If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(STLToday)   ACLU to hand out cameras to monitor police. This should end well   (stltoday.com) divider line 193
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

9022 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2007 at 12:02 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



193 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-06-21 07:54:47 PM
www.copwatch.com

/not that unusual, used to be branches in all major cities
//they should be held to a higher standard
///since they are allowed to tase us to death if they so choose
 
2007-06-21 07:55:02 PM
Apparently subby doesn't like civil liberties. My buddy got arrested in NYC for video taping a cop beating a person standing on the sidewalk watching a mass transit ride. The cop also broke his 5K camera. Fark the police.
 
2007-06-21 07:57:11 PM
What's so asinine about preventing public servants from abusing their power? Cops should not be above the law.
 
2007-06-21 08:00:09 PM
I can't imagine any reason to add objective oversight to the process.
 
2007-06-21 08:21:19 PM
I've no real problem with this action, though this statement from TFA is a bit disingenuous:

"In meetings with St. Louis Police Chief Joe Mokwa, we stressed that we are just as likely to catch the police officers in the course of positive behavior as well as negative."

This is true, but it I do not suspect that anyone will be sending in footage of positive behavior along with little thank you notes and a postcard. Of course, positive behavior is their job and that isn't required. The statement is a little silly, is all.

But again, there's nothing that I can see about this that is wrong.
 
2007-06-21 08:37:40 PM
i've yet to hear a rational explantion why every cops's badge is not fitted with an always-on audio capable video camera that broadcasts to a locked tamperproof recorder in thier patrol car. It would save honest cops the hassles of false accusations and it woult let us fire the other 75% of the force and start over
 
2007-06-21 08:38:36 PM
The problem I have with it is that the footage could be edited in a way to make the officer look bad, or the footage could be taken out of context and make the officer's actions look unwarranted when, under the totality of the situation, they were warranted.

It is certainly wrong for a police officer to abuse their power... but it is also wrong to falsely accuse them of abusing their power and convict them based on shoddy evidence. Sometimes the police do have to use force to be effective, one cop being wrongly convicted of abusing their power would have a chilling effect on what others do. Instead of risking a confrontation that could lead to these charges, they may turn the other way. That certainly wouldn't bode well for the innocent civilians being preyed upon by the thugs whom the cops are out to catch (using force if need be.)

I don't think these people are doing themselves any favors, it could lead to higher crime and lower police activity... which leads to higher insurance rates and lower property values. But it's a free country.
 
2007-06-21 08:42:31 PM
In other news, local pawn shops to be full of brand new cameras.
 
2007-06-21 08:43:05 PM
Magorn: i've yet to hear a rational explantion why every cops's badge is not fitted with an always-on audio capable video camera that broadcasts to a locked tamperproof recorder in thier patrol car. It would save honest cops the hassles of false accusations and it woult let us fire the other 75% of the force and start over

Easy, the unions would never let it happen. The police aren't always on patrol dealing with the public (which is when such recording would be appropriate.) Sometimes they're talking to women who have been sexually assaulted and don't want to report the crime to the police... recording that conversation could be a crime. Sometimes the officers are on break, talking to their loved ones on their phones. Would YOU want those conversations taped by your employer? Sometimes they're using the bathroom... again, not something I want anyone to record.
 
2007-06-21 09:00:24 PM
Is the ironic tag broken?
 
2007-06-21 09:50:40 PM
In many areas of the country, you can be arrested for photographing or photographing the police. Many people already have been arrested for simply videotaping the police doing their jobs.

Videotaping the police is a very dangerous thing to do! One man was beaten by police for simply pointing a camera at them.


http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56173

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/06/29/188221.shtml

http://english.people.com.cn/200207/12/eng20020712_99588.shtml
 
2007-06-21 10:40:49 PM
Asinine?

Yeah, we all know that ALL cops are fine, upstanding individuals who never overstep the boundaries of their authority. And on the rare occasions when they do, their co-workers can be counted on to report abuses to their superiors, who will quickly enact a thorough and open investigation of the alleged abuse. So it's totally unnecessary to police the police.
 
2007-06-21 10:50:08 PM
colovion: The problem I have with it is that the footage could be edited in a way to make the officer look bad, or the footage could be taken out of context and make the officer's actions look unwarranted when, under the totality of the situation, they were warranted.

That's true of any video evidence that's presented in court.

Believe it or not, forensic experts can actually tell if bits have been cut out.

Sorry, try again.
 
2007-06-21 10:52:00 PM
I bet the cameras would only record the part where the cops are beating the suspect and miss the little part at the beginning where he reached for a cops gun or tried to stab one of the officers.

/Why does fark hate police officers?
//I am betting many of them are just trying to keep our asses safe
///You dont see Fark hating black people because some of them have committed crimes
////Just wondering
 
2007-06-21 10:53:52 PM
SchlingFo: Sorry, try again.

Yeah but do you think the media will show the whole clip or just the part where the white cops are kicking the shiat out of the black kid? Which gets more ratings: the truth or sensationalism?

