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.

(Boston Globe)   Boston police would like to remind everybody that it is a felony to use your cell phone to record them roughing up a suspect   (boston.com) divider line 288
    More: PSA, Boston Police, Simon Glik, Attorney General Martha Coakley, wiretaps, cellphones, felony, Boston University, Internet and Society  
•       •       •

22128 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jan 2010 at 1:37 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-12 03:37:43 PM
dreadprophet: While I usually refrain from participating in FARK's trademark cop-hate threads because most of you self-proclaimed "pig haters" would spend your days inside pissing your pants if there were no police...

1. I am very well aware of the fact that a society needs police to enforce laws.
2. I don't hate cops, nor call them "pigs."
3. That in no way prevents me from criticizing them when they do something wrong.
4. You may call this "hypocrisy" if you like, but that only means you don't know what the word "hypocrisy" means.

/Who on Fark calls themself a "pig hater"? Is this an actual phenomenon, or a mere product of your imagination?
 
2010-01-12 03:38:07 PM
To do it properly you have to be organized. There's a cop watch organization in every major metropolitan area that's doing just that; but all you really need is some friends, one or two cameras, and your rights.
 
2010-01-12 03:39:11 PM
enforcerpsu: Ozaru: enforcerpsu:

Then why did the person here get away with it when he recorded the police officer in the bar. The Feds and county prosecutor told him there was nothing they could do. He was in public.

To say nothing of every hidden camera reporter ever.

I really, really think the public clause allows hidden cameras to be used in public. It was in the paper here, straight from the prosecutor's mouth. There was nothing they could do, he was in public.

No audio! Security cameras in public places are legal if they don't record sound. It is the audio recording that is a felony. However, if you are recording with a device that is capable of recording audio along with video, like a phone, it doesn't matter if one can understand the audio or not. Even if you have some way to turn off the audio recording, you are still going to get arrested.

You are missing my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

There is a video, of a POLICE OFFICER, with PERFECT AUDIO, done by a cell phone, IN PUBLIC.

The police officer was seen and HEARD making fun of his "victims" that day. The camera person was known and NOTHING was done.

Both the feds and the county told the officer, "too bad".


Cool. I'm guessing that he got it to the media before the cops knew it existed.
 
2010-01-12 03:42:48 PM
mofomisfit: profplump: mofomisfit: There is no legitimate reason to record someone without their consent. If you need those recordings, you can certainly take the time to get consent. The people you record should have the control over whether they are recorded, not you, that's why you have a blatant and callous disregard for everyone but yourself, you'd take that right from them and give it to yourself.

You're the one removing rights. I just want reserve the right for everyone to record their own conversations, or not, as they see fit. I'm not removing anyone's right to avoid being being recorded -- all they have to do is not call me and not come into my house. How does not calling me infringe on anyone's rights or privacy?

Only if you've given them the opportunity to consent to your recordings, otherwise how would they know?


Given the prevalence of recording devices, I'd say anyone calling another person on that persons personal phone or visting that persons home does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
2010-01-12 03:42:51 PM
plausdeny: mofomisfit: There is no legitimate reason to record someone without their consent. If you need those recordings, you can certainly take the time to get consent. The people you record should have the control over whether they are recorded, not you, that's why you have a blatant and callous disregard for everyone but yourself, you'd take that right from them and give it to yourself.

I'm absolutely sure that there are Mafia dons and wiseguys that agree with everything you just said. Those in the habit of committing crimes always want to right to refuse to allow you to collect evidence.


Again, I'm ONLY PRETTY SURE that there are legal ways for law enforcement to collect wiretaps. ONLY PRETTY SURE.
 
2010-01-12 03:43:38 PM
Ingaba: Not so fast there skip. The jury can only wrestle with issues of fact...it's up to a judge to determine issues with the law.

No, but that's certainly what a lot of people would like you to believe.
 
2010-01-12 03:45:34 PM
It is very important for our children that all laws which enhance the police state be struck down. All laws that prohibit the surveillance of public police activities are immoral and dangerous.

If we allow them to stand, we have failed future generations by handing them a future that is less safe.

