PDA

View Full Version : Cops vs. Cameras: filming cops illegal


footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2011, 09:07 PM
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2011-01-27/news/cops-vs-cameras-filming-cops-illegal/

Cops vs. cameras: filming cops illegal

By Tim Elfrink Thursday, Jan 27 2011

When Robert Hammonds and a friend, Brent Bredwell, finished filming a DJ show at Jazid in South Beach, it was around 3 a.m. on a Sunday in September. A few minutes later, after they jumped into a car and headed down Washington Avenue, a drunk-looking driver swerved across traffic and cut them off.

Hammonds leaned out the window and yelled "What the hell are you doing?" at the guy. Next thing Hammonds and Bredwell knew, a beefy cop was pulling them over. Holding his Sig Sauer .40 caliber gun at his side, the officer angrily thrust his hand into the car through the driver-side window and waved his walkie-talkie.

"Are you a ****ing idiot?" the cop screamed. "Doing that in front of me? a-hole!"

Hammonds, in the passenger seat, was discreetly filming the outburst. When reinforcements arrived to put Bredwell through sobriety tests, Hammonds kept taping and agitating. "Oh, it's martial law now!" he yelled. Another officer gestured at Hammonds. "Take the camera," he said to a colleague. "It's evidence now. Take it."

On film, the frame shakes violently and Hammonds yells, "I do not release this camera!" But then an officer grabs it and shuts it off.

That confrontation, filmed in 2009, was the first of dozens that Hammonds and three friends caught on tape. They've paid dearly, spending thousands on legal fees and tickets, and sleeping multiple nights in county lockup. They've even seen their faces plastered on a warning flyer sent to departments around Miami-Dade County.

They're part of a simmering national fight between citizen journalists and police departments that believe subjects have no right to film them. The battle over whether cops can arrest you just for videotaping them is quickly becoming the most hotly contested corner of American civil liberties law.

"As more professionals and amateurs use equipment to record police activity, they're facing the ire of officers who just don't want to be recorded," says David Ardia, director of Harvard University's Citizen Media Law Project. "We need a clear answer from courts that this is legal, or else police officers' instincts will always be to snatch the camera."

It might seem like an open-and-shut argument cops are public figures, after all, and they're operating in plain view on the street. But it isn't, at least in the dozen states, including Florida, that require both parties in any conversation to consent to audio recording.

Since video cameras also record voices, police argue, citizen journalists are breaking the law when they record cops without permission. Publishing cops' photos also jeapordizes their safety, says Detective Juan Sanchez, a spokesman for Miami Beach police.

Miami Police Department officers, meanwhile, say they only arrest camera-toting civilians like Hammonds when they harass cops and break the law. "When you go beyond filming to trying to piss off an officer, you're subject to arrest," says Delrish Moss, a department spokesman.

Police around the country agree with him. Last May, a man in Maryland named Anthony Graber posted a YouTube video made with a helmet camera. It showed a state trooper drawing a gun and threatening him during a traffic stop. A few days after the clip was posted, police raided Gruber's house and charged him with "illegal wiretapping."

In Massachusetts, courts have upheld several similar convictions, including one against Jeffrey Manzelli, a Cambridge sound engineer who recorded police at a public antiwar rally.

In South Florida, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the City of Boynton Beach this past June on behalf of a local woman named Sharron Tasha Ford. She had gone to a movie theater to pick up her son, a minor, whom police accused of trespassing. Ford said she had "a bad feeling" about the arrest, so she took a camera with her. When she refused to stop filming, she was arrested and charged under State Statute 934.03, the "two-party consent" recording law.

"It really is a perversion of this statute to try to apply it to filming or recording what public officials are doing in public," says Randall Marshall, legal director of ACLU Florida.

Hammonds and Bredwell didn't know about the legal infighting when they pulled out their camera on Washington Avenue 16 months ago. They just acted on instinct. "It's your responsibility as an American to monitor authority and to speak up when it's being abused," Hammonds says.

Hammonds is a 30-year-old Indianapolis native with shoulder-length hair, a goatee, and a perpetually aggrieved voice. He moved to Miami five years ago to study film at Miami International University. That's where he met Bredwell, a soft-spoken, six-foot three-inch filmmaker whose father is a cop in Fort Myers.

They never planned to become police agitators. But when Bredwell tried to retrieve his seized Sony camera the day after that first incident, he says Miami Beach police claimed not to have it in the evidence room.

A week later, the friends returned to police headquarters to try again. This time, they brought a full assortment of cameras and mics. They shot footage of the cops stonewalling Bredwell again. When officers noticed the cameras, they arrested Hammonds and charged him with obstruction of justice, loitering, and trespassing. He says an officer grabbed him by his hair in an interrogation room and then locked him in a sweltering van for two hours in 90-degree heat.

The day after Hammonds's arrest, Miami Beach police printed a flyer with mug shots of Hammonds, Bredwell, and a friend, Christian Torres. Headlined "FYI Officer Safety," it warned that the trio "were seen filming the Miami Beach Police Department" and were "extremely hostile" and "looking for a confrontation." Anyone who spotted them "should use extreme caution."

"They make us sound like terrorists for filming a protest," Hammonds complains.

Sanchez, the Miami Beach Police Department spokesman, says the trio acted suspiciously. "[They] were claiming they were filming in part for a documentary, [but] they had no credentials," Sanchez writes in an email statement. "Post 9/11, and in keeping with homeland security, the filming of any possible location which could be considered a target... arouses suspicion."

Either way, the flyer was effective, the friends believe. In the months that followed, the three along with a fourth member of their crew, Klemote McClean were pulled over and detained more than a dozen times.

The group filmed almost all of the confrontations. Though their cameras were repeatedly seized, they've gotten all equipment back save for one camera, which the Miami Beach police claim to have no record of.

They gave their group a name: Channel Six-Two, after the scruffy bayfront block of NE 62nd Street in Miami where all of them live. And they made a promise: to always keep their cameras on. The six hours of tape they've captured show how most officers react to a camera.

In one nighttime encounter, Hammonds films over a fence in front of his house, and a City of Miami cop notices. Torres had been pulled over while driving to a corner store called Mercy Supermarket.

"Who are you?" the cop demands.

"I own this house," Hammonds says.

"Shut it down. Shut it down!" the officer growls. When Hammonds tries to argue, the furious cop charges aggressively toward the fence.

Moss declined to comment on the incidents in the video, but said that in general Miami cops only arrest videotaping civilians if they interfere with police work.

"Some of what you see on this video is clearly attempts to incite police officers," he says.

On another night, Hammonds films at the corner store. A neighborhood officer has thrown Torres over a cop car and handcuffed him. (He was later charged with "resisting an officer without violence.")

A sergeant who arrives on the scene demands credentials. When Hammonds admits he doesn't have any, the officer grabs the camera and cuffs him.

"Why are you afraid of the truth being filmed if you're doing your job the right way?" Bredwell asks. "That's our feeling."

None of the charges against the Channel Six-Two crew have stuck. (Bredwell, who refused a Breathalyzer test that first night on Washington Avenue, accepted a deal to withhold adjudication on a DUI charge.)

That's not to say the group hasn't suffered for its work. Hammonds is unemployed and suspects his legal fights have handicapped his job search. Bredwell spent more than $7,000 on court battles. Hammonds's Jeep was repossessed last summer by a towing company when he couldn't afford the impound fees after getting pulled over for an expired tag and "insufficient tread."

But the friends still hope to have their revenge. Their weapon is a DVD, which they plan to sell on the streets and online by this summer. It's titled Man vs. Pig.

"We realize it's a controversial name, but unfortunately it's accurate for what we've seen on the streets in this city," Hammonds says. They've already started plastering Man vs. Pig stickers around South Beach and midtown and have drawn a couple thousand views on a YouTube trailer. The point of the film, which describes the friends' clashes with police because of videotaping, is simple, Hammonds says.

