Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Mr. Baby Man
26695 Followers
Mr. Baby Man
26695 Followers
Abdul Haque
377 Followers
Abdul Haque
377 Followers
Curious Night Owl
830 Followers
Curious Night Owl
830 Followers
misslindadeeAug 4, 2010
no! they can be naughty as anyone and should be held accountable.
theaceoffireAug 4, 2010
They should be held to even *HIGHER* standards compared to the average person.
They get more power than average Joe, more liability and responsibility should go with it.
brucealmightyAug 4, 2010
Plus, we're paying their salaries.
ripleyisdeadAug 5, 2010
We're paying their salaries and the only jobs they seem to be doing are liberating traffic violators from their cash, and teenagers from their beer.
firesinisAug 5, 2010
Although I agree with the general proposition, please don't use the "we pay their salaries, so we should be able to order them" argument. Don't they also pay taxes? So they also pay their own salary, and by this logic should be able to do whatever they please. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
firesinis: I think you are on to something. Quick, get Obama on the phone! If everyone simply paid their own salary everyone would have a job! You solved the only problem capitalism has!
brallitAug 10, 2010
I said this when being considered for jury duty (an officer was the defendant...)
Needless to say, I didn't get selected to be on the jury. =/
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
....do YOU wanna get naughty?
halphpriceAug 5, 2010
Who's watching Big Brother?
spongebadAug 5, 2010
I am. Rachel's a bitch.
Oh...wait...not THAT Big Brother...
w1cked1Aug 5, 2010
First intelligent post I've seen from you. Could there be hope... am I drunk.. where are my pants
zirchxworldAug 5, 2010
they are only scared because more "peace" officers will get fired for the s**t they pull (as they should).
siszamAug 6, 2010
Police don't get fired. They get paid vacations.
addiktionAug 5, 2010
I know the police like to think they are FBI or CIA agents where if certain information got out it would jeopardy the mission or whatever but they are dreaming. They are cops and their job is built to protect and work for civilians as they are sworn into the field. Therefore they need to be watched closely to make sure no one gets out of line and abuses their power.
herostratusAug 5, 2010
Don't tape me bro!
torikanAug 5, 2010
Videotaping the police should be no more illegal than videotaping employees in the workforce. US tax payers support their jobs and should have the right to videotape just as a cameras are used to prevent internal theft. The major difference is that our rights have a much higher potential of being violated if video taping is ruled out.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Videotaping cops should never be a crime. Just as Google Street Cam can catch anybody in an embarrassing act, cops should be subject to the same scrutiny as we are.
themazzterAug 4, 2010
That's not really comparable, Google Street Cam is out to photograph streets, not police officers or any thing embarrassing, If you take video of a police officer it's a different intent right there.
I too believe it should be legal though. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodesComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nainsellAug 4, 2010
It's in a public place. There is no expectation of privacy. It's the exact same logical argument even what compels the argument to be made is different in circumstance.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
I don't think your Watchmen reference is helping...
alexbarnes94Aug 5, 2010
@teamtom, it was a quote from Roman poet Juvenal thousands of years before it became a Watchmen reference.
joehagueAug 4, 2010
I think that's pretty spot on. I think anyone whose job involves any type of civil service loses all expectations of privacy any time they are on the job. Furthermore I think any person who leaves there house to go out in public loses all expectations of privacy.
luckyscsAug 5, 2010
Anyone who puts their information on the internet cannot expect privacy either.
shinzenAug 5, 2010
I don't know why people dugg you down. You're right, in the context of facebook and other sites where there is no such expectation, but not for for example a store where it's expected that they wont go flashing your credit card info around everywhere.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Cops should be put to more scrutiny than we are. They're in positions of power, have basically the legal okay to beat and detain people, and have been known historically to abuse their privileges.
joshreflekAug 5, 2010
All public servants should be required to have full monitoring of their workday and maybe even their personal lives.
after all, its already being done to us.
ireneattoliaAug 9, 2010
Abuse of "privilege" is becoming increasingly common, more violent, and almost predictable. The populace is in need of protection /from/ adversarial police. Too many cops are out of control, and the lust for power feeds on itself. They think they are above the law. Many times they are, but it shouldn't be that way.
theswashbucklerAug 4, 2010
The legal issue raised is different: Google Street Cam doesn't capture audio - that's the issue prosecutors are raising. It's bulls**t, but that's what they're doing to try to protect the cops...
firesinisAug 5, 2010
Fine, just tape them with the audio off.
themapleboyAug 5, 2010
@firesinis then they say you said something you didn't etc.
theswashbucklerAug 5, 2010
Not to mention that they will choose not to believe you and will arrest you anyway, confiscating your video camera in the process. Thus accomplishing their goal of stopping you from recording video.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
And frankly, if a company can setup cameras to monitor it's employees in it's property, shouldn't the citizens be allowed to do the same thing to their employees?
ayeroxorAug 5, 2010
IT'S = IT IS
beatpunchbeefAug 4, 2010
Moreover, they are public servants. So yeah, tape the hell out of them.
