worry about it. Since this discussionis about the police, they are the topic and how it might impact their ability to do their job. The example I gave above about the Dr's applies in exactly the same way - they don't want video tapes because of HIPPAA laws, because I as an anxious father could interfere with the procedure, etc.

[Sturn]

http://reason.com/bl...deos-go-missing

Of course, police aren't the only ones in danger of selective editing, are they?

Nope they are not, we agree.

But, of course, it's the police that need to worry about selective editing. They might look silly on TV, or even get put on 2 weeks of paid leave! Us mundanes on the other hand must deal with piddling consequences such as beatings, prison, or death.

Your argument is I may only lose my job, my pension, my house, etc. so I shouldn't worry about selective editing?

Selective editing by someone with an agenda by anyone, police or citizen, is wrong. Can't we agree on that?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Your argument is I may only lose my job, my pension, my house, etc. so I shouldn't worry about selective editing?

My argument is that the consequences for you if someone else does the wrong this is pretty much a minor inconvenience. I challenge you to show me a place where what you describe has occurred based on a selectively edited video.

The consequences for someone else if you do the wrong thing are severe and lifelong. A single arrest, for any reason, has a massive effect on someone's lifetime earning potential. A conviction is a career death sentence.

[Sturn]

I challenge you to show me a place where what you describe has occurred based on a selectively edited video.

I challenge you to show me a place where a police beating has occurred because of police editing of a video. It's the cover-up after the fact, not the cause. I DO agree that more video cameras out there = corrupt cops may behave more nicely.

The consequences for someone else if you do the wrong thing are severe and lifelong. A single arrest, for any reason, has a massive effect on someone's lifetime earning potential. A conviction is a career death sentence.

I completely agree. But again, the edited/deleted police video is not the cause of the false arrest, the corrupt cop is.

Please try to understand why a non-corrupt cop resents the harassment by citizens towards them that should be directed towards the corrupt cops instead of us all. A.i. regarding this topic of pissed off citizens with cameras which could lead to selective editing making my life/job worse (unwarranted investigations, safety issues, etc, see above) when I'm not a corrupt cop at all.

[snake]

Long, and a bit over-the-top article on policing and Homeland Security in the US. Link.

Tampa is hosting the Republican National Convention this summer and so got $50 million to upgrade security. In relation to that this excerpt was very funny,

When Mulhern suggested that some of the windfall $50 million might be used to help Tampa's growing homeless population, Mayor Bob Buckhorn set her straight. "We can't be diverted from what the appropriate use of that money is, and that is to provide a safe environment for the convention. It's not to be used for pet projects or things totally unrelated to security."

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

When Mulhern suggested that some of the windfall $50 million might be used to help Tampa's growing homeless population, Mayor Bob Buckhorn set her straight. "We can't be diverted from what the appropriate use of that money is, and that is to provide a safe environment for the convention. It's not to be used for pet projects or things totally unrelated to security."

Security = preemptive arrests of possible protesters, setting up cages 10 miles away in "free speech zones" and generally keeping any of the exalted from having their presence befouled by a mere mundane.

This is my second big problem with the police. They are ALWAYS on the side of the powerful. NONE of the cops in Tampa are going to say "Hey, these people have really good points that their government is not addressing, and rights that are being violated. Lets march them down to the convention and cage in the politicians until we get some answers." Nope, they're automatically on the side of the abusive and corrupt, and are itching for the chance to extend that abuse and corruption to the masses.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/13/meet-maj-joseph-floyd-the-most-crooked-c

Reason magazine's "most corrupt cop in America". This guy had a record before becoming a cop, then was fired from 3 different police departments before finding a department that would let him get his concentration-camp-guard on.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TSA pats down three year old in wheelchair but not the parents of the child:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/19/tsa-pats-down-3-year-old-_n_1361843.html

I feel safer already.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/fbi-bend-suspend-law/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57403496-504083/albuquerque-police-involved-in-shootings-got-union-checks-report-says/

Further evidence that bad cops are not outliers or exceptions, but part of official police policy.

From the first link:

The FBI taught its agents that they could sometimes “bend or suspend the law” in their hunt for terrorists and criminals. Other FBI instructional material, discovered during a months-long review of FBI counterterrorism training, warned agents against shaking hands with “Asians” and said Arabs were prone to “Jekyll & Hyde temper tantrums.”

These are just some of the disturbing results of the FBI’s six-month review into how the Bureau trained its counterterrorism agents. That review, now complete, did not result in a single disciplinary action for any instructor

...

The FBI’s counterterrorism training review was prompted by a Danger Room series revealing the Bureau taught agents that “mainstream” Muslims were “violent“; that Islam made its followers want to commit “genocide“; and that an FBI intelligence analyst compared Islam to the Death Star from Star Wars.

Yes, that is correct, it is (or was until just recently) the official policy of the federal police that cops can break the law, and racial profiling is required.

Moving on to the second link:

(CBS/AP) ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The Albuquerque police union paid 20 police officers involved in shootings either $300 or $500 over the past two years, which the father of one victim called a bounty, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

Albuquerque Police Association officials told the newspaper the money is meant to cover some expenses for officers who have been involved in "critical incidents" to help them and their families "find a place to have some privacy and time to decompress outside the Albuquerque area."

But the father of a man fatally shot by police last year said the practice sounds like a reward

Kill someone, get a check from the union. And people got mad at the New Orleans Saints.

[Sci-2]

warned agents against shaking hands with “Asians”

....what? And why in quotes?

[DanteGabriel]

Fascinating article on crooked cops using "suspicious behavior" and manipulative tactics (including getting drug dogs to falsely alert) in order to confiscate people's property despite having done nothing wrong:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/31/drug-search-trekies-stopped-searched-illinois_n_1364087.html?ref=politics

Oh, here's my favorite part...

These concerns have been raised at police and sheriff departments across the country, including in King County, Wash.; Maywood, Calif.; Gary, Ind.; Cincinnati, Covington, Texas, Aurora, Colo., San Diego; Spokane, Wash., Louisville, Ken.; Milwaukee; and the entire state of Florida.

The entire state of Florida! Ye gods.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I love how Reichart was fired for misconduct and a Court forced his rehired due to procedural problems. Shouldn't police, like Judges, be required to avoid even the appearence of immpropriety?

[Serious Callers Only]