"We think every citizen should have a camera in their car," he says. "Every encounter with police officers every one should be filmed."

tsiguy96
02-24-2011, 09:13 PM
this is a losing battle for the public. police are given a free pass to do nearly anything they want to do, and the ONLY times they are criticized in public are when videos become available of what they are actually doing. take away that right, then what check does the public have on the authority figures above them?

Boomhauer
02-24-2011, 09:18 PM
What does this have to do with Peyton Hillis?

Dedhed
02-24-2011, 09:46 PM
What does this have to do with Peyton Hillis?

Well, Hillis is white.

cutthemdown
02-24-2011, 10:19 PM
What a bunch of crap. Police are out of control in the USA. We have too many of them and with crime going down they are looking for ways to raise revenue any way they can.

I advocate drug testing for police because I have inside information that about 1/4 of them in LA are roided out. Roids, guns, and longing for your days as a starting linebacker in HS are a bad combination.

footstepsfrom#27
02-24-2011, 10:29 PM
What a bunch of crap. Police are out of control in the USA. We have too many of them and with crime going down they are looking for ways to raise revenue any way they can.

I advocate drug testing for police because I have inside information that about 1/4 of them in LA are roided out. Roids, guns, and longing for your days as a starting linebacker in HS are a bad combination.
Cops on anything including roids...bad combination. This is an issue that the SC needs to address sooner or later. These guys have no right to determine what a citizen is allowed to video tape in public...none. Just another example of the rampant abuse of power cops are routinely getting away with, and we need some legal checks on their power to make them stop this kind of behavior.

Dedhed
02-24-2011, 10:29 PM
Roids, guns, and longing for your days as a starting linebacker in HS are a bad combination.

According to some, that's what built this country, and what keeps it great.

Boomhauer
02-24-2011, 10:36 PM
What does this have to do with Tim Tebow?

Archer81
02-24-2011, 10:40 PM
Cops on anything including roids...bad combination. This is an issue that the SC needs to address sooner or later. These guys have no right to determine what a citizen is allowed to video tape in public...none. Just another example of the rampant abuse of power cops are routinely getting away with, and we need some legal checks on their power to make them stop this kind of behavior.


The police have legitimate concerns. Do the film makers have the right to film whomever they choose for whatever reason? That could be construed as a violation of privacy. Also, if a state has existing laws about needing permission from those being filmed, creating yet another law to make an exception is a bit ridiculous.

The issue then becomes anyone in a position of authority being filmed. Doctors, teachers, firemen, the old broad who runs bingo. Where does it end? You are arguing abuse of power, which is not limited to the police alone.

:Broncos:

Deuce
02-24-2011, 10:46 PM
The police have legitimate concerns. Do the film makers have the right to film whomever they choose for whatever reason? That could be construed as a violation of privacy. Also, if a state has existing laws about needing permission from those being filmed, creating yet another law to make an exception is a bit ridiculous.

The issue then becomes anyone in a position of authority being filmed. Doctors, teachers, firemen, the old broad who runs bingo. Where does it end? You are arguing abuse of power, which is not limited to the police alone.

:Broncos:

It ends where people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is the legal test as it applies to the constitution. A cop out in public, on public roads, has a right to privacy? Get real.

cutthemdown
02-24-2011, 10:49 PM
Cops on anything including roids...bad combination. This is an issue that the SC needs to address sooner or later. These guys have no right to determine what a citizen is allowed to video tape in public...none. Just another example of the rampant abuse of power cops are routinely getting away with, and we need some legal checks on their power to make them stop this kind of behavior.

If you are a party to the stop, as in cop trying to arrest you, or write you a ticket, i think they should be able to say to you, stop filming. No way though should they be able to stop a bystander from doing it. Also if camera is mounted in your car for instance, and you dont have to hold it, then i think you should be able to film your encounters. I can understand police needing suspects to not have objects in there hands they could throw, use as a weapon, whatever.

But this sounds like I can't pull over and film cops doing there job. I should be able to do that. We need those checks against the tyranny.

Really police depts have become tools for revenue to keep the machine going. Some cities are writing millions a yr in traffic tickets for people going 3 miles over the speed limit.

Police reform is needed in just about every state.

Archer81
02-24-2011, 10:51 PM
It ends where people have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is the legal test as it applies to the constitution. A cop out in public, on public roads, has a right to privacy? Get real.


I would argue they do. To be technical, anyone who works with the public has the same issue the police do. If you worked in such a profession and someone filmed you without your permission, and then posted or broadcast it they have violated your privacy.

As the article mentioned, some states have such a law.


:Broncos:

cutthemdown
02-24-2011, 10:54 PM
I would argue they do. To be technical, anyone who works with the public has the same issue the police do. If you worked in such a profession and someone filmed you without your permission, and then posted or broadcast it they have violated your privacy.

As the article mentioned, some states have such a law.


:Broncos:

It's a twisted way of looking at privacy. It could mean you can't police the police. Also don't reporters have a right to record people without there knowledge? What about that? Who is to say who is a reporter. Even on online blog is news nowdays.

Why should police be afraid to be recorded doing the job they trained for? Are they that bad at it?

gunns
02-24-2011, 10:54 PM
Cops on anything including roids...bad combination. This is an issue that the SC needs to address sooner or later. These guys have no right to determine what a citizen is allowed to video tape in public...none. Just another example of the rampant abuse of power cops are routinely getting away with, and we need some legal checks on their power to make them stop this kind of behavior.

Cops don't need roids to be a bad combination. The power they are given has made it a bad combination. It's kind of like the guy who refuses a lie detector looking guilty, not wanting to be video taped makes them look guilty. Most likely because they are. Cracked me up when it said it jeopardized their safety. What are they, undercover? No, they are public officials, doing a public job, in public and everyone knows they are cops. Please.

It is not a violation of privacy. They are public officials, paid with tax dollars. It's like filming the legislature doing their job. If they have nothing to hide, there should be no problem and there lies the problem.

cutthemdown
02-24-2011, 10:56 PM
According to some, that's what built this country, and what keeps it great.

Roids and HS football players? Ok whatever?

OABB
02-24-2011, 10:57 PM
If this law was around in the 90s the la riots would never have happened. Just sayin...

Deuce
02-24-2011, 10:57 PM
I would argue they do. To be technical, anyone who works with the public has the same issue the police do. If you worked in such a profession and someone filmed you without your permission, and then posted or broadcast it they have violated your privacy.

As the article mentioned, some states have such a law.


:Broncos:

It doesn't matter what you say or argue, there is legal precedent that says that when you are out in public, you do NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy and you no longer have a right to privacy. If I am out on the street, in public, in plain view I have no right to privacy and I can be filmed without my permission.

"Working with the public" has no bearing on the issue. The issue is related to WHERE they work.

cutthemdown
02-24-2011, 11:02 PM
Cops don't need roids to be a bad combination. The power they are given has made it a bad combination. It's kind of like the guy who refuses a lie detector looking guilty, not wanting to be video taped makes them look guilty. Most likely because they are. Cracked me up when it said it jeopardized their safety. What are they, undercover? No, they are public officials, doing a public job, in public and everyone knows they are cops. Please.

It is not a violation of privacy. They are public officials, paid with tax dollars. It's like filming the legislature doing their job. If they have nothing to hide, there should be no problem and there lies the problem.

So what would they do if you made Cop trading cards with there picture on front, and on the back tidbits about them? You know how many awards, yrs on force, diff depts they worked in, how many times they shot someone, all problems they have had etc etc. Would that be illegal are in that all public info, if it is available publicly?

Archer81
02-24-2011, 11:03 PM
It's a twisted way of looking at privacy. It could mean you can't police the police. Also don't reporters have a right to record people without there knowledge? What about that? Who is to say who is a reporter. Even on online blog is news nowdays.