Additionally, if they are taped beating the snot out of a high speed pursuit suspect after finally getting to them, that tape should be distributed and used to show how awesome and satisfying it is to inflict justice.
hangglideAug 5, 2010
I think that about sums it up. As of right now 144 to 0 think that videotaping cops should never be a crime. The people have spoken.
I wonder if anyone is listening.
themapleboyAug 5, 2010
its sad that our opinion means nothing to them
ripleyisdeadAug 5, 2010
I can't even believe it's a f**king question. Why the hell isn't Time's title saying it like it is "Damn YEAH We Can Videotape the Police"
dty2010Aug 5, 2010
Probably because nobody says "Damn yeah." It just sounds weird.
thekipperAug 5, 2010
I agree with Dilberto! Google Street Cam should also be illegal!
/s
fungowskiAug 5, 2010
for your information black people can't even get lice
novenatorAug 4, 2010
If you value your personal liberty, you should support holding law enforcement accountable. They are not above the law, and documenting your encounter simply *has* to be protected.
One of the main problems is that cops have so many discretionary powers in America today, that they can virtually detain and arrest you for anything.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
It is kind of like how at the US border crossings they prohibit all cameras, microphones, and cell phones for security. Well, I can understand the latter, but I have heard agents say some things that should have gotten them reprimanded that ought to be recorded.
smacksawAug 5, 2010
My partner was a supervisor for ICE/CBP and I have a few friends that still work there. And the s**t he pulls at the border blows my mind. Because he knows their jobs better than they do, he goes nuts on them when they screw up. Me, I'm afraid of harassment. He dares them to screw with him.
Why?
Because everything you say or do is recorded and you lodge a FOIA to get it. He always tells me "Devin, if they ever screw with you, ask to speak to the supervisor immediately. And if it's the supe screwing with you, talk to the port director."
If you are being harassed, you need to report it. You have no idea how many lawsuits are going on because of misconduct. It's how we weed the bad guys out...and sadly some good ones who just had a bad day.
Also keep in mind that the borders are private property, so you have no legal right to record anything, nor should you do it. But everything is being recorded, FAR more than you realise. Even your conversations when you wait in the car. You're being recorded for half a mile before you reach the checkpoint. Everything. If you have done nothing wrong, you have tons of audio and video to prove it.
We need you to help get rid of the bad guys. Lodge a complaint. I promise you that if there's a bad egg, he or she probably has every co-worker dying for them to get busted, but can't because it makes them a snitch and they have to rely on each other.
ireneattoliaAug 9, 2010
@smacksaw: But everything is being recorded, FAR more than you realise. Even your conversations when you wait in the car. You're being recorded for half a mile before you reach the checkpoint. Everything.
=
Is this literal? And if so, how, and under what conditions? Inform us.
itzdicemanAug 4, 2010
So you'd prefer to get a speeding ticket for going 1mph over the limit? Or crossing the street outside a cross walk? Or how about getting your car towed because you forgot to put the new proof of insurance in the glove box?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
weirddaveAug 4, 2010
I would prefer that people actually get punished for not following the letter of the law. I don't know if anybody else thinks so, but if people were punished for breaking the law a little bit then the laws would definitely change to be more reasonable. One of the first steps to a police state is to make sure that everybody is guilty of something.
Obviously, your example of getting towed is not applicable since in every state I've ever seen, they do call you on not having insurance, and make you prove so to a judge later. You're exaggerating the penalty to make your point sound better.
novenatorAug 4, 2010
itz, my belief is that the law should be upheld, but reasonable. Unfortunately, it is far too easy to make the laws far more strict than they need to be in order to give law enforcement more powers to do what they want. If you disagree, you get branded a 'criminal apologist', and they know this and use it. Thus, their powers keep growing and growing, and our freedoms keep shrinking and shrinking.
goldyoshiAug 5, 2010
I love straw men, too!
bungdiddyAug 5, 2010
Disrespecting a police officer is absolutely not against the law. You can tell a cop to f**k off all you want.
alexbarnes94Aug 5, 2010
Unfortunately, 99% of cops will arrest you for "threatening them", "verbal abuse", "disorderly conduct", etc... You're right though, it definitely *should* be allowed, especially when they're abusing their power.
morbendkAug 5, 2010
While in a perfect world I would say all recording should be allowed unless it interferes with the operations of the officer, I also realize that this method leaves a large loophole.