/not saying cameras are a bad thing
 
2007-06-21 10:55:49 PM
Postal Penguin,

Yeah but do you think the media will show the whole clip or just the part where the white cops are kicking the shiat out of the black kid? Which gets more ratings: the truth or sensationalism?

/not saying cameras are a bad thing


Oh, the media is going to show what sells.

Thankfully, the courts will show the whole video. And, that's where people are convicted or found innocent.

If the cops aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide.
 
2007-06-21 11:01:38 PM
on the plus side, it can get you arrested for wiretapping!

And then acquitted when the DA shows a modicum of common sense.

article here: http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1182392732222890.x ml&coll=1

too lazy to html.
 
2007-06-21 11:02:56 PM
SchlingFo

I don't think he meant edited a la Rock Bottom on the Simpsons ("Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further"), but more like what happened with Rodney King.

The first 15 seconds or so of the tape were edited by all news outlets, which cut out the part of him lunging at the officers. Sure, the footage in its entirety was shown in court, however, the public had already made up its mind based on the edited footage.
 
2007-06-21 11:08:46 PM
SchlingFo: That's true of any video evidence that's presented in court.

Believe it or not, forensic experts can actually tell if bits have been cut out.

Sorry, try again.


That still doesn't cover the chance that they won't start taping until force is used, thus not taping what lead to the use of force. Then it would still be the cop's word vs. the word of the offender and the word of a person who hates cops plus a biased tape only showing half of the story.

But hey, if they want the cops to stop patrolling their area and leave them on their own, they're free to do so. I just think it's a stupid idea to piss off the cops. The administration can say whatever they want, the cops on the street aren't going to risk losing their jobs (or worse) to patrol an area that shows this kind of distrust in them. I wouldn't put it past the thugs who live there to use the cameras to their advantage, that's their MO for chris'sake!

It's just a bad idea IMHO. But I don't live there, so it's no skin off my back.
 
2007-06-21 11:12:15 PM
ten of spades,

Sure, the footage in its entirety was shown in court, however, the public had already made up its mind based on the edited footage.
Well, as long as the judge sees the full footage, that's all that matters. The public can think whatever they want. They're not the ones sitting on the bench.
 
2007-06-21 11:15:34 PM
colovion,

That still doesn't cover the chance that they won't start taping until force is used, thus not taping what lead to the use of force.

If an arrest isn't videotaped, it's the cop's word versus the perp's word as to what happened. The cop will say, "He ran, and I chased him and took him down using my baton."

If the person filming only films the takedown, then the cop actually has evidence helping him. The cop can say, "Look, I did a good, clean takedown. I didn't stomp him while he was down. I simply used the force necessary to take him down."

If you're not doing anything wrong, video only helps you. If the cops aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to hide.
 
2007-06-21 11:17:28 PM
SchlingFo

You're right, they're the ones doing this:

img524.imageshack.us

That's the kind of stuff I can see happening again if people want to get cute with the video editing.
 
2007-06-21 11:25:53 PM
ten_of_spades,

That's the kind of stuff I can see happening again if people want to get cute with the video editing.

For rioters who are looting and burning shiat, I have no issues at all with sending the National Guard in, locked and loaded.

Unload on the mob with a 240B, and they'll decide they have better things to do than try to destroy a city.
 
2007-06-22 12:05:17 AM
BGates: Apparently subby doesn't like civil liberties. My buddy got arrested in NYC for video taping a cop beating a person standing on the sidewalk watching a mass transit ride. The cop also broke his 5K camera.

How convenient.
 
2007-06-22 12:06:58 AM
Here's an idea: How about passing out cameras at Juneteenth rallies in order to film and ID those who drag people out of cars and beat them to death.
 
2007-06-22 12:08:12 AM
Mighty_Dog: Here's an idea: How about passing out cameras at Juneteenth rallies in order to film and ID those who drag people out of cars and beat them to death.

I like that idea!
 
2007-06-22 12:08:31 AM
Taping cops is a felony in some states, like PA and NH. It falls under "wiretapping".
 
2007-06-22 12:09:09 AM
But if the cops don't have anything to hide, they should worry about being monitored, right?

/Anyone else remember this logic?
 
2007-06-22 12:09:42 AM
I have a problem with unrestrained authority.

Who polices the police?

Supposedly the media, the public.

Fark the PO-PO's
 
2007-06-22 12:10:34 AM
You won't see me agreeing with the ACLU very often.

But here I do!
 
2007-06-22 12:10:43 AM
SchlingFo: If the cops aren't doing anything wrong, then they have nothing to hide.

This sort of reasoning gets us things like the Patriot Act. Though I suppose that if the authorities are subjected to the same as the people they're supposed to watch over, it could be a good thing.

I dunno. I'm just against anything that exacerbates the "us vs. them" mentality. If a cop pulled you over and wanted to search your car, would you just agree to that because you have nothing to hide? Doubtful; you'd want probable cause.

What really needs to be done is something about this Tactical Tommy mindset the cops have. Any time a cop refers to citizens as "civilians" with the obvious implication that he is not a "civilian", there's trouble. Cops are civilians. The military is not. Cops are supposed to protect the safety and rights of the people, the military is supposed to annihilate the enemy. Getting the two mixed up is a fast, bloody road to oppression.
 
