Should citizens be able to video record police at work?

[BT]

What if he were dealing with a NON-homicidal cop, like the one who jammed the broken handle of a toilet plunger up Abner Louima's ass, or the sicko thugs who beat Rodney King to a pulp?

The same rule applies.

Why would they restrain themselves, they would simply take the camera and beat the crap out of the kid and say he was resisting arrest.

 

[yellow_crane]

<<However if he was dealing with a homicidal cop, i doubt the camera with or without sound would be much of a match for a well placed bullet to the head.>>

Always with the extremes.  What if he were dealing with a NON-homicidal cop, like the one who jammed the broken handle of a toilet plunger up Abner Louima's ass, or the sicko thugs who beat Rodney King to a pulp?

The only extreme I am worried about is the current level of extremist overkill exhibited by American cops from coast to coast.

For years people have watched Cops, a Fox product.

Gradually, the violence exhibited by the cops on this show has increased, the American people the more innured.  Now, the show is almost too arrogant to watch.  And you won't see any Momo Giancannas--all of the enemy in this show is the trailer-park trash, the losers with tattoos . . . the attritioned ones . . . the unemployed, and of course those who, when subjected to sudden ambush, forced to lie facedown at gunpoint, and roughly cuffed, a beaming anntenae on to pick up the slightest resistence, ready to beat him "into submission," might ask why.  Nothing seems to piss the current cop off more that having the temerity to ask why one is being beaten--it seems to quicken the juice that makes them pound things.

What was appalling in terms of authority abuse and physical contact in arrests only a few years ago is now almost boring.  The average American now witnesses massive over-copping and hurries home, hoping the cops didn't see him.  In the ghettoes, they have long known that calling the cops to report a felon could be like flipping a coin. In areas outside of the swell cocoons, the blue has always been a dark blue.

During the Sixties, there was exhibited some overkill by the cops, but the difference then was that the press was right there to get the story.   Now, reporters and photograhers have learned to keep their distance or receive the same rude behavior from the cops.  That means that the counter-balance has been removed.

These days, reporters are expected to grovel at the gates as if they were salespeople trying to land an interview with a CEO.

One can also see this currently in the coal fields: the press are kept a full mile away from the accident, I am sure at the request of the lying shitbag owner, and reporting from Iraq translates into participating in one of the most perilous jobs on the big list.   That has not been the history of American reporting in other wars.   

The Sixties had a beneficial effect on the police.  If the cops over-reacted, the world was told, and they adjusted--never with contrition really, but they adjusted.   This had a beneficial effect of cauterizing away the potential for overt violence.

Now cops exhibit almost shameless spin around their own mistakes, no matter how obvious they are.

[BT]

as has been stated prviously most police cruisers are equipt with dash cams.

So i don't believe they as an organization or a class are purposely striving to remain in the shadows.

[Michael Tee]

<<The same rule applies.

<<Why would they restrain themselves, they would simply take the camera and beat the crap out of the kid and say he was resisting arrest.>>

The answer obviously is more kids, more cameras.  Cameras aimed from third-floor windows, cameras surreptitiously pointed from inside cars.  Cameras with internet links so the pictures are beamed to safe storage in seconds.  Any way you look at it, technology in the hands of the people is finally bringing the Long Day of the Pig to an end.

[BT]

Cameras aimed from third floor windows are probably legal in PA as long as they don't capture sound.

In my experience it is unwise to taunt a man with a badge and a gun.

[Michael Tee]

<<In my experience it is unwise to taunt a man with a badge and a gun.>>

Is it wiser to let him pulverize citizens at his pleasure?  I think the day when all the citizens live in fear of rogue cops will be a very sad day for everyone except the cops themselves.  Fortunately some of these camera kids aren't so much worried about what's "unwise" but concentrate on fighting the battle for all of us, the "wise" included.

You hope to live in a society of laws.  If the cops respond to camera kids with bullets and the courts don't punish accordingly, the next step is for the kids with cameras to become kids with guns and cameras (thank God for the Second Amendment indeed!)  not for the kids to abandon their courageous struggle against police brutality.

[BT]

Is it wiser to let him pulverize citizens at his pleasure?

I'm not following your logic. Why would a camera stop a cop from pulverizing someone? And secondly the PA law allows filming, it doesn't allow recording of sound.

And now you are suggesting that kids pack weapons and film random cops as they please in hopes of either provoking an incident or less likely catching a rogue cop in the act.