Why should police be afraid to be recorded doing the job they trained for? Are they that bad at it?


The best tool against abuse of power is knowledge. Just knowing what they can and cannot do arms you. An example, you get a cop flashing lights behind you, its late, road is dark. Who says you have to stop there? Go some place where people are. A cop can't give you a "worse ticket" because you did not immediately pull over when you did not feel safe.

A reporter does not have the right to film or record you without your knowledge. If you insist they dont and they do anyway, they open themselves up for lawsuits.

:Broncos:

AZorange1
02-24-2011, 11:03 PM
Well, Hillis is white.

I didn't realize that it was OK to advertise, no wonder you have 5,800 posts.

cutthemdown
02-24-2011, 11:06 PM
It doesn't matter what you say or argue, there is legal precedent that says that when you are out in public, you do NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy and you no longer have a right to privacy. If I am out on the street, in public, in plain view I have no right to privacy and I can be filmed without my permission.

"Working with the public" has no bearing on the issue. The issue is related to WHERE they work.

Funny govt puts cameras everywhere recording me without my permission. Not to mention wiretapping like crazy with no warrant to get IRS cases. Our law enforcement is tougher on us then they are pirates.

Archer81
02-24-2011, 11:07 PM
It doesn't matter what you say or argue, there is legal precedent that says that when you are out in public, you do NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy and you no longer have a right to privacy. If I am out on the street, in public, in plain view I have no right to privacy and I can be filmed without my permission.

"Working with the public" has no bearing on the issue. The issue is related to WHERE they work.


...Celebrities are not protected in most situations, since they have voluntarily placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities are considered newsworthy. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/


:Broncos:

Deuce
02-24-2011, 11:09 PM
A reporter does not have the right to film or record you without your knowledge. If you insist they dont and they do anyway, they open themselves up for lawsuits.

:Broncos:

Wrong.

Archer81
02-24-2011, 11:10 PM
Wrong.


I'm not. But thanks for trying.


:Broncos:

Deuce
02-24-2011, 11:13 PM
...Celebrities are not protected in most situations, since they have voluntarily placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities are considered newsworthy. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/


:Broncos:

Whats your point? How does the bolded part pertain to filming cops?

Also, it says celebrities are not protected "since they have voluntarily placed themselves already within the public eye." Is this not true of police?

cutthemdown
02-24-2011, 11:13 PM
It's not like anyone saying you should be able to record cops in meetings, inside there cars on calls etc etc. We realize they have to have some secrecy to enforce the law effectively. But on traffic stops, cmon they should be filmed there. What we need is a law saying every cop car has to have a camera going. Many depts do, and they fought it hard. They don't want the cameras because they want to decide what evidence is available to the courts. Also they want to hide from all there abuses.

My mom is 69, great lady, still working! She had a cop come up to her at the onset of the stop and say what are you too old drive maaaaam! She failed to see a stop sign but didn't get in an accident. It was a low speed area and she made a mistake. Then he proceeded to give her a dui examination? Ridiculous! My mom doesn't drink a lot or at all during the day so no way he smelled anything.

it's just there way of being jerks to citizens.

Why not come up to the window and say hello, may i see your drivers, insurance, registration. Thank you. Do you know why i stopped you today? Yes officer I didn't see the stop sign and went through it on accident.

Ok Mrs blah blah blah I am going to have to write you a ticket because things like this can cause bad accidents. Try and be more careful in the future.

But know they have to come up on my mom all combative and disrespectful. That is the real reason they dont want to be filmed. Because it would be bad PR to see them just be jerks over and over to ordinary Americans out trying to pay taxes to pay there ****ing salaries.

Deuce
02-24-2011, 11:21 PM
I'm not. But thanks for trying.


:Broncos:

Haha, you are clearly making this up as you go. Show me where the law says you cannot be filmed in public without your permission. News channels go out and film public events and the public all the time. You think they go ask permission from every single person they see?

Archer81
02-24-2011, 11:23 PM
Haha, you are clearly making this up as you go. Show me where the law says you cannot be filmed in public without your permission. News channels go out and film the public events and the public all the time. You think they go ask permission from every single person they see?


That was not what was originally said. A reporter cannot just record or film you without consent. They can and have been sued for it.

Stay on topic.

:Broncos:

Deuce
02-24-2011, 11:24 PM
That was not what was originally said. A reporter cannot just record or film you without consent. They can and have been sued for it.

Stay on topic.

:Broncos:

If you are in PUBLIC then YES THEY CAN! What part are you not understanding?

Archer81
02-24-2011, 11:26 PM
Haha, you are clearly making this up as you go. Show me where the law says you cannot be filmed in public without your permission


Common law generally holds that if in a public place, you can record anything you see, except you:

can't harass (can be persistent, but not highly intrusive or overzealous; simply being annoying is not necessarily an invasion of privacy)

Galella v. Onassis (2nd Cir. 1973): First Amendment doesn't give right to harass. Public figure has right to physical private space.
Ron Galella, a free-lance photographer who built a career on pictures of Jackie Onassis, claimed she was a public figure.
A federal court agreed, but said the First Amendment does not license Galella to trespass inside private buildings. "There is no constitutional right to assault, harass, or unceasingly shadow or distress public figures."
Court ordered him to stay a specific distance away. In 1982, a court found him in contempt for violating the order. He promised to never take another picture of her.

Can't use electronic or photographic equipuipment to enhance vision (can't use telephoto lens to see what can't see without it).

You can eavesdrop in a public place; up to people in conversation to make private.

http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/privacytorts.html

:Broncos:

Deuce
02-24-2011, 11:35 PM
Common law generally holds that if in a public place, you can record anything you see, except you:

can't harass (can be persistent, but not highly intrusive or overzealous; simply being annoying is not necessarily an invasion of privacy)

Galella v. Onassis (2nd Cir. 1973): First Amendment doesn't give right to harass. Public figure has right to physical private space.
Ron Galella, a free-lance photographer who built a career on pictures of Jackie Onassis, claimed she was a public figure.
A federal court agreed, but said the First Amendment does not license Galella to trespass inside private buildings. "There is no constitutional right to assault, harass, or unceasingly shadow or distress public figures."
Court ordered him to stay a specific distance away. In 1982, a court found him in contempt for violating the order. He promised to never take another picture of her.

Can't use electronic or photographic equipuipment to enhance vision (can't use telephoto lens to see what can't see without it).

You can eavesdrop in a public place; up to people in conversation to make private.

http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/privacytorts.html

:Broncos:

You have yet to provide any sort of evidence which is relative to the argument. What part of this says a reporter cant film you in public? I think I missed that part. Nobody would seriously argue that simply filming somebody is harassing them or highly intrusive unless the camera is foot from your face. Also, that case is referring to a photographer trespassing on private property. I gotta say, you aren't putting up much of a fight here....

Deuce
02-24-2011, 11:37 PM
I also like how you conveniently cut out this part from your link:

"People in public places have little expectation of privacy. People engaging in public activities must assume they might be photographed or filmed or that what they say publicly might be recorded. "

Play2win
02-25-2011, 12:02 AM
As far as distribution rights, model releases and commercial gain that is different, but aside from that public domain seems to be pretty forgiving. I mean what is fair use, anyway? Like many things, its all up to interpretation. And by who is doing the interpreting (at both benefit and cost to you).

epicSocialism4tw
02-25-2011, 12:32 AM
So they can video regular folks, but regular folks cant video them?

