Seattle has always been keen to hide the work of their police force. "Cops: In Seattle" was filmed in Tacoma... and for good reason.

FTA: "The city argues it doesn't have to release any videos for three years. That also happens to be when the statute of limitations runs out for suing the city and, as a KOMO News investigation discovered, it is also when dash-cam videos are routinely erased from the system."


Health dept: We suspect that you have a rat and roach infestation.

Restaurant: No we don't. And even if we do, they're NICE rats and roaches! Go away!

feckingmorons: I am unclear on what privacy the people in the videos expect. I can film the police doing their job, and since tax money pays for the police to film themselves it is owned by the public.

If they want to play that game then they can't look at the videos for three years either.

Wow, they have a really shiatty law. See (1)(c)


Sounds okay if you're into that whole Authoritarian Jack-Boot Police State thing.

this is one of the many reason people do not respect the police. they are militaristic thugs on a power trip in many cases. there's been lots of fun with the seattle police and their lies about dash cams. if they're talking, they're probably lying

Dash cams really don't matter. The video of the cop chasing down and killing a deaf, unarmed transient whittler didn't make a bit of difference - he was still let off without charges.

namatad: AbbeySomeone: Dash cams really don't matter. The video of the cop chasing down and killing a deaf, unarmed transient whittler didn't make a bit of difference - he was still let off without charges.

has the revolution been scheduled yet? and why not??

Could be in the works. I stay out of all of that but something like that particular incident outraged everyone.

feckingmorons: I am unclear on what privacy the people in the videos expect. I can film the police doing their job, and since tax money pays for the police to film themselves it is owned by the public.

Maybe YOU can film police. Here in Illinois, it's illegal for me to do it.

Aside from that though we have a case where the case was still in play, by ANYONE's judgement, and the police department went and removed video, because the usual "if nothing happens shiat is removed in 30 days" data-storage argument.

Which is crazy, seems to me if there's ANY kinda cases pending that some piece of video pertains to, it's "in play" and should be kept around until everything is settled.

But, obviously, I'm not in charge of these things.

/I can understand how some surveillance videos can surpress crime, even while acknowledging the Big Brother aspects
//but DAMMIT if we're gonna have Big Brother, the citizens ALSO need access to the video

itazurakko: we have a case

...and I meant, by me in my town we have another case. Not referring to TFA.

Grables'Daughter: Yeah, and isn't THAT from something like twisting wire tapping laws around to fit that situation?

Indeed it is!

The idea is, if I film a policeman, the voice is on the tape, so I am wiretapping (or eavesdropping - whatever, 傍聴) and in Illinois, the law is that both parties to any wiretapping have to say okay to it. So even if the arrest is of ME, and I film, it's illegal because I didn't get permission from the police department to record their employee beforehand.

But! There's very much long standing issues with my local police department for decades over community relations and whether stops are fair and whatever else, so some people decided to do some research, and as part of it, they filmed some police making traffic stops, and yeah, it blew up into a giant case. At the root of which is, well, you can't legally tape police. Because of the wiretap laws of IL.

It's effed.

If some citizen is stopped for something and complains, always the answer is "well, if you aren't breaking any laws why you worry about us filming or searching your bag or whatever?" but the SAME DAMN THING can be said to them (and probably agreed by reasonable police too) if THEY are not doing anything crazy, why are they so paranoid about some citizen taking pictures or cellphone videos? Why are they so worried to make the police camera video public?

/oh because it shows them grabbing jaywalkers by the neck in the back seat of a police car
//but hey, nothing to see here

namatad: what if I record everything .... everywhere I go all the time.
the police should not come near me if they dont want to be recorded

/FFS why are these laws legal??? how can they be constitutional??

I don't know, but I am hoping it continues to get fought. Definitely people around me are interested in it.

Bottom line is, if you can film me, I should be able to film you back.

Grables'Daughter: Seriously, has this been challenged?