/won't somebody.....
//but seriously.
 
2010-01-12 03:45:46 PM
Oh_Enough_Already: The citation is the fact that even though a technology exists that would PROTECT and exonerate cops accused falsly of abuse it's not being used.

There's your citation.


Oh, so you are just pulling "facts" out of your arse. Thanks for confirming.
 
2010-01-12 03:46:22 PM
ciberido: 1. I am very well aware of the fact that a society needs police to enforce laws.
2. I don't hate cops, nor call them "pigs."
3. That in no way prevents me from criticizing them when they do something wrong.
4. You may call this "hypocrisy" if you like, but that only means you don't know what the word "hypocrisy" means.

/Who on Fark calls themself a "pig hater"? Is this an actual phenomenon, or a mere product of your imagination?


I'm not calling it hypocrisy. I don't condone police brutality or corruption, hence my mention that Boston is notably corrupt.

However, with a cursory glance through any of Fark's hundreds of archival police threads will show you plenty of posters, both trolls and likely otherwise, who like to circlejerk about how "all cops are bad cops" or how "each dead cop is a victory." Granted, these are typically the worst examples of trolling, but there are opinions to this effect coming from many.

Which is why I generally keep my mouth shut, because it irritates me.
 
2010-01-12 03:47:04 PM
dreadprophet: However, with a cursory glance through any of Fark's hundreds of archival police threads will show you plenty of posters, both trolls and likely otherwise, who like to circlejerk about how "all cops are bad cops" or how "each dead cop is a victory." Granted, these are typically the worst examples of trolling, but there are opinions to this effect coming from many.

FTFM
 
2010-01-12 03:49:29 PM
Atomic Spunk: Video recordings nearly always make a cop look bad because they are often taken out of context. When a suspect is resisting and fighting back, the guy with the camera usually notices and starts digging around to find his camera. By the time he has his camera out and is ready to record, that's when the cop starts to club the suspect into submission. Most of the times, if we had complete video of an incident from beginning to end, we'd probably say, "The suspect deserved it."

My experience does not match your theory.
 
2010-01-12 03:50:49 PM
ciberido: dreadprophet: self-proclaimed "pig haters"


/Who on Fark calls themself a "pig hater"? Is this an actual phenomenon, or a mere product of your imagination?


I call myself a 'pig hater'.

/have never posted on a Fark Cop Thread
//Purchased a digital voice recorder 20 minutes ago
///will be recording all audio all day shortly.
 
2010-01-12 03:51:25 PM
Ingaba: Citation needed.

"Trial by jury, the best of all safeguards for the person, the property, and the fame of every individual;"
-Thomas Jefferson

Jurors cannot accomplish that if they are expected to never consider the morality of the law, or its application, that they are charged to decide upon. What protection does a trial by jury give us against tyrannical laws or even tyrannical judges?

If for example, you had a law against congregations over five people outside of the state religion and the facts were not in question that there was a congregation larger than five people would you convict?
 
2010-01-12 03:51:29 PM
If you look at the pictures of Wes Welker's party, Is there an attractive women in Boston?
 
2010-01-12 03:56:22 PM
xanadian: Huh. I got just 2 words for the criminal justice system in Massachusetts:

JURY. NULLIFICATION.

Go ahead and take it to trial, asshats.

/yeah, I know, dream on.



Nullified verdicts are auto-appealed since technically nullification is against the law. Eventually, they will find a jury where nobody knows about it. Game over.

If a judge or a lawyer informs the jury of its existence it is an auto-mistrial.

Jury nullification is a pipe dream.
 
2010-01-12 03:56:54 PM
mofomisfit: You're not allowed to record it without consent, and no, I don't think you should be able to. People have been screwing people over for thousands of years, that's no reason to invade the privacy of everyone else in that private organization.

I'm very happy I live in a one-party state.
You call my phone, don't expect me not to record it. In fact, if everybody thought they might be recorded, there'd be a lot less stupid shiat said on the phone. I'd like it if creditors or salesman or whatnot were worried about that when they called me.