1984.

footstepsfrom#27
02-25-2011, 01:01 AM
Cops want to eliminate the public's ability to record them for one reason and one reason only and it has nothing to do with public safety, illegally making audio recordings without permission, or their right to privacy. They frequently break the law and violate people's constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, and they want to remain free to do so. If you believe anything else is the motivator behind their abusive behavior, you're simply naive.

cutthemdown
02-25-2011, 02:44 AM
I'd say a private citizen, who doesn't earn his money on the taxpayers dime, has more a right not not be recorded in public then does any person who makes there money off the taxpayers. If you want to be a public official, law enforcement, you have a higher duty to a high standard. You are saying by taking that job I am special. Different from an ordinary person as I put public service above all else. Your kids can run to me and you will know I will protect them. You can trust me to do the right thing and not act for personal gain against the interests of the public you serve.

Thats a tough job and we need to make sure any cop is a good cop. They should know at any time the whole stop could be recorded and how they treat people matters. Not just what is legal and what isn't.

In my city the projection is that unless the pensions and automatic raises are fixed the police will become 110% of the budget by 2021. But the are arguing and arguing. They should at least be able to be watched to make sure they are worth it.

cutthemdown
02-25-2011, 02:47 AM
Cops want to eliminate the public's ability to record them for one reason and one reason only and it has nothing to do with public safety, illegally making audio recordings without permission, or their right to privacy. They frequently break the law and violate people's constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, and they want to remain free to do so. If you believe anything else is the motivator behind their abusive behavior, you're simply naive.

I'm way more worried about how govt treats us, how they screw us, then how they handle pirates. Really all these issues we fight about are nothing compared to this. Orwell was right the govt is watching us at every turn but doesn't want to be watched.

What can we do though? who do we vote for that would:

a- not be super crazy
b- give us back our privacy

Also its not like I am a dove lol. I have no problem with the scanners at airports because I can't see what privacy you need when it comes to looking for bombs. But the revenue generating red light cameras, cameras on street corners, courts saying police don't need warrants to track your car if you park in a driveway accessible from the street, cops shooting people who didn't need to be shot.

Hell some of our own cops are quicker to shoot then how we deal with pirates. Send the Long Beach Police Dept out there they will kill some pirates for sure.

jhns
02-25-2011, 07:38 AM
People arguing that you can't film in public are completely wrong. Even the article says the cops have nothing. It is why no charges have stuck. It is why they were trying to use an anti wire tapping law that wasn't upheld. They weren't charged for the video.

Garcia Bronco
02-25-2011, 07:41 AM
Getting away from the a-hole cops, which is the exception, its morally wrong to film someone without their permission in public.

Archer81
02-25-2011, 07:46 AM
You have yet to provide any sort of evidence which is relative to the argument. What part of this says a reporter cant film you in public? I think I missed that part. Nobody would seriously argue that simply filming somebody is harassing them or highly intrusive unless the camera is foot from your face. Also, that case is referring to a photographer trespassing on private property. I gotta say, you aren't putting up much of a fight here....


Yes, people would argue that. A reporter coming up to you one on one cannot simply film you in public simply because you are in public. That is the point. The single case used as an example also had the photog trailing her on Public property.


:Broncos:

Archer81
02-25-2011, 07:47 AM
Dont police cruisers come equipped with mounted dashboard cameras?


:Broncos:

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2011, 07:51 AM
Yes, people would argue that. A reporter coming up to you one on one cannot simply film you in public simply because you are in public. That is the point. The single case used as an example also had the photog trailing her on Public property.


:Broncos:

You are wrong.

Are you telling me that you don't have local reporters that confront people in public and on private property to ask them questions about alleged crimes, etc.? EVERY local news station in Boston has their designated team which does this. They get a tip about an unregistered sex offender or guy who is trying to "buck" the system. They go hunt him down after work or on his way into or out of his house and start questioning him about the alleged acts. None of them consent to this and most either shout at him or run away without commenting, but it's not illegal at all.

alkemical
02-25-2011, 07:55 AM
The police have legitimate concerns. Do the film makers have the right to film whomever they choose for whatever reason? That could be construed as a violation of privacy. Also, if a state has existing laws about needing permission from those being filmed, creating yet another law to make an exception is a bit ridiculous.

The issue then becomes anyone in a position of authority being filmed. Doctors, teachers, firemen, the old broad who runs bingo. Where does it end? You are arguing abuse of power, which is not limited to the police alone.

:Broncos:


Turn-about is fair play. If "The State" is allowed to film me with the CCTV roll-outs, then I should be able to protect my interests as well.

alkemical
02-25-2011, 07:56 AM
If we want better cops, some of us need to become cops to replace the bad ones.

crawdad
02-25-2011, 07:57 AM
Where is FloridaBronco, he would have a lot to say about this!

alkemical
02-25-2011, 07:59 AM
How man people here liked the movie SuperTroopers?

If you found it funny, think about this: You enjoyed watching the abusive powers of law enforcement.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2011, 08:00 AM
Where is FloridaBronco, he would have a lot to say about this!

Can't remember the last time I saw him here.....

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2011, 08:01 AM
How man people here liked the movie SuperTroopers?

If you found it funny, think about this: You enjoyed watching the abusive powers of law enforcement.

I enjoy the Saw movies. Doesn't mean I want to be trapped in one of Jigsaw's machines.

alkemical
02-25-2011, 08:12 AM
I enjoy the Saw movies. Doesn't mean I want to be trapped in one of Jigsaw's machines.

Maybe you want to TRAP people in those machines though.

It's ok, we all have a heart of darkness. It's admitting it.

BroncoLifer
02-25-2011, 08:18 AM
Cameras are tearing the police department apart!

BroncsRule
02-25-2011, 08:34 AM
So they can video regular folks, but regular folks cant video them?

1984.

NOW you're getting it.

Rohirrim
02-25-2011, 09:19 AM
http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/files/2006/12/l34808-1.jpg

JJG
02-25-2011, 09:31 AM
...Celebrities are not protected in most situations, since they have voluntarily placed themselves already within the public eye, and their activities are considered newsworthy. However, an otherwise non-public individual has a right to privacy from: a) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/invasion-of-privacy/


:Broncos:

1- How do you define "celebrity"?
2-What if they are involuntarily placed in the public eye?
3-Who defines what is newsworthy?
4-Again, How is this defined? Is a police office considered a "non-public" individual? (I wouldn't think they are very much a public individual while on the job)
5-a) isn't being violated
6-b) isn't being violated
7-c) a bit grey here, but one could argue its not false light since its real footage of the encounter, the counter agruement being that the released footage is being edited to present the officers in a false light.
8-d) also a bit grey, selling it seems to violate this, but simply recording the interaction doesn't present any kind of inherent advantage.

jhns
02-25-2011, 09:39 AM
Again, these cops went after these guys and still never found a way to charge them for the video. The audio charges were dropped every time because those laws are to prevent wire tapping. What is the argument here? It is not illegal to video tape others in public. Even if they spin the audio stuff, you can still video tape without recording voice.

orinjkrush
02-25-2011, 09:55 AM
The police have legitimate concerns. Do the film makers have the right to film whomever they choose for whatever reason? That could be construed as a violation of privacy. Also, if a state has existing laws about needing permission from those being filmed, creating yet another law to make an exception is a bit ridiculous.

The issue then becomes anyone in a position of authority being filmed. Doctors, teachers, firemen, the old broad who runs bingo. Where does it end? You are arguing abuse of power, which is not limited to the police alone.

:Broncos:

actually, they should all be subject to filming if they enjoy "public" employment. doctors can't police themselves well. nor can teachers or firemen. we need public scrutiny to serve as the "internal affairs division". abuses of power might actually go dramatically down, if priests had to do more of their sacraments in public. operating room errors would disappear if we had "cockpit recorders" in every operating room.

Archer81
02-25-2011, 10:29 AM
actually, they should all be subject to filming if they enjoy "public" employment. doctors can't police themselves well. nor can teachers or firemen. we need public scrutiny to serve as the "internal affairs division". abuses of power might actually go dramatically down, if priests had to do more of their sacraments in public. operating room errors would disappear if we had "cockpit recorders" in every operating room.