2007-06-22 12:10:51 AM
gradatim: Taping cops is a felony in some states, like PA and NH. It falls under "wiretapping".


No, that's recording audio without permission the parties in question. Video is different.
 
2007-06-22 12:10:58 AM
gradatim: Taping cops is a felony in some states, like PA and NH. It falls under "wiretapping".

If you don't tell them.

If you say, "Officer, I am videotaping and audio recording this event." you're fine.

The law in those states makes it a crime to record anyone if both parties aren't aware that the recording is taking place.
 
2007-06-22 12:14:03 AM
for the last 10 years or so the ACLU has been nothing but a joke...and its only getting worse.
 
2007-06-22 12:14:33 AM
"In many areas of the country, you can be arrested for photographing or photographing the police."
But what if I'm photographing them?
 
2007-06-22 12:14:36 AM
Cid Highwind,

This sort of reasoning gets us things like the Patriot Act. Though I suppose that if the authorities are subjected to the same as the people they're supposed to watch over, it could be a good thing.

That's pretty much my reasoning behind it. The government has been telling us for, going on 6 years now, that if we're not doing anything wrong, we have nothing to hide. If that's the standard, then I see nothing wrong with applying it across the board.

If a cop pulled you over and wanted to search your car, would you just agree to that because you have nothing to hide? Doubtful; you'd want probable cause.

Honestly, I'd most likely tell him to knock himself out. But, I'd like to know that, should I so choose, I can tell him "no" and he wouldn't be able to search my car.

What really needs to be done is something about this Tactical Tommy mindset the cops have. Any time a cop refers to citizens as "civilians" with the obvious implication that he is not a "civilian", there's trouble.

That's not going to change anytime soon, unfortunately.
 
2007-06-22 12:17:14 AM
Cid_Highwind: This sort of reasoning gets us things like the Patriot Act.

Not at all; the philosophies that apply to the people and to the government (e.g., the cops) are complete opposites.

The government is to assume that the people are being good and to monitor them only if necessary.

The people are to assume that the government is being bad and to give it power only if necessary.
 
2007-06-22 12:18:04 AM
Well, you know, if they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about, right? Go ahead, badge kissers, answer that.
 
2007-06-22 12:20:51 AM
Postal Penguin

Why does fark hate police officers?

Because it's easier than thinking.

"My friend was pulled over for speeding and the cop was such an asshole! He was only doing 86 in a 65! He said the cop asked him in a really snotty tone, 'do you know why I pulled you over?' What a fat, stupid, non-college-educated donut-eating pig! OINK OINK!"

Face facts ... the good cops outnumber the bad cops by a lot. Hell, the GREAT cops -- the ones who put their lives on the line to keep innocent people safe -- outnumber the bad ones.
 
2007-06-22 12:21:18 AM
Good cause those cams will catch more than cops like lazy ass city workers and people commiting crime and so on
///
 
2007-06-22 12:21:18 AM
This is ridiculous. The police are here to protect and serve. Sure they may have to do some things people don't like to get the bad guys and protect us. Its a trade off we take to have the protection we all take for granted. Video taping the police is just going to get in the way of them doing their jobs.

Anyone who feels the need to video tape the police is probably a criminal or terrorist using the information to help them commit crimes.

/ I'm not even sure how to troll on this
// I guess thats what the "this is bad" side would say?
/// All cops should be video/audio recorded while on the job
//// Most cops should be behind bars themselves
 
2007-06-22 12:21:51 AM
I'm with lajimi

Police officers should be the first testimonial to being videotaped 24/7. After all, if they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about, right?
 
2007-06-22 12:22:36 AM
But who's going to monitor the monitors?
 
2007-06-22 12:25:34 AM
If you can't trust the police, who can you trust?
 
2007-06-22 12:25:38 AM
Some of the folks who quietly support this sort of thing are the good cops who can't bring themselves to rat out the cowboys. They aren't fans of the SOBs who lay a beat-down on someone just because it can be done.
 
2007-06-22 12:27:00 AM
colovion [TotalFark] 2007-06-21 08:38:36 PM
The problem I have with it is that the footage could be edited in a way to make the officer look bad, or the footage could be taken out of context and make the officer's actions look unwarranted when, under the totality of the situation, they were warranted.


The cops seem to have no problem with that idea with regards to "To Catch a Predator".
 
2007-06-22 12:30:25 AM
"Mokwa has said the taping would be legal"

My head asplode! The Chief says it's perfectly legal to video tape police officers in action. How is this possible when we have other police officers arresting people for illegal "wiretapping" when they get filmed?
 
2007-06-22 12:31:53 AM
fishsticks
"In many areas of the country, you can be arrested for photographing or photographing the police."

But what if I'm photographing them?


That's irrelevant. The real question is what if you are photographing them?
 
2007-06-22 12:32:06 AM
But if we're watching the police, who's watching...

the watchers?
 
2007-06-22 12:32:14 AM
if they are doing nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about

If they're doing nothing wrong, then why are you videotaping them?
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report