Is this advice you would give your son?

[Michael Tee]

<<I'm not following your logic. Why would a camera stop a cop from pulverizing someone? >>

Assuming the courts do their job (probably not a very wise assumption to make given the current composition of your Supreme Court) I would think the courts, assisted by camera evidence, would set such appropriate penalties on one cop for pulverizing a citizen that other cops might be deterred by the prospect of it happening to them.   And if cops learn the hard way that cameras can transmit to safe storage via wireless, the camera might very well intimidate them then and there from inflicting needless, pointless violence on their helpless victims.

<<And now you are suggesting that kids pack weapons and film random cops as they please in hopes of either provoking an incident or less likely catching a rogue cop in the act.>>

I was responding to a hypothetical situation postulated by you, but it wasn't a very smart response.  If we lived in a society where cops could pulverize citizens at will and camera evidence was easily destroyed or negated, then in effect we would be living in a police state.  In a police state, kids with cameras would be an irrelevance.  The advice I would give to my son in such a situation would be:  leave.  Get the hell out.  If you can't get out, either resign yourself to living in a police state or choose armed rebellion.  That's a very personal choice.  I wouldn't say either way.  It's a real value judgement.  Only the person living in a police state can make the choice to fight or submit.

[gipper]

Of course one has the right to video-tape "police at work" in a routine traffic stop or other such, non-emergent, non-dangerous, everyday execution of duties. What about the concept of "freedom" is obscure? The only countervailing factor is a legitimate claim of "obstruction," unfortunately a fluid and malleable concept. I have many, mostly retired police friends of various ranks. One, a gregarious former State Trooper here, drunkenly (but soberly to him) announced at a party I had here that "police are trained never to retreat," an obvious bullshit comment from my standpoint (for example, hostage situations? withering counterfire?) but one he insisted upon with all that was left that night of his professional sensibilities. The topic that sparked the discussion was the fatal police shooting of a floridly psychotic schizophrenic on a New Orleans street, a maybe 400-lb. man (thus not too mobile), who had a paring knife in his hand, refused to drop it or surrender, but was surrounded by a secure and spacious multi-cop perimeter. He was shot, repeatedly, when he "lunged" at the cordon. Why not back off, I said, and let him lumber til he falls? Anyhow, realistically -- that "mandate of control" -- is the chief obstacle to a hassle-free video session with your local "finest in blue."

[Michael Tee]

I remember that case and we had similar incidents here.  It seems the mentally ill are frequent victims of police brutality where avenues of retreat are open to the cops but not taken.  Even where there was no risk of the victim getting away.  There's no question that videotaping would have had a significant effect on the outcome of some of these shootings, but there are also cases where retreat is no option because the victim seems to be going for a weapon and the cop has just seconds to react.  Even here, videotaping could either help the cop by showing objective evidence of a reason to fear a firearm being produced by the victim or help avenge the victim by showing there was no objective threat to the cop.  I think not only should kids be allowed to videotape cops, but audiotape should be added as well, because the aural environment is a part of the total environment and can often help to explain it.

Privacy concerns are bullshit here due to the deadly force authorization.  If the guy is authorized to use deadly force he should be prepared to sacrifice a little privacy.  He doesn't get the right to use the force AND cloak the use of it by citing his privacy concerns.  If he's that concerned about privacy, he should consider a different field of employment.

[gipper]

We're in agreement, Michael, except on one point: I don't credit the "privacy" claim one iota because it is a public job being done in public. Also, audio is not an issue with me, either; it should be allowed.

[Michael Tee]

I guess, domer, because we're "socialistic" up here - -  at least in the eyes of the lunatic right - - we're more indulgent of employee rights, certainly privacy rights.  Employers can't videotape their employees at work due to privacy concerns, and I don't think it matters whether the employer is private industry or the government.  If the employee wants to scratch his ass when no one's around, he doesn't want it caught on tape and that wish is respected.  Public or private employment, public or private property.  But I think deadly force would be the only distinguishing factor I could think of that could allow exceptions to be made for cops.

[Amianthus]

Does anyone have a rght to not be photographed or videoed in a public setting?

No; if you are in public, you can be photographed or filmed. You only have a right to not have your image sold. So, if someone is recording for personal use, there is no right to privacy in a public setting. If they're recording for use in a money making venture of any sort, then you have a right to privacy and / or compensation.