They would still happen as long as its a person operating on another person. You just wind up creating evidence in a lawsuit against the doc or hospital.

Apparently I was wrong on what reporters can do in public. That blows.


:Broncos:

ColoradoDarin
02-25-2011, 11:36 AM
Police, Troopers and Sheriffs should have no expectation of privacy when they are on duty in public. As long as it isn't interfering with their duties, people should be allowed to record them.

I do wonder though, police are allowed to gather evidence, are those targeted not allowed to gather evidence as well?

enjolras
02-25-2011, 11:46 AM
This is so simple.

The minute you are given authority over me (as a cop is) you give up ANY expectation of privacy in carrying out that authority. It's that simple. I can conceive of a situation in which a cop should have any expectation that their actions shouldn't fall under the scrutiny of the general public.

It's so simple. If you get to put me in jail, I get to tape you doing it. That these officers don't like it when their temper tantrums (which appear to be far to common) are caught on tape. That's a problem. Police officers should be held to a MUCH higher standard than the average citizen. The opposite appears to be the case and it sucks.

maven
02-25-2011, 12:14 PM
3am Sat night/Sunday morning, south beach, cruising down Washington, and yelling out your window. Just not a smart thing to do.

cutthemdown
02-25-2011, 12:26 PM
Dont police cruisers come equipped with mounted dashboard cameras?


:Broncos:

Some depts do but the police unions fight those hard. In one city a politician who pushed for them, got them, is routinely, according to him harassed by the police.

listopencil
02-25-2011, 01:02 PM
So what would they do if you made Cop trading cards with there picture on front, and on the back tidbits about them? You know how many awards, yrs on force, diff depts they worked in, how many times they shot someone, all problems they have had etc etc. Would that be illegal are in that all public info, if it is available publicly?


This is kind of funny. In my town there are cop trading cards. They don't say how many times the cop shot at someone, but there is a bio on the back. The cops do visits to the elementary and middle schools and hand them out there. I doubt that they hand them out at the high school. Kids can also pick them up at the local police station.

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2011, 01:07 PM
This is kind of funny. In my town there are cop trading cards. They don't say how many times the cop shot at someone, but there is a bio on the back. The cops do visits to the elementary and middle schools and hand them out there. I doubt that they hand them out at the high school. Kids can also pick them up at the local police station.

Must suck to be one of the "Queens"

alkemical
02-25-2011, 01:26 PM
This is kind of funny. In my town there are cop trading cards. They don't say how many times the cop shot at someone, but there is a bio on the back. The cops do visits to the elementary and middle schools and hand them out there. I doubt that they hand them out at the high school. Kids can also pick them up at the local police station.

Do you get one with every traffic stop?

listopencil
02-25-2011, 01:30 PM
Do you get one with every traffic stop?

They used to.

broncocalijohn
02-25-2011, 02:06 PM
What a bunch of crap. Police are out of control in the USA. We have too many of them and with crime going down they are looking for ways to raise revenue any way they can.

I advocate drug testing for police because I have inside information that about 1/4 of them in LA are roided out. Roids, guns, and longing for your days as a starting linebacker in HS are a bad combination.

About the roids, I believe it. I have heard the same. You are right in Long Beach where the cops have been under public scrutiny for some shootings the last few months.

listopencil
02-25-2011, 02:29 PM
Hi! I'm a weak minded p***Y. I am going to try to troll the Mane but I will fail. I will use every stereotype that I can remember from past attempts at trolling. So...let's see...first I'm going to pretend I'm a rough and tough thug from Oakland because this is a Bronco board. Then I'll throw in some weak user name smack. Finally I'll make a vague comment that is somewhat related to the context of the thread in which I am posting. Don't worry. I'll be gone in a few days because, as I stated earlier, I'm a p***Y

Yes, meth. You certainly are.

Tombstone RJ
02-25-2011, 02:32 PM
The police have legitimate concerns. Do the film makers have the right to film whomever they choose for whatever reason? That could be construed as a violation of privacy. Also, if a state has existing laws about needing permission from those being filmed, creating yet another law to make an exception is a bit ridiculous.

The issue then becomes anyone in a position of authority being filmed. Doctors, teachers, firemen, the old broad who runs bingo. Where does it end? You are arguing abuse of power, which is not limited to the police alone.

:Broncos:

I kinda disagree, and I'm for the most part, very supportive of law enforcement. IMHO, the laws that are in place to prevent one private party filming another private party without consent is not relevant to law enforcement when they are on duty. Now, film a cop when he's not working then yah, it ain't right. However, when law enforcement is working, they are employed by the general public and are public servants, therefore they should be held to a higher standard and yes, they should be allowed to be filmed by any private citizen at any time.

If law enforcement is doing their job correctly, they've got nothing to worry about. If law enforcement is abusing their power, then yes, they should be concerned.

Hey, the can force hall me to jail if they suspect I'm driving drunk, with absolutely no proof that I'm intoxicated. Their argument is that if you are not drunk, submit to a test because you've got nothing to hide.

It works both ways. If you are doing your job right, then submit to being filmed because you got nothing to hide---right?

WolfpackGuy
02-25-2011, 02:44 PM
So what happened to the drunk looking guy who cut them off?

Was it Donte Stallworth?

Beantown Bronco
02-25-2011, 02:46 PM
So what happened to the drunk looking guy who cut them off?

Was it Donte Stallworth?

Happened in Miami? More than likely it was DJ Williams.

RunSilentRunDeep
02-25-2011, 03:13 PM
It's interesting the article said "citizen journalist," it's not as if professional journalist have to get a license or anything. But cops would never bother charging a professional journalist because they know news organizations have the lawyers to give them a good butt kicking. Plus, they'd lose the PR battle badly.

KipCorrington25
02-25-2011, 06:41 PM
What does this have to do with somebody being the next Ed McCaffrey?

OrangenBlueOhio
02-25-2011, 07:11 PM
Police, Troopers and Sheriffs should have no expectation of privacy when they are on duty in public. As long as it isn't interfering with their duties, people should be allowed to record them.

I do wonder though, police are allowed to gather evidence, are those targeted not allowed to gather evidence as well?

These two were trying to create evidence. They were clearly trying to provoke the cops into giving them some "Rodney King" type video. Having said that I agree police who are in uniform, conducting business with the public should be allowed to be taped.

As for cops getting away with too much, I can live with that. I sure as heck would'nt put my life on the line every day, dealing with the a-holes they have to deal with, for the money they get.

loborugger
02-25-2011, 07:46 PM
Case in point:

This evening I was rolling along in rush hour traffic. For those familiar with Albuquerque, I was west bound on Paseo Del Norte at about 4:45 this afternoon when I noticed a BCSO officer next to me. Due to the volume of traffic, we were rolling along about 30/35 MPH. I noticed that the sheriff had a cell phone in his hands and was texting. Specifically, he had the phone propped up on the steering wheel where the horn traditionally is, and had both hands hammering away at the keyboard. Every 4/5 seconds, he would glance up just to verify the distance between himself and the vehicle in front of him. Otherwise, he was oblivious to everything else, including me staring intently at me. Normally cops have high situational awareness, and this goof didnt notice me eye ****ing him for 2/3 miles.

Now, were I inclined, I could report him to the sheriff. And what would happen? Nothing. Why? Because, it becomes his word vs mine and even though I am an upstanding citizen, he is a cop. And I would be reporting this cop to other cops. They might try to placate me, but in the end this would go away. He certainly wouldnt get a 25 dollar fine (first offense in NM - which is flippin cheap compared to other states) or have to report it to his insurance. Or the condescending road side lecture by the uniformed hypocrite. In the end, because I have no other proof than my word, its goes away.

Now, video tape it, and that's evidence that is hard to refute. Its no longer Mr Law Enforcement Above Reproach vs a citizen. Its him trying to explain the video - which he really cant. Of course, he probably wont get in trouble in measurable manner (fine, report to his insurance company, etc), but at least its documented evidence.