I don't expect Walmart to turn off their cameras when I walk into their building, and I don't expect AT&T to not record my call when I'm biatching at customer service.
 
2010-01-12 03:58:16 PM
ciberido: /Who on Fark calls themself a "pig hater"? Is this an actual phenomenon, or a mere product of your imagination?

I love hanging out with pig haters.
More bacon for me.
 
2010-01-12 03:59:29 PM
Whatever happened to "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"? Surely it applies to the police every it as much as they would apply to all of us.

Remind again why the police should be viewed as anything but well paid thugs when they proudly behave like this.
 
2010-01-12 04:00:54 PM
ReverendJasen: mofomisfit: You're not allowed to record it without consent, and no, I don't think you should be able to. People have been screwing people over for thousands of years, that's no reason to invade the privacy of everyone else in that private organization.

I'm very happy I live in a one-party state.
You call my phone, don't expect me not to record it. In fact, if everybody thought they might be recorded, there'd be a lot less stupid shiat said on the phone. I'd like it if creditors or salesman or whatnot were worried about that when they called me.

I don't expect Walmart to turn off their cameras when I walk into their building, and I don't expect AT&T to not record my call when I'm biatching at customer service.i>

Yeah, Walmart posts signs and AT&T tells you they're recording the call. Both of which are good things.

/and if you plan on calling a two party state and recording the call, you better tell them you're recording it
 
2010-01-12 04:02:32 PM
wiregeek: //Purchased a digital voice recorder 20 minutes ago
///will be recording all audio all day shortly.


combine it with gps and a galvanic skin response sensor and a data logger for easier tagging of events.
 
2010-01-12 04:07:48 PM
You have no expectation of privacy when you are out in a public place. Police making an arrest of a suspect in a public place likewise should have NO expectation of privacy. If they're getting all hot under the collar about it, then I'd say they've got something to hide. Deliberately misinterpreting wiretapping laws and arresting citizens in a public place recording a very public arrest is criminal at best, a violation of those citizens' civil rights at worst. I hope they go down in flames for this.
 
2010-01-12 04:08:13 PM
Oh_Enough_Already: The only reason they're against this is because cops - like everybody else with even half a brian - knows that being violent, abusive, menacing, etc are part and partial of their day-to-day "duties" so to speak.

.


That's 'Part and Parcel'. Carry on.
 
2010-01-12 04:08:22 PM
VideSupra: Nullified verdicts are auto-appealed since technically nullification is against the law. Eventually, they will find a jury where nobody knows about it. Game over.

Simply not true.

Jury nullification occurs when a jury
votes to acquit a defendant despite the fact that the defendant is guilty
under the letter of the law. A jury may opt to nullify because it believes
the law is generally unfair or unjust, because it believes applying
the law in the particular case would be unfair or unjust, or because it
believes the punishment is too harsh. The jury's power to nullify
stems from the fact that it does not need to give a reason for its decision
and its vote of acquittal is unreviewable.


PDF Link (new window)
 
2010-01-12 04:08:27 PM
Barnstormer: You know, there are also many advantages to living in a police state.

*
I call troll... Unless you can give another reason that is not related to having the opportunity of getting your arse kicked everyday.

/We have enough felons running the streets.
 
2010-01-12 04:08:58 PM
mofomisfit: Again, I'm ONLY PRETTY SURE that there are legal ways for law enforcement to collect wiretaps. ONLY PRETTY SURE.

OK... what is the legal way to record police officer misconduct, which would be a legitimate criminal investigation? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Before you answer, do try to consider that it is generally unhelpful to request permission from someone who may be personally or professionally inconvenienced by such a recording, even if they aren't implicated themselves. That would include: other police officers; prosecutors; judges; politicians.

The thin blue line is a well known phenomenon, so asking other cops for help is a great way to end up getting harassed in a "Oh we just happen to be parking on that guy's street every day and coincidentally decide to leave every time he left his driveway so we'd completely innocently follow him for about 10 minutes. That's why he has fifteen citations for Improper Use of a Turn Signal."

A cop getting nailed on an abuse or corruption charge undermines every criminal case that cop was involved in, so the prosecutor is looking at the possibility of legitimately convicted scumbags being let loose on an appeal. So they're not going to be eager.