People are, yeah. But of course they're "cop haters" *rolls eyes*

Something else, too - people get upset about the idea of making police true identity available during an action, because people can look them (or their families, more importantly) up and harrass. Okay. I understand that concern. I can even buy the idea that well, a permanent number that ties to their employment accounts or whatever it is, they don't want ruined.

But all the handwringing over "so, like, we CAN'T actually tell you who anyone is, and we can't tellllll, so there's no way to discipline anyone afterward" is bullshiat.

Numbers, people. Athletes wear 'em. On those spiffy flak jackets that say "POLICE" on the back already, you can put a big number "5" or "89" or whatever the fark you want. In huge font, no need to ASK anyone to show it to you because it's there as plain as day. Or put it on another over the top thin jersey.

As long as a record is kept of who wore what number on that day, problem solved. If things get rancorous and number 89 is hated so much they can't re-use it? No problem, just retire the number.

You don't need real identity so much as a trackable pseudonym.

*sigh*

"This guy thought he was going to have a good time at the bar, but the only bars he'll see are the ones in jail".

Speaking of the police, I just got pulled over about 30 minutes ago. I absolutely farking forgot to renew my tags last July. Not relevant to the conversation but I just felt like telling somebody so they'd call me a dumb ass.

Farking $130 citation.

phlegmmo: statute of limitations

FTFM

Thanks, Super Nintendo Chalmers!

There is no expectation of privacy for a public official, acting in a public capacity, in public. AND
The supreme court has roundly reject prior restraint!!



Not that it has anything to do with the case, but I think Walter would side with the lawyer in this case....and the Dude would want Bill Kunstler or Ron Kuby to argue it in front of the supreme court.

itazurakko: You don't need real identity so much as a trackable pseudonym.

I dunno, that sounds good in theory, but in practice...

I used to work for a company that encouraged us to use pseudonyms. (It was an answering service.) That way, if anyone called to complain about you, the management would just say, "Oh sure, we fired Billy Bob." However, no one ever got fired. We had people show up to work drunk and keep drinking all day, at work, at their desk. We had other people who would light up all manner of substances in the office. We had a guy who worked at being as rude as possible to clients if he didn't like them. We had a tv we could use - even to the point of bringing in consoles and playing games while on the phone. All of us got "fired" about once a week. No one ever actually got fired unless they no-showed too much. I just see too many possibilities of abuse for this system. Things like "We don't have a record of which officer wore that number on that day."

/yes, for those of you wondering, that answering service gig WAS the best job ever. //If only it paid a livable wage I'd probably still be there.

Grables'Daughter: Dumb ass.

Thank you.

The cops won't release the 911 call that ended in 2 Colorado State Troopers kicking in my cousin Jason's door, pepper spraying him in the face then shooting him once in the heart and killing him. Jason asked to see a warrant which they didn't have and didn't have any probable cause to get so they shot him. Jason was unarmed and simply tried to exercise his rights. The cops could have easily deescalated the situation but instead they went straight to shooting. Now the swine are trying to say that they can't be held liable because they were just "doing their jobs." You know who else were just doing their jobs/following orders?

http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-lawyers-sue-state-troopers-who-illegally - entered-grand-junction-home-and-killed-jason-kemp

This will never end in this country. People are too concerned with what's on TV tonight to be bothered to actually do anything to put a stop to this. As for constitutionality... lol. Someday people will realize that this is no longer a free country, probably a day or two too late.

So, what are we doing to fix this?

flamingboard: The cops won't release the 911 call that ended in 2 Colorado State Troopers kicking in my cousin Jason's door, pepper spraying him in the face then shooting him once in the heart and killing him. Jason asked to see a warrant which they didn't have and didn't have any probable cause to get so they shot him. Jason was unarmed and simply tried to exercise his rights. The cops could have easily deescalated the situation but instead they went straight to shooting. Now the swine are trying to say that they can't be held liable because they were just "doing their jobs." You know who else were just doing their jobs/following orders?

http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-lawyers-sue-state-troopers-who-illegally - entered-grand-junction-home-and-killed-jason-kemp

Tragic story, bro.

itazurakko: Maybe YOU can film police. Here in Illinois, it's illegal for me to do it.