And while this example is a relatively trivial event, it oughta be crystal clear evidence of why we need to be able to video tape cops just as they video tape us. Because while this clown was only committing a moving violation, as we saw in Houston just last week, a group of cops went Rodney King on some kid. And it 'never happened', except that someone caught it on video.

oubronco
02-25-2011, 07:49 PM
I've never met a cop that didn't think he was above the law

loborugger
02-25-2011, 08:15 PM
I've never met a cop that didn't think he was above the law

As my brother in law used to say, "I am a law enforcer, not a law abider."

cutthemdown
02-26-2011, 01:33 AM
About the roids, I believe it. I have heard the same. You are right in Long Beach where the cops have been under public scrutiny for some shootings the last few months.

I sort of knew the guy who got shot. I don't go to 2nd street to party that much anymore but the know the bar he was at well. Know the area like the back of my hand. Doug Zerby was sort of slow. He was drunk, sitting on a porch, waiting for a friend with a hand nozzle in his hand. Police snuck up on him, watched him for 20 minutes, never announced themselves, then shot him. Then said he pointed gun. Then said no gun. Then produced a water nozzle.

It's pretty bad. It has nothing to do with race either, they are shooting all people and asking questions later. Couple cops got killed, then gangs got a little girl in a crossfire, seems like then the cops are going crazy. Now a few weeks ago they shot a cop as he sat in his car. It's a powdergeg. My side of town safe, but the snoop dog side has federal gang task forces working all over. Few days ago the arrested a bunch of some local gang.

Beantown Bronco
02-26-2011, 08:52 AM
Georgia's finest vs a bunch of Girl Scouts

<object width="420" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.comcast.net/ve/1.0/1818410906/420/356/"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.comcast.net/ve/1.0/1818410906/420/356/" allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="420" height="356" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

fdf
02-26-2011, 01:27 PM
The police have legitimate concerns. Do the film makers have the right to film whomever they choose for whatever reason? That could be construed as a violation of privacy. Also, if a state has existing laws about needing permission from those being filmed, creating yet another law to make an exception is a bit ridiculous.

The issue then becomes anyone in a position of authority being filmed. Doctors, teachers, firemen, the old broad who runs bingo. Where does it end? You are arguing abuse of power, which is not limited to the police alone.

:Broncos:

In a lot of cities, when you are out in public, you are being filmed by police or security cameras. In London, you are on film almost everywhere you go on the street. If you are doing something you would be ashamed to see on You Tube, you shouldn't do it in public. There are cameras everywhere. (Like the guy in Chicago who caught the woman stealing his snow shovel--she became national news.)

Anyone who has some expectation of privacy on a public street is foolish and wrong. That applies to police. It ought to apply to teachers in a public classroom and firemen too. I'm a pretty conservative guy, not a flaming liberal. And I generally support the police and oppose the bs stuff they are put thru by courts and defendants. But there is absolutely no reason police should be doing things they are ashamed to have on film. And no justification for them confiscating cameras or data from cameras.

Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society." So too would be a well camera'ed society.

So that said, these guys doing the filming are acting like jerks and trying to provoke confrontations to make cops look bad. Sort of the Michael Moore school of film making. Take enough footage and you can edit together something that makes someone look bad. Someone should follow them around and film them and put it on you tube.

fdf
02-26-2011, 01:32 PM
actually, they should all be subject to filming if they enjoy "public" employment. doctors can't police themselves well. nor can teachers or firemen. we need public scrutiny to serve as the "internal affairs division". abuses of power might actually go dramatically down, if priests had to do more of their sacraments in public. operating room errors would disappear if we had "cockpit recorders" in every operating room.

I agree. You remember how ballistic teachers unions went when that video of the Denver school teacher raging against Bush in the classroom hit the news. Giving students the right to film and post public school teachers classes would go a long way to improving education.

If the teacher isn't ashamed to say it in the classroom, they shouldn't be ashamed to have it on you tube.

BroncoFanatic
02-26-2011, 10:16 PM
Cops want to eliminate the public's ability to record them for one reason and one reason only and it has nothing to do with public safety, illegally making audio recordings without permission, or their right to privacy. They frequently break the law and violate people's constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, and they want to remain free to do so. If you believe anything else is the motivator behind their abusive behavior, you're simply naive.

This sums it up well.

Welcome to Police State USA

schaaf
02-27-2011, 01:10 AM
**** Da Police!!!

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 06:50 AM
I know I'm probably going to get blasted for this reply, and I definitaly expect it. While yes, what these cops are doing is WAY out of control this story seems vastly one-sided and doesnt bring in the full picture. All quotes from the officers are the quotes that make them seem like 'pigs' which is the same trick the media plays when conducting interviews to make say, politicians, seem like they said something they did not. Or hell, something you wife/girlfriend would use to screw with you. However my counterpoint is why should all police activity be 'monitored and filmed by everyone'? I understand it's America and we have the freedom and right to, but it also counteracts their operating procedure and the way they handle bigger situations. Say a large drug cartel or even just a gang against cops watches random videos of cops in their area to see how they react when dealing with say, traffic stops, so the said gang can murder the cop and get away with it. Knowing if/when they would call for back up, at what point they radio in a stop, what their patrol routes are, and such. It's very similar to what the military does with OPSEC and insurgent training. I know this is a big jump, but if Al-Queda is video taping troop movements and procedures, they use it against our troops to find weaknesses and exploit them. While I absolutely agree these cops are out of line, the full report needs to be given and these civillians need to understand that by filming all these events they could also be putting these cops' lives at risk by allowing others to exploit their daily routines. It seems harmless to just film a traffic stop, but the end result could be much worse.

BroncosSR
02-28-2011, 07:08 AM
I know I'm probably going to get blasted for this reply, and I definitaly expect it. While yes, what these cops are doing is WAY out of control this story seems vastly one-sided and doesnt bring in the full picture. All quotes from the officers are the quotes that make them seem like 'pigs' which is the same trick the media plays when conducting interviews to make say, politicians, seem like they said something they did not. Or hell, something you wife/girlfriend would use to screw with you. However my counterpoint is why should all police activity be 'monitored and filmed by everyone'? I understand it's America and we have the freedom and right to, but it also counteracts their operating procedure and the way they handle bigger situations. Say a large drug cartel or even just a gang against cops watches random videos of cops in their area to see how they react when dealing with say, traffic stops, so the said gang can murder the cop and get away with it. Knowing if/when they would call for back up, at what point they radio in a stop, what their patrol routes are, and such. It's very similar to what the military does with OPSEC and insurgent training. I know this is a big jump, but if Al-Queda is video taping troop movements and procedures, they use it against our troops to find weaknesses and exploit them. While I absolutely agree these cops are out of line, the full report needs to be given and these civillians need to understand that by filming all these events they could also be putting these cops' lives at risk by allowing others to exploit their daily routines. It seems harmless to just film a traffic stop, but the end result could be much worse.


I understand what your saying but one could simply watch and observe with their own eyes for this kind of surveillance. Take the video recording out of it and there's no difference. That becomes more of a training issue.

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 07:16 AM
I understand what your saying but one could simply watch and observe with their own eyes for this kind of surveillance. Take the video recording out of it and there's no difference. That becomes more of a training issue.

Absolutely it could simply be done with someones own eyes. However that puts the surveyer at risk of being caught, or at least questioned. Putting all these videos up on YouTube allowes anyone to do their reasearch from their own home with no risk of the cops doing their actual job of catching legit criminals. I do agree cops spend way to much time going after a bunch of B.S. like this, and well the girl scout video, but what the guys in the main article are doing is opening a huge window for criminals to crawl right through.

txtebow
02-28-2011, 07:19 AM
I would argue they do. To be technical, anyone who works with the public has the same issue the police do. If you worked in such a profession and someone filmed you without your permission, and then posted or broadcast it they have violated your privacy.