This leave us with one option. The most just manner to handle it is to allow any/all recording of police officers. If there is a problem with someone obstructing justice/interfering with the police while recording, that can be handled on a case by case basis.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Police should always be held responsible for their actions, just like everybody else. It ridiculous that people that have videotaped them then have to fear harassment. Though, I would like to think that if I found myself in that situation, I wouldn't let the cops bully me around.
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
Yeah I'm pretty sure I could say some stuff that would probably get him either to leave me alone, or cause him to throw a black-bag over my head and toss me in the trunk.
MitchPaigeAug 5, 2010
I thought the same thing until they maced me, beat me with billy clubs, and then charged me with 4 felony counts of aggravated assault against a police officer. The largest evidence of my dastardly deed was the sprained elbow of an officer which he hurt from using too much force with the billy club as he beat me with it.
Thankfully I was able to buy a good plea deal with a 15k lawyer, as the small town court I was being tried in is notorious for backing police. In fact when my lawyer and the A.D.A. prosecuting me brought me the plea deal, the A.D.A. flat out told me she caught the cops lying, but that the Judge would dismiss all evidence of police wrong doing, and I would be found guilty of 4 felonies. She wasn't even going to try and drop the charges herself, as she would just lose her job.
The cop who started the fight is actually a known rapist who hides behind his shield, and was actually fired from the Police Force he was on when he went after me for daring to let other people know he raped my high school girlfriend. The community had finally found a way to get rid of the guy who liked to eye 14 year old girls, he only turned in an eight ball of coke, while another officer filed a report stating they had seized over an ounce of cocaine. He sued for his job back, won a $175,000 wrongful termination lawsuit, and was hired by the State Police to be part of a Drug Task Force.
What's sad, I feel lucky not to have had my life totally destroyed. It's pretty bad job wise, but at least I'm not a felon. If they had convicted me of a felony, you would probably all be demonizing me right now for going postal and killing the f**ker. As it is, he is out there right now, and probably still raping high school age girls.
inajeepAug 4, 2010
I have yet to hear a valid point on why it should be illegal.
theaceoffireAug 4, 2010
Because it makes it harder for us to break the laws if people keep filming me!
//Goes back to tazing people.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Aiiiyyeeee!
4degreesAug 4, 2010
dont taze me bro!
txaggie08Aug 5, 2010
Obligatory "Don't taze me bro!"
energyxAug 4, 2010
because of terrorists
wilcocolaAug 4, 2010
excuse me it's spelled "TERR' ST'S"
frankfutterAug 4, 2010
Argument's over. This man wins! Thank you sir.
snoogsAug 5, 2010
nine-eleven... duh.
inactiveuserAug 5, 2010
nine-eleven terrsts terrsts terrsts terrsts terrsts nine-eleven
crocodile7Aug 5, 2010
Cops need their privacy respected while they're bustin' your a**.
That's the essence of the current legal argument goes. No wiretapping, which extends to video-camera-tapping. Same logic, should extend to eye-tapping --forget what you've seen and don't testify, or else...
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
f**k that. Cop's should have the least amount of privacy, and when they do break the law, it carries a mandatory 2x kicker to the punishment. Oh, is that not fair? Suck it up or QUIT!
crocodile7Aug 5, 2010
Sorry, forgot "/s".
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
Its because Bush.
I got nothing.
2004taxesAug 7, 2010
Good and valid start.
shdwdrgnAug 5, 2010
I can think of only one reason... protecting the identity of an undercover officer. However in the cases in question, there is no undercover officer involved, these are all public encounters - most of which the officer is obviously in uniform. And when you're talking about police actions in public, then hell yes we should be allowed to video what they do.
txaggie08Aug 5, 2010
Even so, just the act of taping an undercover officer should be legal. Perhaps when released just blur the face ot something.
MitchPaigeAug 5, 2010
It's actually not illegal, the problem being that police don't really give a s**t what the law says, and interpret it as they wish, not by what it says.
For instance, in Pennsylvania, they say they have the right to privacy, despite the fact that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court already ruled in 1989 that public servants have absolutely no expectation of privacy while in public, and that recording them is completely legal.
They use privacy laws and wiretapping laws like we use Duct Tape.
kerrigoreAug 5, 2010
Alright, I'll give you one, not that I particularly agree with it, but I'll argue devil's advocate for a moment.
Most people here seem to think police officers should be held to a higher level of accountability than they are now. The problem is, police officers are human, and they make mistakes. They shouldn't be demonized for doing so, since they are doing a very difficult job for not that much pay, and everyone makes mistakes. Further, they often make judgements that, while quite reasonable at the time and given the information they had, turn out to be wrong. Many people tend to attribute this to some kind of malicious or evil intent, which it may or may not be.