Judges and politicians like the support of the police unions and leadership when they're up for re-election. Pissing off the cops is a political career drag and has direct implications for their re-election campaign funding.

Don't count on the Feds, either. The federal courts are already jammed, so they're skipping prosecuting slam-dunk felon-in-possession-of-firearm cases what would have a direct impact on the overall crime rate, as those guys are the subclass of criminals that are involved in crime as a lifestyle. Janet Reno famously said that they couldn't chase those cases because they'd clog the courts.
 
2010-01-12 04:11:19 PM
I will happily be have my rights violated by her:

img.diytrade.com


/hl'ed
 
2010-01-12 04:13:06 PM
plausdeny: mofomisfit: Again, I'm ONLY PRETTY SURE that there are legal ways for law enforcement to collect wiretaps. ONLY PRETTY SURE.


My very entry into this thread says I'd like to see an amendment to the current law allowing for the videotaping of on duty police officers. Someone else said that they'd like to extend that to all police officers, since officers claim to be "always on duty." I agree with that.
 
2010-01-12 04:15:56 PM
mofomisfit: /and if you plan on calling a two party state and recording the call, you better tell them you're recording it

Have you ever called "customer service"? The recording before you get connected clearly states, "This call may be monitored... etc." This statement clearly gives you the right to record the call.
 
2010-01-12 04:15:58 PM
Ozaru: enforcerpsu: Ozaru: enforcerpsu:

Then why did the person here get away with it when he recorded the police officer in the bar. The Feds and county prosecutor told him there was nothing they could do. He was in public.

To say nothing of every hidden camera reporter ever.

I really, really think the public clause allows hidden cameras to be used in public. It was in the paper here, straight from the prosecutor's mouth. There was nothing they could do, he was in public.

No audio! Security cameras in public places are legal if they don't record sound. It is the audio recording that is a felony. However, if you are recording with a device that is capable of recording audio along with video, like a phone, it doesn't matter if one can understand the audio or not. Even if you have some way to turn off the audio recording, you are still going to get arrested.

You are missing my point. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

There is a video, of a POLICE OFFICER, with PERFECT AUDIO, done by a cell phone, IN PUBLIC.

The police officer was seen and HEARD making fun of his "victims" that day. The camera person was known and NOTHING was done.

Both the feds and the county told the officer, "too bad".

Cool. I'm guessing that he got it to the media before the cops knew it existed.


It got to youtube and it was all over in seconds.
 
2010-01-12 04:18:24 PM
Cops...ya can't live with 'em, ya can't live without 'em...
 
2010-01-12 04:18:49 PM
mofomisfit: My very entry into this thread says I'd like to see an amendment to the current law allowing for the videotaping of on duty police officers. Someone else said that they'd like to extend that to all police officers, since officers claim to be "always on duty." I agree with that.

I'll go along with that, although I would expand it to include any person in a position of public trust at any time they are asserting their authority (legitimately or illegitimately).
 
2010-01-12 04:19:07 PM
HAMMERTOE: mofomisfit: /and if you plan on calling a two party state and recording the call, you better tell them you're recording it

Have you ever called "customer service"? The recording before you get connected clearly states, "This call may be monitored... etc." This statement clearly gives you the right to record the call.


Maybe, that's the consent I was talking about earlier when someone said AT&T had the right to record their call. I'm not sure if that gives you the right to record the party which is informing you they'll be recording the call, but I'm not sure that it doesn't either.
 
2010-01-12 04:21:04 PM
dj_bigbird: If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide. Isn't that what the authorities tell us?

That's what I hear if I express any concern about the fact that I am constantly surveilled anytime I leave my house.
 
2010-01-12 04:22:48 PM
notmtwain: Failing_Junk: notmtwain: The big problem I see is that the police can use this law to destroy any such recording before it ever makes it to the net.

qik.com

Yes I know it's relatively easy to live stream, but how many people have their phones set up to do this with one or two clicks?


Qik is a two click process on every phone I've seen it on, and I've seen it on Blackberries and Android phones.
 