As the article mentioned, some states have such a law.


:Broncos:

They absolutely do not. IF it can be witnessed IN PERSON by the human eye, then it can be witnessed on video with the electric eye...........

TailgateNut
02-28-2011, 08:20 AM
I know I'm probably going to get blasted for this reply, and I definitaly expect it. While yes, what these cops are doing is WAY out of control this story seems vastly one-sided and doesnt bring in the full picture. All quotes from the officers are the quotes that make them seem like 'pigs' which is the same trick the media plays when conducting interviews to make say, politicians, seem like they said something they did not. Or hell, something you wife/girlfriend would use to screw with you. However my counterpoint is why should all police activity be 'monitored and filmed by everyone'? I understand it's America and we have the freedom and right to, but it also counteracts their operating procedure and the way they handle bigger situations. Say a large drug cartel or even just a gang against cops watches random videos of cops in their area to see how they react when dealing with say, traffic stops, so the said gang can murder the cop and get away with it. Knowing if/when they would call for back up, at what point they radio in a stop, what their patrol routes are, and such. It's very similar to what the military does with OPSEC and insurgent training. I know this is a big jump, but if Al-Queda is video taping troop movements and procedures, they use it against our troops to find weaknesses and exploit them. While I absolutely agree these cops are out of line, the full report needs to be given and these civillians need to understand that by filming all these events they could also be putting these cops' lives at risk by allowing others to exploit their daily routines. It seems harmless to just film a traffic stop, but the end result could be much worse.


Sorry Bubba, but the corruption and violent tacticts by police forces caused this to become commonplace. I don't trust a cop as far as I can punt him/her.
Video is the best thing that has happened for the public, and of course the cops will try to use your illogical line of excuses as to why it shouldn't be allowed.

If they follow procedure and aren't corrupt violent asshole, they have no worries.

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 08:28 AM
Sorry Bubba, but the corruption and violent tacticts by police forces caused this to become commonplace. I don't trust a cop as far as I can punt him/her.
Video is the best thing that has happened for the public, and of course the cops will try to use your illogical line of excuses as to why it shouldn't be allowed.

If they follow procedure and aren't corrupt violent a-hole, they have no worries.

And I agree, cops have the public opinion of hitler, and yes video is the best thing to happen for humanity overall for bringing out the truth. But also the immidiate attidude that the cop is wrong for just being there, then taunted, of coarse he's gonna act that way. If both sides backed off then there would be no issue. Or at least minimal. It's the same issue as the middle east. They want us dead because we're there and we're there because they want us dead. (No I do not want to make this a political/mid-east/war topic, just a reference)

tsiguy96
02-28-2011, 08:33 AM
And I agree, cops have the public opinion of hitler, and yes video is the best thing to happen for humanity overall for bringing out the truth. But also the immidiate attidude that the cop is wrong for just being there, then taunted, of coarse he's gonna act that way. If both sides backed off then there would be no issue. Or at least minimal. It's the same issue as the middle east. They want us dead because we're there and we're there because they want us dead. (No I do not want to make this a political/mid-east/war topic, just a reference)

the cop is the professional, he needs to handle this stuff in a professional way. just because something is hard doesnt mean he should immediately start threatening and arresting because he can.

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 08:39 AM
the cop is the professional, he needs to handle this stuff in a professional way. just because something is hard doesnt mean he should immediately start threatening and arresting because he can.

No, he shouldn't, and the cop is wrong in that aspect. However his safety shouldn't be comprimised just because some people want to rile up the local cops and have their little adrinline rush, or whatever it is they get from being thrown over the hood of a police car. I'm not saying that if your walking by and you see some kid getting beat up by cops that no pictures or something should be taken, but video taping every move every cop makes comprimises thier safety. That's my main point.

TailgateNut
02-28-2011, 09:36 AM
And I agree, cops have the public opinion of hitler, and yes video is the best thing to happen for humanity overall for bringing out the truth. But also the immidiate attidude that the cop is wrong for just being there, then taunted, of coarse he's gonna act that way. If both sides backed off then there would be no issue. Or at least minimal. It's the same issue as the middle east. They want us dead because we're there and we're there because they want us dead. (No I do not want to make this a political/mid-east/war topic, just a reference)

HorseDookey. Most of the police brutality which occured in the past wasn't provoked and occured because they victim faced the "his word vs their word" in the courtroom. The DPD is notorious for just kicking the **** out of someone for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Westminster police have been turned in by federal heights for doing the same ****. Aurora and Denver like to shoot people who threaten them with the likes of butter knives and soda cans. This BS has been going on forever, but now the little overzealous assholes have to be careful and hide their brutality.

TailgateNut
02-28-2011, 09:38 AM
No, he shouldn't, and the cop is wrong in that aspect. However his safety shouldn't be comprimised just because some people want to rile up the local cops and have their little adrinline rush, or whatever it is they get from being thrown over the hood of a police car. I'm not saying that if your walking by and you see some kid getting beat up by cops that no pictures or something should be taken, but video taping every move every cop makes comprimises thier safety. That's my main point.

Horse**** again!

TailgateNut
02-28-2011, 09:39 AM
These videos can also protect the taxpayers if the victim of brutality sues the dept/city.
If they can prove the cops was not followin procedure, maybe they can turn around and sue the officer for his actions, or at least dump the chump!

Dedhed
02-28-2011, 09:51 AM
Getting away from the a-hole cops, which is the exception, its morally wrong to film someone without their permission in public.

I would agree that's true in general, but not for an employee of the "public".

tsiguy96
02-28-2011, 09:53 AM
I would agree that's true in general, but not for an employee of the "public".

they are supposed to serve for the betterment of society and to protect the public, they are funded by taxpayer money, they should not be above having their work videotaped

Garcia Bronco
02-28-2011, 10:05 AM
Taxpayer, cop, whatever...when you video anyone without their permission...you run the risk of pissing them off.

Tombstone RJ
02-28-2011, 10:06 AM
The cops video tape criminal activity all the time, and rightly so. Unfortunately in the past, too many criminals have walked due to technicalities in the judicial system. The videos (you see them all the time on channels like TruTV) help law enforcement document the actions of the accused criminal.

I see no problem in public officials & employees (politicians, law enforcement, postal employees, anyone who get's paid off public taxes, etc.) being video taped by private citizans whenever they are working. None. These people are being paid by my taxes, and yes, I'm holding them responsible for how they conduct their jobs.

There's no reason law enforcement should not be able to be taped by a private citizen when they are doing their job. If law enforcement is doing their job correctly, then this video tape will back them up and help those being arrested (or what not) be brought to justice. If law enforcement (or any public official or employee) is abusing their power acting hypocritically or by using unjustified force, then the private citizen should have the right to document this behavior.

enjolras
02-28-2011, 11:15 AM
No, he shouldn't, and the cop is wrong in that aspect. However his safety shouldn't be comprimised just because some people want to rile up the local cops and have their little adrinline rush, or whatever it is they get from being thrown over the hood of a police car. I'm not saying that if your walking by and you see some kid getting beat up by cops that no pictures or something should be taken, but video taping every move every cop makes comprimises thier safety. That's my main point.

I think your committing a fallacy here. You've postulated a rather complex scenario in which video of police officers are used to somehow put them in danger. While it may be possible, to my eye it seems really unlikely. Police officers face threats thousands of orders of magnitude higher than this. You can also concoct equally far-fetched scenarios in which filming police officers would make them far safer (surely someone would be less likely to pull a gun on a cop if they were being filmed).

Meanwhile the benefits, to society, of public scrutiny for these officers is off the charts. To put aside what's best for the public for the imagined possibility of something just doesn't make any sense.