Sometimes, those mistaken judgements and other errors results in someone being harmed, or someone's rights being violated. Of course, there are laws and procedures in place to try and protect police from this, but as we all know laws are never perfect. As a result, police officers tend to back each other's judgements and actions irrespective of the actual case, because they know what it's like to make mistakes. They may even lie and say they saw something they didn't in order to back their partner, because they would hope they too would be backed up and not hung out to dry in a situation where some question was raised over their actions.
Now, you might think that videotaping would be a good way to alleviate this issue, since it is an "objective" observer that allows us to see what "actually happened". The problem is, video tapes do not capture the nuances of the situation, and quite often these situations hinge on the interpretation of the officer of the events as they happened. Knowing all the facts in hindsight, it is quite easy to make the correct interpretation and condemn the officer for making the wrong judgement, or even deciding that he must have had some evil or malicious intent in making said judgement. But, the officer did not necessarily have all the salient facts you have, and therefore came to a different- and quite possibly reasonable- conclusion. But it is very difficult to place oneself in the shoes of another person who is ignorant of some facts that you know, and much easier to assign blame to that person for their ignorance, or for the mistakes they made in ignorance.
My somewhat longwinded point is this: video tapes don't always show the truth of what happened. They are usually only looking at one thing at a time, and are unable to capture the nuances of situations. A video tape doesn't tell you whether the police have dealt with that individual in the past, nor does it acquaint you with any other relevant background. It doesn't speak to the state of mind, knowledge, or interpretations of any of the parties involved. When under the control of citizens, such videotapes are frequently judiciously edited and then posted on the internet for all to see, usually by people with an axe to grind.
Accountability is all well and good, but not as simple as one might hope. To utilize a tired cliché, nothing is black and white. Video tapes are one tool that may aid with accountability, but it is not a tool without its own limitations and drawbacks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
MitchPaigeAug 5, 2010
Higher level of accountability?
That implies there is a lower level of accountability they have reached. Call me when that happens.
rhenthalin2Aug 5, 2010
a fair assessment. I would then caution filmers to avoid editing videos and release raw footage (cut footage can be detected and in the event of a trial such evidence can come to light). It is certainly true that backround and the feeling of the moment is lost on the camera, but we can't ignore that the camera isn't making any assessments of the situation and indeed is just seeing the situation. When i see someone who is lying on the ground, under control of the officer, get shot in the back I can't imagine too many instances or mitigating factors that might excuse the act. Thanks for the perspective
bemenakerAug 5, 2010
They are a public employee performing a public service, in public. There is no justifiable way to say they shouldn't be held to public scrutiny. Hell, that's what the whole point of Citizen Arrest laws are about. They aren't meant for common folk to arrest criminals with, though they can, they are meant for the public to be able to police the police.
norz83Aug 5, 2010
Yeah, funny that, maybe we should film some sort of documentary asking some officers why that is ?
......Go !
alexbarnes94Aug 5, 2010
:mumbles something about Homeland Security as justification:
</pretending to be a cop>
garrothMar 4, 2011
To put it simply, there isn't one I could think of. If they aren't doing anything wrong then there is no reason not to be filmed, and if something illegal is being done (by the officer) then they should be videotaped.
dangercollieAug 4, 2010
They're public employees. If you don't like the scrutiny then find a new line of work.
This isn't a case of prosecutors enforcing the law, it's a case of them trying to find new and bizarre ways of applying the law. Because America apparently doesn't have enough people in prison now.
scuba7183Aug 4, 2010
Dugg for proper use of "they're"
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
To play devil's advocate for a minute, every public employee should expect to be taped? What about closed trials? What if you are contracted by the government to do work, should you be taped as well? It opens up a lot of questions about what's fair and justified.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
emmeronAug 5, 2010
Closed trials are the exception for obvious reasons -- and though there are points worth debating on those, the police are not ever judge or jury. The issue here has less to do with the fact that they are public officials and more to do with the nature (and nearly unlimited scope) of their powers.
pcghostAug 5, 2010
I am a county government employee and we have cameras all over our workplace. If it bothered me, I would find a different place to work. It should be no different for law enforcement.
treehugger87Aug 4, 2010
As much as I would hate being videotaped doing my job at the worst moment of my career, I generally expect to be held accountable for my actions. If law enforcement isn't accountable to the public, then who are they accountable to?
bestenemyAug 5, 2010
They're accountable to the unions and to politicians that funnel tax money their way.
honukaiAug 5, 2010
Don't forget huge corporations.
bdfteslaAug 5, 2010
Yeah, unions are to blame for crooked cops. Did you know that the police rarely pull over a union worker? And when they do, they quickly apologize and let them go on their way, regardless of the infraction. Give me a break guy.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
olsoneaAug 5, 2010
The Prison-Industrial Complex.
johndoAug 4, 2010
No. It's the only way to ensure that everybody is on the same plain and not abusing their power. Videotapes don't lie, but people do.
bxrwxrAug 4, 2010
'(P)lain'?
stultusjuventusAug 5, 2010
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plane[4]
rixar13Aug 4, 2010
I thought Cops worked for the people??