2010-01-12 04:24:27 PM
trappedspirit: [citation desperately needed]

www.flightglobal.com

On the Way!
 
2010-01-12 04:24:36 PM
VideSupra: Nullified verdicts are auto-appealed since technically nullification is against the law. Eventually, they will find a jury where nobody knows about it. Game over.

If a judge or a lawyer informs the jury of its existence it is an auto-mistrial.

Jury nullification is a pipe dream.


Its happened many times for good (nullifying fugitive slaves act, alien and seditions act) and for bad (letting off racists and murderers). There is actually not that much that can be done. So long as no one in the jury says "I'm going to nullify this".
 
2010-01-12 04:25:18 PM
Atomic Spunk: Video recordings nearly always make a cop look bad because they are often taken out of context. When a suspect is resisting and fighting back, the guy with the camera usually notices and starts digging around to find his camera. By the time he has his camera out and is ready to record, that's when the cop starts to club the suspect into submission. Most of the times, if we had complete video of an incident from beginning to end, we'd probably say, "The suspect deserved it."

Yes, this myth has been said over and over. Over and over we can show videos from beginning to end and the cop being a dick.
 
2010-01-12 04:34:04 PM
Besides, a cop is not an individual in this situation, he is an agent of the state. They do not have the same rights as a normal person when they are arresting someone. This is not cop v citizen, this is state v citizen.
 
2010-01-12 04:35:14 PM
Oh_Enough_Already: trappedspirit: Oh_Enough_Already: The citation is the fact that even though a technology exists that would PROTECT and exonerate cops accused falsly of abuse it's not being used.

There's your citation.

Oh, so you are just pulling "facts" out of your arse. Thanks for confirming.

The sky is also blue, and water is wet.

Do need a "citation" for that as well, fuktard or do you care to just open your eyes?

Don't you have a cop to fellate someplace?



Wow, you are an idiot and an ass. Of that there is plenty of proof. Your rash generalizations and complete broad brushing of all police in America are sophomoric at best. If you are between 18-24 years of age there might still be time to pull your head out of your arse and grow up. If you are older than that...only god knows what great adventures are in store for that hatred. Don't you have some random protest to be arrest at?
 
2010-01-12 04:37:06 PM
enforcerpsu: This is what keeps government cameras from being installed on every corner.

My neighborhood abuts a university, and as such, there is a disparity in wealth between the students living there and the native residents.

There has been an increase in crime, and the city doesn't want the university to move anything more into their campus in a nearby suburb, so now we have cameras with little blue lights on the street corners.

Whatever, though, as long as they can't see into my house.
 
2010-01-12 04:42:03 PM
notmtwain: The big problem I see is that the police can use this law to destroy any such recording before it ever makes it to the net.

Two solutions are available for that:

Qik and LiveCast

Atomic Spunk: Video recordings nearly always make a cop look bad because they are often taken out of context. When a suspect is resisting and fighting back, the guy with the camera usually notices and starts digging around to find his camera. By the time he has his camera out and is ready to record, that's when the cop starts to club the suspect into submission. Most of the times, if we had complete video of an incident from beginning to end, we'd probably say, "The suspect deserved it." the cop is bad.

FTFY

The videos where we would say "the suspect deserved it," don't make the news under the "police brutality" headline.

The cops routinely brutalize innocent people, or people whom have committed non-violent crimes.
"Blah blah, most cops are good cops, blah blah, bad apples, blah blah blah." When the "good" cops fail intervene to stop the bad cop, or fail to report knowledge they have of another cop's bad behavior, or when they actively help cover-up the behavior or obstruct its investigation, then they become bad cops too.
 
2010-01-12 04:43:03 PM
Talon: Well if it means anything, in the end the men with the phones will be vindicated

If by "vindicated" you, of course, mean "harassed endlessly by the police until they finally move out of town" then yes, I suppose.

They can expect to be ticketed every time their vehicle is spotted on a public street from now till they leave these cops jurisdiction. There isn't a single person out there that doesn't break some 'technical' law while on the road. Or one the cops will just make up on the spot. Only let that blinker click three times before changing lanes? Sorry... we feel it should have been four. You plan on contesting it in traffic court?
 