Dedhed
02-28-2011, 11:25 AM
they are supposed to serve for the betterment of society and to protect the public, they are funded by taxpayer money, they should not be above having their work videotaped
That's exactly what I said.

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 01:17 PM
Everyone here seems to be blaming all cops for what i believe is the highly published actions of a few. If you really do believe all cops are this messed up then it comes down to it being the people in charge of these cops allowing this behavior to happen. It boils down to elected officials who put these cops on the streets. And in that case its the voters fault for putting these 'incompetent' people in power. Also you say that the videos can lead to evidence being held against the cops and reffered to many cases boiling down to 'his/her word vs. the cops word. Well if someone was there to video tape then they were also there to witness, and could accomplish the same result simply by going to court to testify against the cop. One persons word vs. a cops won't hold up. 10 peoples word vs. a cop has a better shot. Its the same result, without endagerment. If you don't believe that this system would work then you dont believe in the American judicial system and the power of voting.

Beantown Bronco
02-28-2011, 01:21 PM
Well if someone was there to video tape then they were also there to witness, and could accomplish the same result simply by going to court to testify against the cop. One persons word vs. a cops won't hold up. 10 peoples word vs. a cop has a better shot. Its the same result, without endagerment.

Ummm, that logic only works when there are 10 people video-taping the same event. Not one.

Dedhed
02-28-2011, 01:27 PM
Georgia's finest vs a bunch of Girl Scouts

<object width="420" height="356"><param name="movie" value="http://www.comcast.net/ve/1.0/1818410906/420/356/"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.comcast.net/ve/1.0/1818410906/420/356/" allowScriptAccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="420" height="356" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed></object>

This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts about cops. The utter lack of common sense and any sort of people skill is beyond disturbing to me.

Any public servant should be required to have a baseline ability to communicate and interact with the public, but turds like this guy and all bad cops think it's about them.

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 01:41 PM
Ummm, that logic only works when there are 10 people video-taping the same event. Not one.

No, what I'm saying is if theres someone there to video tape, they're also a witness. Negating the need for a video tape. If the cops crime against a civillian is done with no one around then there would be no one to video tape, which negates the benifit of fixing the 'he said she said' problem

alkemical
02-28-2011, 01:46 PM
Everyone here seems to be blaming all cops for what i believe is the highly published actions of a few. If you really do believe all cops are this messed up then it comes down to it being the people in charge of these cops allowing this behavior to happen. It boils down to elected officials who put these cops on the streets. And in that case its the voters fault for putting these 'incompetent' people in power. Also you say that the videos can lead to evidence being held against the cops and reffered to many cases boiling down to 'his/her word vs. the cops word. Well if someone was there to video tape then they were also there to witness, and could accomplish the same result simply by going to court to testify against the cop. One persons word vs. a cops won't hold up. 10 peoples word vs. a cop has a better shot. Its the same result, without endagerment. If you don't believe that this system would work then you dont believe in the American judicial system and the power of voting.

If you don't like meat head cops, become a cop and police differently.

Beantown Bronco
02-28-2011, 01:54 PM
No, what I'm saying is if theres someone there to video tape, they're also a witness. Negating the need for a video tape. If the cops crime against a civillian is done with no one around then there would be no one to video tape, which negates the benifit of fixing the 'he said she said' problem

That's one witness and one victim. That is the definition of he said/she said and not in any way the equivalent of the "10 witnesses" you referenced above.....which would carry some serious weight. One witness to abuse (not counting the victim) carries nowhere near the weight of a video. THAT is my point.

TailgateNut
02-28-2011, 02:14 PM
Everyone here seems to be blaming all cops for what i believe is the highly published actions of a few. If you really do believe all cops are this messed up then it comes down to it being the people in charge of these cops allowing this behavior to happen. It boils down to elected officials who put these cops on the streets. And in that case its the voters fault for putting these 'incompetent' people in power. Also you say that the videos can lead to evidence being held against the cops and reffered to many cases boiling down to 'his/her word vs. the cops word. Well if someone was there to video tape then they were also there to witness, and could accomplish the same result simply by going to court to testify against the cop. One persons word vs. a cops won't hold up. 10 peoples word vs. a cop has a better shot. Its the same result, without endagerment. If you don't believe that this system would work then you dont believe in the American judicial system and the power of voting.


Wow! You really believe in the judicial system. It is predjudicail against the accused and for the cop. PERIOD! ...and then to top it off, when they do get caught screwing up/off, they get a paid vacation until the investigation, which, btw, usually favors them, is completed.

And no, the superiors either don't give a ****, or stick their head in the sand. Just look at Denver Police Dept. for examples.

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 02:22 PM
Wow! You really believe in the judicial system. It is predjudicail against the accused and for the cop. PERIOD! ...and then to top it off, when they do get caught screwing up/off, they get a paid vacation until the investigation, which, btw, usually favors them, is completed.

And no, the superiors either don't give a ****, or stick their head in the sand. Just look at Denver Police Dept. for examples.

I do believe in the judicial system. I dont believe in the people running it. And yes, their superiors dont give a **** and thats the elected officals fault for putting these people in charge. It's our responsibility as voters to fix the problem at the source, not video cameras on the streets, but simply by voting competent people into office

cutthemdown
02-28-2011, 02:23 PM
If you don't like meat head cops, become a cop and police differently.

So you can't complain unless you are willing to be a cop? You can't expect change, or for them to do better unless you want to change your career to law enforcement?

This is just like if you support military action, but weren't in the military, then you are lame. I play music but you don't see me telling people if you don't like todays music then learn how to play an instrument and write something good.

I also work in a law firm but you don't see me saying if you think lawyers are evil then become a lawyer and make a change in the world.

It's just by far the lamest way to make an argument the mane knows.

El Guapo
02-28-2011, 02:24 PM
There have also been instances where criminals have been found with cd's / DVDs detailing who the police are in certain areas of town and where they live. Filming events like these idiots do could also contribute to these groups that are targeting authorities. It's not just all lollipops and candy canes, cops react to cameras like this for a reason.

TailgateNut
02-28-2011, 02:25 PM
I do believe in the judicial system. I dont believe in the people running it. And yes, their superiors dont give a **** and thats the elected officals fault for putting these people in charge. It's our responsibility as voters to fix the problem at the source, not video cameras on the streets, but simply by voting competent people into office


LOLThey all seem competent until they start sitting at a public desk.


So, according to you, it's the voters fault that some egomaniac abuses his power and position.Hilarious!

TailgateNut
02-28-2011, 02:26 PM
There have also been instances where criminals have been found with cd's / DVDs detailing who the police are in certain areas of town and where they live. Filming events like these idiots do could also contribute to these groups that are targeting authorities. It's not just all lollipops and candy canes, cops react to cameras like this for a reason.

RIIIIIGHT!?!Hilarious!

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 02:29 PM
LOLThey all seem competent until they start sitting at a public desk.


So, according to you, it's the voters fault that some egomaniac abuses his power and position.Hilarious!

No, it's the voters responsibilty to put someone new in there. Ok ya most do end up as a-holes but you cant just stop trying and shift the blame to the few bad cops and endganger the good ones

TheChamp247
02-28-2011, 02:30 PM
There have also been instances where criminals have been found with cd's / DVDs detailing who the police are in certain areas of town and where they live. Filming events like these idiots do could also contribute to these groups that are targeting authorities. It's not just all lollipops and candy canes, cops react to cameras like this for a reason.

Thank you, I do appriciate at least someone else taking up the devils advocte position lol.

TallyBronco
02-28-2011, 02:35 PM
There have also been instances where criminals have been found with cd's / DVDs detailing who the police are in certain areas of town and where they live. Filming events like these idiots do could also contribute to these groups that are targeting authorities. It's not just all lollipops and candy canes, cops react to cameras like this for a reason.

Yeah, it's not as if there are uniforms that tell you who holds the power of policing in a city!