Something very wrong when Rogue cops can put innocent people in jail for embracing he truth...?
tgc1Aug 5, 2010
They are Agencies working for the local Government and/or State. In essence, private companies.
robertwrightAug 4, 2010
videotaping the police should be encouraged, it's help help to both parties!
hetmanAug 4, 2010
No it should be the civil duty of every American to videotape the police as much as possible.
treshnellAug 4, 2010
I've been wanting to install a camera in my car for this reason. It's not perfect coverage, but just in case.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
If my bank can put cameras in it's lobbies, along the walls, and the cops can have cameras on their dashboards, and I can record anything happening in public or on my property, why would it ever be illegal to record police (or firemen, utility guys, etc.) doing their job?
treshnellAug 4, 2010
Because (often) those don't have sound. They're using a loop hole in a law concerning telephones, that you can't record private conversations. So the part that's getting people in trouble is the audio track of their recording.
designerutahAug 5, 2010
Understood that's how the bank and cop dash cam work, but the law also protects my ability to record (sound and vision) anything in public or in my property as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public, and I as the property owner get to allow myself to record on my property. That's where I don't get their claim.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear.
It's fun to be able to say that to someone else for a change.
dnaspydirAug 4, 2010
Damn, missed this and just posted the same thing. (dugg)
etx313Aug 4, 2010
As much as I agree with that statement, I hate how often Scientologists say the same thing.
travelsonicAug 5, 2010
With all due respect, it doesn't matter which side of any debate makes the argument.... "nothing to hide" is a logical impossibility.
quisquisAug 5, 2010
No it's not... take some reasoning classes.
porkfriedriceAug 4, 2010
everyone needs supervision
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
But who watches the watchers?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
The Watchmen
aplusjimagesAug 5, 2010
The cops watch the people and the people watch the cops.
fungowskiAug 5, 2010
we all watch it on youtube
davidnivenAug 4, 2010
I think that video taping with audio feeds should be mandatory and automatic when any government official, especially enforcement branches, interact with citizens. The only exception would be the obvious undercover work or classified missions, which actually should be recorded as much as possible anyway and released later only if there is a later criminal investigation.
That whole rebuttal about a cop's expectation of privacy or interference in police business is bullcrap.
10lbhammerAug 4, 2010
I just dugg up DN for the first time ever. someone must have divided by zero...
mcquittyAug 4, 2010
Yes, they did:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml
soleanthiaAug 5, 2010
Until your comment, I didn't even realize it was DN....
sabachAug 5, 2010
My pointer rested over Bury for a full 10 seconds before I finally moved it over and Dugg him, it felt weird.
jaggdAug 4, 2010
I just said this exact same thing when i shared this link on facebook.
crispixkingdomAug 5, 2010
I never thought I would see the day, but I have just dugg - and fully support - a DavidNiven comment.
anawnymooseAug 5, 2010
I... agree with you?
f**k.
I need to go lie down.
sagegoku666Aug 5, 2010
See? we can all agree on this
jimbodeenieAug 5, 2010
I think there should be an official law that if there is overwhelming agreement on Digg, the opinion of Digg becomes a passable law. Once Novenator and DavidNiven come to agreement, the law has been passed!
garrothMar 4, 2011
Unfortunately, Digg is slightly more easily corrupted than almost half of current systems, and is more politically unbalanced than a bi-polar pundit. So, just slightly better than the current system, but not nearly as profitable to report on because it's all available for free. Digg will never control the laws until someone can make money off it.
testiculeseAug 5, 2010
Congratulations, Niven. You have stated a truth. Applause is in order!
liberalmediumAug 7, 2010
A while back I saw this news segment about an awesome grassroots organization in los angeles where they listen to police scanners and as soon as something local goes down they show up and film the arrest. The guy who put it together and does the recording had been attacked, repeatedly lied to by the police who said he was required to hand over the tapes and was breaking the law and their favorite thing is to confiscate the camera gear and put it in "evidence", For anyone who's never had the LAPD take anything expensive and fragile from you, you can consider it broken and don't expect to see it for at least 6 months. He's also been arrested and detained for as long as they are allowed to hold you without charges then let go. I only bring it up because the stuff he's caught is amazing and his mere presence forces many of the officers to actually follow procedure.
Cops will go on and on about how citizens should have respect for The Law and that if people didn't there'd be riots in the streets blah blah, but they never make the mental leap that aknowledges that there are many laws governing what they can and cannot do but at that point it's just "red tape" to them and keeping them from doing good police work (aka harassing/beating whomever they please).