2010-01-12 04:49:10 PM
Elaine Driscoll, says this is how they train police about the wiretap law: "If an individual is inappropriately interfering with an arrest that could cause harm to an officer or another individual, an officer's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the situation,''

So if someones being a retard, and yelling at the cops or getting in their faces while recording, I can see an arrest being made. However, why is it an "illegal wiretap" then? Wouldn't that be obstruction?

Obviously this tactic is used solely to prevent public oversight. Period. Those in support should be fired from their positions in the interest of the public good. And lets just throw Elaine on an antpile until she's slowly eaten away, just for being a retarded tool.
 
2010-01-12 04:52:48 PM
Theaetetus: BuckTurgidson: Should any news crew filming a public event be arrested if their mic picks up a cop's voice?

4. The term "interception" means to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or secretly record the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device by any person other than a person given prior authority by all parties to such communication...

Maybe you missed that the first time I posted it.


Sorry, I did miss that. But, what's secret about standing on the public sidewalk holding up your phone or camera recording the police arresting someone in the street?
 
2010-01-12 04:53:04 PM
VideSupra: Nullified verdicts are auto-appealed since technically nullification is against the law. Eventually, they will find a jury where nobody knows about it. Game over.

If a judge or a lawyer informs the jury of its existence it is an auto-mistrial.


Additionally, during the questioning phase, the lawyers will ask you explicitly about this. They will not use the exact words, but they will make sure you plan on basing your decisions upon the written law and not "what is right."

You answer this incorrectly, you are dismissed.
You say the words "Jury Nullification" outloud you are dismissed.

Should you schooze your way into the jury by giving the "correct answers" and then explain these 'powers' to the rest of the jury you will be replaced. If you made enough noise about it the entire jury will be thrown out, a new 'clean' jury chosen, and you may face charges for jury tampering.


Jury nullification is a pipe dream.

This.

This is the stuff of romance novels and political fanfiction. It is a fantasy. It does not exist in modern courts.
 
2010-01-12 04:53:43 PM
xuanzhiyouxuan: wiregeek: //Purchased a digital voice recorder 20 minutes ago
///will be recording all audio all day shortly.

combine it with gps and a galvanic skin response sensor and a data logger for easier tagging of events.



OOOOooooo....

Easier, I think, just to set up GPS logging on my phone, it's always with me anyway
 
2010-01-12 04:54:35 PM
Karma Curmudgeon: Jury nullification; these cases are why it exists. As a juror, you have an obligation to judge the application of the law as well as the facts, no matter what judges, lawyers or other self-interested persons try to tell you. That is all.

No. That is not quite accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
 
2010-01-12 04:54:53 PM
I'd give the police the benefit of the doubt on this one...mostly because I have to.
 
2010-01-12 04:57:34 PM
I hope I'm not too late to this thread for this post to be noticed. How would yous guys like to hear a recording of an hour-long torture session where some cops beat a guy and threaten his life trying to get him to sign a consent form?

http://sharebee.com/8d202186

The story goes: the guy is a drug dealer. He's a bad guy, no doubt about it. The cops go into his house but they don't have a search warrant. So they need him to sign a consent form. His wife is ushered away but she hits the record button on their stereo before she leaves. The cops beat her husband (admittedly, a drug dealer) threaten to blow his brains out, and at one point they even say they're going to go get his wife - a veiled threat that they're going to either rape or torture her.

Here's a wiki article about it - it hasn't gotten much press.
 
2010-01-12 05:00:05 PM
GurneyHalleck: A full videotaped sequence of getting beaten brutally by LA Police didn't help Rodney King out at all. They all walked.

That is because like it or not Rodney King had it coming. You only saw a few moments of the tape. The part where he was resisting arrest and getting the fark beat out of him.

Granted, I do think that might have been excessive. The should have just shot him. The parts of the tape you do not see are the extended police chase and him threatening the lives of the police officers and accting like an ass.

The jury saw all that, that is why the cops walked.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report