And people have the damn cheek to call the UK a police state....

Wow. So, basically, Mexico is ahead of the US (or at least Seattle) when it comes to flushing out corrupt cops and officials. Wonderful.

sheilanagig: HAH! That's nothing. Try asking the police for the statistics on how many people they kill a year. They're more than forthcoming with numbers of police officers killed in the line of duty, but somehow they don't have the same attitude when it comes to how many civilians die at their hands. If you ever want to see a police officer turn nasty, bring the subject up.

Precisely.

The FBI details each felony homicide of a law enforcement officer. Part of the reason they can go into detail on each one is that the number seems to hover under 100 in any given year.

I wonder if there is any city, county/parish, or state agency that tabulates police killings of citizens with any level of detail the way the FBI does killings/assaults of police. If accidental deaths and assaults can be tabulated nationwide, there's no reason why killings by police can't be tabulated and published by the state or local governments.

(bitter sarcasm) Hell, at this point I'd settle for the 3 page report detailing all the shootings found unjustified and the 2 page report of shootings where a police officer was brought to trial. (/bitter sarcasm)

In 2009 there apparently weren't any officers murdered in 32 states. No state can claim to be free of police shootings, and I'm willing to bet that there isn't one state that didn't have a highly questionable shooting.
(They didn't have the 2010 on their site yet)

From the FBI

According to information released today by the FBI, 48 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty last year; 47 officers died in accidents while performing their duties; and 57,268 officers were assaulted in the line of duty.
===SNIP===
The felonious deaths occurred in 18 states and Puerto Rico. The number of officers feloniously killed in 2009 increased by 7 compared with the 2008 figure (41 officers). The 5- and 10-year comparisons showed decreases in the number of felonious deaths, down 7 from the 2005 number (55 officers) and a decrease of 3 from the 2000 total (51 officers).
===SNIP===
Of the 47 law enforcement officers killed in accidents while performing their duties in 2009, the majority of officers accidentally killed (34 officers) were the result of automobile accidents. The number of accidental line-of-duty deaths was down 21 from the 2008 total (68 officers) and 20 less than the 2005 total (67 officers); 36 fewer officers were accidentally killed in 2009 than in 2000, when 83 officers died in accidents.

This is why we should privatize the police. They would no longer be "peace officers of the state" and just another Joe who works for a company that can be sued and will fire Joe for being an ass. If the police company sucks, we can always contract another one to replace the shiatty one.

This is a good idea, right?

.

there should be no statute of limitations on officer misconduct.

.

Paging Eliot Spitzer, Eliot Spitzer please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Grables'Daughter: itazurakko: feckingmorons: I am unclear on what privacy the people in the videos expect. I can film the police doing their job, and since tax money pays for the police to film themselves it is owned by the public.

Maybe YOU can film police. Here in Illinois, it's illegal for me to do it.

Yeah, and isn't THAT from something like twisting wire tapping laws around to fit that situation?

This is why I think all video recording devices should have a "cop" mode that does not record audio and plays a loop that says, "This device is not recording audio" while operating in that mode.

95BV5: flamingboard: The cops won't release the 911 call that ended in 2 Colorado State Troopers kicking in my cousin Jason's door, pepper spraying him in the face then shooting him once in the heart and killing him.

http://aclu-co.org/news/aclu-lawyers-sue-state-troopers-who-illegally - entered-grand-junction-home-and-killed-jason-kemp

Tragic story, bro.

Not really. He knew what he was doing. Drive drunk and pay the price-- even if it is getting dropped by a few jackboots. Not that I'm condoning their flagrant disregard for rights, mind you.

/Mesa '09

chairborne: .

there should be no statute of limitations on officer misconduct.

.

It wouldn't matter. I think the "statue of limitations" (really, subby?) thing is incidental to the period of time they're going to wait. Did you notice the part at the end where the cops only retain the videos for three years? They will release the videos right after they're automatically deleted.

WhyteRaven74: Paging Eliot Spitzer, Eliot Spitzer please pick up the white courtesy phone.

He is the anti-Ratigan.