They have so little accountability for their actions most of the time you can see the rage welling up when they are being recorded against their wishes because suddenly they can't abuse their authority with wreckless lack of forethought. now they have to think and be careful not to use their racial slurs and can't steal from people or rough them up (well actually many still do because they are so far gone that the camera can't change them). These are the folks in our society who should have the absolute highest standard of accountability to the public; to the point where public servant is an appropriate label.
ptoomeyAug 4, 2010
They should welcome it and they should be recording themselves as well. It protects everyone involved. Municipal bureaucrats are preoccupied with making sure the cops that work for them don't get sued by anyone. They should then force the police to record everything they do so that they can not only defend unjust lawsuits but also cover their asses and be able to quickly fire cops doing stupid stuff. The most vocal opponent to any of this will be the police unions who will have a fit if anything is done to make it easier to find and fire bad cops. This is not in the interest of the unions.
designerutahAug 4, 2010
And it begs the question. If they are okay being recorded by the dash cam, why aren't they okay being recorded by half a dozen onlookers? Is it because with the dash cam, they know to pull people out of it's view before they do something illegal or unethical?
qeverenAug 5, 2010
It's easier to 'lose' dash-cam footage.
designerutahAug 5, 2010
Exactly. And easier to control when it's released, when it's relevant, etc. Everyone being free to record means it's far less likely that criminal activity by the police will be tolerated. It will also work in their favor a lot too. Claims of police brutality when it's not really happening won't be backed up, but times when the police are being brutal will.
ammbAug 4, 2010
"In the case of Graber - a young husband and father who had never been arrested - the police searched his residence and seized computers. Graber spent 26 hours in jail even before facing the wiretapping charges that could conceivably put him away for 16 years."
so much for legal protections set forth in the Bill of Rights & the Constitution. AGAIN.
let's flip this back on the police who've been great fans of 24/7/365 big bro style surveillance of the people - "if you have nothing to hide, then STFU & let the video roll."
juangatoAug 4, 2010
of course its not.
police officers are citizens just like you and me.
if they have the right to film us, ordinary citizens of the united states,
then we have the right to film them... its the only way to protect ourselves from injustices on their part.
what ever happend to "serving" and "protecting"
the police in our country, as an organization not on an individual basis, have lost their way.
ironmindAug 4, 2010
police don't have rights when they put their badge on. they are granted powers. it's a distinction, a powerful one, that holds them to a much higher standard of responsibility.
garrothMar 4, 2011
If they are recording you, you do have the right to record them. Even in states which require both parties to consent to a recording, if you ask if they are recording the encounter and they affirm in some way that they are, they are tacitly agreeing to have the encounter recorded.
nevermiss1Aug 4, 2010
Hell No! It's how we police the police. Of course they want it to be illegal
ghengiskhan1Aug 4, 2010
If the police can video tape us, we should be able to video record the police. It will keep them honest and you want people that have the legal authority to use deadly force to remain honest.
And I used to be a cop.
4degreesAug 4, 2010
nay, you need to hold them to an even higher standard than normal folk.
j3553flAug 4, 2010
dugg for "used to be"
russ3Aug 6, 2010
good for you! my science teacher says people cant grow back their brains, but im gonna print out this post and prove to her shes wrong!
nainsellAug 4, 2010
No. They videotape me without consent.
buzamanAug 4, 2010
But you don't wear an Government issued costume.
dnaspydirAug 4, 2010
Now what was it that law enforcement is always saying... "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide." Hmmmmm.
hermmunsterAug 4, 2010
Everyone has something to hide.
sabachAug 5, 2010
Except for me and my monkey.
mmysamaAug 7, 2010
You can't even smoke a little weed in the privacy of your home without breaking some dumb little obscure law.
If the law says that you deserve to go to jail for smoking pot, then why the f**k should I believe anything the law says? It's clearly full of s**t and not to be trusted.
thederangerAug 4, 2010
Should be simple, really. If a cop can't do his job without breaking the law, he can't do his job, period.
Funny really. In the 60's and 70's I hated pigs, mostly because I got beaten just because they wanted someone to beat. As the years went by, I mellowed and decided not all were that bad. Not all are, but strangely enough nearly all stand shoulder to shoulder with the worst of the bunch.
Now I don't hate, but I sure do fear. Just as they intend.
jpfernandezAug 4, 2010
only corrupt cops fear being videotaped.
brucealmightyAug 4, 2010
+ incompetent ones.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
+ undercover ones
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
The only cops that are not corrupt are those who have quit being a cop.
fungowskiAug 5, 2010
Frankly considering how much video equipment we have floating around, i'm surprised there aren't more of these
dukeonkledAug 5, 2010
Frankly that's not a good argument. It sounds the the ones against privacy. "If you're innocent you should have no problem with this."
1fastdakAug 4, 2010
Does this question really need to be asked?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Yes, people are being arrested and jailed for videotaping cops who are often abusing their powers.
FPSmotoAug 4, 2010
Police officers are human beings just as capable of committing crimes.
beigherAug 4, 2010
The same failings as anyone else, yet with more power, opportunity, and the potential for protection... If you aren't a rotten cop when you start out, the odds are that it becomes less and less easy to remain sparkly clean the longer you are in it.
I tried law enforcement for a brief stint- It only illuminated, for me, the worst in everyone; both in the folks I served with and the public I served.
methdwman3Aug 4, 2010
Even if you buy the argument that this is a private conversation and subject to wiretap laws, merely filming video, without audio, is fine. How is an officer to determine if someone is taking still shots, video w/out audio, or just video?
igorunchainedAug 4, 2010
I dont even think duct taping the police should be a crime
theskunkmonkeyAug 4, 2010
I fear my local police more than any terrorists.
But hey, that terrorist boogieman is just around the corner, so look out!
thanatosstAug 4, 2010
I can't digg you enough. Terrorists are such a tiny tiny risk that I'd bet 99% of citizens never have to worry about on a daily basis. Cops are something that every single person in this country sees on a daily basis and they have the ability to ruin lives worse than terrorists can. A terrorist will just kill you; a cop can rape your sense of security and peace of mind without a second thought and get away with it scott-free.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
thelostviking22Aug 4, 2010
There's a simple answer for this: NO!
kthoma22Aug 4, 2010
Can someone get the contact info for the prosecutor going after this guy so we can all share our opinions with him on this?
vbullingerAug 4, 2010
I'm really happy to see that we all can agree on this. I would've put my real two cents in, but I realized that we're all on the same page on this one.
penclnckAug 4, 2010
It is every person's duty to film the government.
m1ntb3rrycrunch Aug 4, 2010
Google "Brett Darrow". He videotaped a cop making up charges, and ended up getting that cop fired. This both the reason we should record cops, and the reason they are probably against it.
glui2001Aug 4, 2010
NOOOOOO!!!!
4bitAug 4, 2010
So, should dashboard cams mounted in squad cars be deemed inadmissible as evidence because I didn't give my consent?
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Depending on the state, yes.
pbakerAug 5, 2010
Seeing as how in MOST circumstances you'll be outside in a public area to be on a dash cam, they don't need your consent.
(IF you're in a state that doesn't require both parties to consent, which i think is the majority of them)
4bitAug 10, 2010
That's my point pbaker. It works both ways.
Though, for what it's worth, I don't think there should ever be a time a civilian can't film an on duty officer.
pbakerAug 10, 2010
agreed.
garrothMar 4, 2011
only 9 states require the consent of both parties: CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MI, PA, and WA. List by http://www.rcfp.org/taping/quick.html
jeepyAug 4, 2010
Remove the audio recording portion of whatever you're device is using. You probably will still be arrested but if you keep your mouth shut they'll eventually have to let you go. Don't bother using "it was on mute" argument because the police will just lie and say they lost the tape. Don't tell the police you did it, tell your lawyer. Don't talk to cops...about anything.
soleanthiaAug 5, 2010
It's long, but worth the watch. Be back in a while.
w1cked1Aug 5, 2010
Do you know what the problem with that is? I bet you don't. Let me tell you the problem with that is.
The s**t you see in that video? It all.... alllllllll, one hundred f**king percent, hinges upon the cops respecting your rights IF you know what they are. Thereinlay the fallacy.
The world has changed and it's basically too late for these passive types of protest. If you "protest" by knowing your rights, they will in turn "protest" by showing you, that you f**king have none. See any G20 type affaire for example.
They'll step on your face, tase you, f**k you, and your option is to take it like a good bitch, and work it out in court later, but good luck without video.
If a cop doesn't give a s**t about your rights, you're simply f**ked. Working it out in court later is a victim mentality. People will have to start shooting these assh**es with something other than video, to remind them that their job is only possible with the public support behind them. They've forgotten that.
w1cked1Aug 5, 2010
f**k THAT. Audio helps. There was a video of some pigs in Vancouver very recently shoving a disabled woman that weighed all of 90lbs to the ground because she dared to share his sidewalk.
There was no audio on that video. Do you know what happens? All government and police shills say the following:
-There was no audio, you don't know the circumstance, she probably said something to insult them
-Looks like she tripped and he was trying to catch her, you don't know what happened without the audio
Turn off the audio, give me a fukn break. Film it from 20 angles and use TOR to throw it on an anonymous youtube account and let the public judge.
dalittleAug 5, 2010
you need to know the law in your state. Some states make it a crime to record audio without both parties knowing. You can video all you want.
w1cked1Aug 5, 2010
I'm saying f**k the laws, in such cases they're irrelevant, especially when they protect criminal behavior by those pretending to uphold it. f**k the law and do what's right. The public eye is the most powerful judge and really our only weapon.
The right to acquire any manner of evidence against such crimes greatly trumps a criminal pig's right to get away with it.
jnooleyAug 4, 2010
Only people with something to hide would mind being filmed. Police should have nothing to hide.
mhttAug 4, 2010
Next thing you know, watching and then remembering police actions will be illegal as well.
f**k Politicians.
spacem00seAug 4, 2010
Huge violation of free speech, plus if the police have the right to video tape suspects they arrest, its only fair the favor be returned.
theswashbucklerAug 4, 2010
It's no violation of free speech, that's a bulls**t argument. There are plenty of legitimate arguments so don't use that...
spacem00seAug 4, 2010
I'm sorry, but if stripping for money is considered free speech, then video taping a cop doing his job is the same thing.
theswashbucklerAug 4, 2010
You're an idiot.
Videotaping is no way shape or form a method of expression.
travelsonicAug 5, 2010
Because you say so? Last I checked "it isn't because I say it isn't because I say it isn't" isn't a valid argument.
garrothMar 4, 2011
Travelsonic, I agree but is the isn't because I say it is argument invalid just because you say it is, isn't that irony? Also, I know I said this somewhere above, but if they tape you and you ask if they are recording and they affirm that they are, it is a tacit agreement to be recorded, and you are then allowed to record legally. (not saying I agree with the law, just that if they can find loopholes, so can I)
grabateAug 4, 2010
No one is thinking of the upside. No more Cops, "breaking news" speed chases.......
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
Yes I think it should be illeagle cause Im submissive coward and I have a fetish for authority figures in uniform AND their protectin us everyday ...u know? their working hard! trying bein a cop for once. their fighting them over their so they dont have to fight em over hear. /s
InfinityComplexAug 4, 2010
Wiretap laws are based on a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The police can't expect privacy in a public setting.
kinggeoffAug 4, 2010
This will only get worse and worse until people are fined/imprisoned for even looking a cop in the eyes.
UNLESS people take a stand. Right now america is sitting with no hint of rising whatsoever. And so, rights will continue to be steamrolled.
etx313Aug 4, 2010
Who watches the watchmen?
cerebronAug 4, 2010
Nerds.
beerrulesAug 5, 2010
Internal Affairs, Government leaders who the public elects, public over sight committees, and so on.
etx313Aug 5, 2010
Yeah, that works.
prolianceAug 5, 2010
I bought it on Blu-Ray an watch it occasionally.
useraccessAug 4, 2010
NO!
buzamanAug 4, 2010
The proliferation of mini cameras and the easy availability of youtube has been the greatest equalizer against these high priests of rights violations and State propaganda.
spritomAug 4, 2010
No!
I don't have a clever quip to add to the above.
Closed AccountAug 4, 2010
It is not illegal for the public to ensure its defenders are doing their jobs and not abusing the power that we grant them.
Any cop who says otherwise has something to hide, and doesn't want their power tripping brutality to get to their commanders
travelsonicAug 5, 2010
"Any cop who says otherwise has something to hide..."
Err, sorry, that argument won't work there either.
Human beings have something to hide - saying "ahah! He's hiding something!" means jack s**t, you can turn to ANYBODY and say that, you'll be 100% right every time because there is no such thing as "hiding something" vs "not hiding anything" [a logical impossibility].
It doesn't matter which side uses it, the argument is retarded full stop.
Closed AccountAug 5, 2010
If a police officer wants the camera off so he can abuse his power, he wants to hide this fact from his superiors. Why else would an officer shut down a device that is recording his every word and action. Some cops dont want to be accountable for what they do, and that is not acceptable
travelsonicAug 5, 2010
thebreach, or he may just hate cameras as unreasonable as his request is.
Ever think that maybe X action doesn't always lead to Y intent or Z outcome, and that there are other possibilities?
danieltttAug 5, 2010
So, how long have you been a cop, travelsonic?
travelsonicAug 5, 2010
danielttt, doesn't matter - basic psychology and common sense. BTW, I don't see you shoving your resume in other people's faces.
danieltttAug 5, 2010
Thanks for the confirmation there trav.. Another piss poor cop for whom his oath means nothing....
Regarding my resume, my personal affairs are my business, not yours. My privacy is important to me. I still hold the constitution out as being a venerable document and I do revere it....unlike you. This country will swing back to common sense. Power will be returned to the people and you will go back to being a security guard....where you belong.
axehindAug 4, 2010
So does that make it illegal for them to record a traffic stop?
theswashbucklerAug 4, 2010
No, because the laws specifically grant the police the right to record audio...