What is Digg?214 Comments
- daRoach, on 10/12/2007, -23/+181I don't understand why they "beat" him after he had pictures of them to later be easily identified. With an anarchist logo for his avatar and his account containing phrases such as, "I ended up spending 16 hours in the Miami-Dade County Jail, a rat-infested institution that is more Abu Ghraib than American Grade." I'm wondering if this guy is just being a little melodramatic and attention seeking.
- ALLCAPS, on 10/12/2007, -11/+168According to the law, everyone has a right to photograph the police. As long as the photographer stays on public land and does not obstruct them from doing their work.
I don't know if we have the right to keep firing a flash in their faces from 10ft away.
maybe that was the problem - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -11/+120"but if they ordered that he stop photographing, it would be common sense to stop"
It might be common sense, but it would also be succumbing to the police making an invalid order. It's the police's job to enforce existing laws, not make up their own. The most logical reason they don't want to be photographed is because they know they are doing something they shouldn't be doing. - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+109"And on a side note, us anarchists have rights the same as everyone else in this country so don't try to criticize him for that."
You call yourself an anarchist but you still want your rights protected? Wow. Do you actually know what anarchy means? - djruden, on 10/12/2007, -15/+106@ALLCAPS
"I don't know if we have the right to keep firing a flash in their faces from 10ft away. "
If paparazzi can do it to everyone else in the world, why not police too? - ithildin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+84@djruden
"If paparazzi can do it to everyone else in the world, why not police too?"
What paparazzi do is harassment. The difference here is that Kate Moss et al won't smash your kneecaps with a baton and make you spend a night in a cell. - marmanukem, on 10/12/2007, -5/+53What really confuses me is the "private matter" that the police were dealing with. These people are civil servants, there is no private matters regarding them. It is all public concern. Also, this man was documenting the clean up of this street, that was notorious for prostitution, it makes real sense for police to beat a man senseless for tracking their good works.
I don't know, but recently cops have been shooting themselves in the foot, getting trigger and taser happy, making up their own laws or interpretting them as they see fit, and abusing the very people they should be protecting.
If you think this is in the name of serving and protecting you digg me down.
And I don't want to here any of you jerkasses say he deserved it because he clearly didn't. RTFA. - richrider, on 10/12/2007, -12/+53It amazes me to see the level stereotyping that goes on. People see the word "Police" and go straight to the assumption "corrupt," "fascist," and worse. Yet the fact remains there are tens of thousands of men and women in the United States who put their lives on the line everyday to serve the people in their states/cities/towns.
To see the people posting here going on about how terrible they are - keep in mind these few things:
1. You have not heard the account from the officers involved. You have only been privy to one side of the story. What were the police actually doing? Were they in the middle of an arrest of someone else, and needed to maintain the scene they were working with - yes.
2. Be realistic - he was escorted across the street by one officer. I find it hard to believe that realistically the one officer would call for backup to bring several officers over to "surround" the photographer and beat the crap out of him. What WOULD be realistic (and would actually make sense) in this situation is if the photographer continued to move towards the scene he was asked to keep his distance from while the officers tending to the original arrest were trying to secure.
No one tried to prevent the photographer from exerting his first amendment rights - they simply made a request to keep his distance. That is not a prevention of first amendment rights. It would be like a firefighter asking you to keep your distance from a car on fire that is about to explode. You can take your pictures, but you need to do it from a safe distance from the car that is about to explode, as to avoid harm to yourself.
3. Fact remains is this - you will still rely on them in a time of emergency. You can call them "corrupt," "fascist," "pigs," and worse, yet in a time of crisis they are the first people you call to come save your ass. This photographer involved could be in a serious car accident tomorrow, and the first people to respond to AID in a crisis are the police departments. Whether it's state police, sheriffs departments, local or municipal police, most cities and towns across the United States rely on their police departments as first responders. As it was shown on 9/11 where firefighters, EMS/EMT's, AND police lost their lives, we still rely on them everyday!
Walk a day in their shoes! See what goes on everyday before you pass judgment, and for the sake of everyone involved - get ALL the facts before you pass judgment! - cyssero, on 04/18/2009, -5/+40"The difference here is that Kate Moss et al won't smash your kneecaps with a baton and make you spend a night in a cell."
But Britney might beat you with an umbrella. - FTLJohnson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41< david caruso >
I guess a picture..................... really is.................................. worth a thousand words.
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAH! ::: "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the Who starts playing" :::::
< / david caruso > - CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33thats interesting since miami-dade police generally dont enforce anything. they've left traffic enforcement so atrophied that florida had to send in state troopers to clean the place up and actually enforce tolls and driving. apparently they hadnt enforced tolls for 5 years before i got here. no wonder people were violating them because if i was paying and no one else was id feel like a sucker.
also people routinely use the emergency lane as a regular lane when traffic jams including cops and city busses. cops run red lights without putting their lights on and i talked to a woman who got driven off the road by a crazy driver where she then rolled into the ditch on the side of the road and flipped upside down. she crawled out and watched as 3 police cars passed until one finally pulled over to help. in case you hadnt heard, living in miami is mayhem. moving here was probably one of the worst life decisions ive ever made. - Boulevard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25"I don't know if we have the right to keep firing a flash in their faces from 10ft away"
Unless that multiple lane street was in some sort of dimensional warp, he was across the street from them (after they told him to move, which he did) and it's a 4-lane intersection. More like 50ft or more. RTFA. - socket, on 10/12/2007, -10/+33Welcome to the police state. Just do what the officer says regardless of the fact you have the right to do it, and you won't get a beating and charged with a bunch of non-sense.
- docfaraday, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23@dralezero
Actually, because police officers are serving as agents of the state, the First Amendment right to freedom of the press applies to them. When you are _on duty_ working for the government, any personal right to privacy you have is waived. (Mind you, when you're off the clock, you are entitled to the same rights regarding privacy as anyone else) - ALLCAPS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18True, but unlike a newspaper, if it causes a lawsuit here, it's the original poster who gets it, not Digg.
- inarguable, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19"get all the facts before you pass judgement" -
come on dude, this is Digg! You must be new here! Getting all the facts is antepodean to the typical behaviour here. - blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Just because you say you don't want a picture taken of you, does not mean that anyone has to refrain from taking the picture. If you are in public, you do not have the right to keep someone from seeing you, or taking your picture. This includes the police AND the person the police was arresting. This is NOT just a right that the press has, it belongs to everyone.
- Juano11, on 10/12/2007, -18/+32@dnissley...
BAAAAWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
"Us anarchists have rights too"..."Educate yourself"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
Anarchy????Anarchy??? Who will keep others from infringing on your rights if you get you way... - insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Having spent the night in the Miami Dade county jail myself I can attest to the conditions there. If arrested at night you get sent into a ward designed to handle about 20 inmates, and find there are 85 to 100 inside of it. No place to sleep so you might be lucky enough to grab a spot at a table which the seat and table are made of stainless steel, try resting your head on this cold steel to get some shuteye. If not so lucky you might get a spot on the floor by the toilet. There are two toilets there for the 85-100 prisoners and they are by the wall but open to view from all directions. So if you have to use the toilet everyone inside the ward can see and smell you. In the morning they will assign you to a less crowded spot. Then they serve you breakfast in the morning which is abominable and the drink they offer , koolaid, comes in a big cooler. One black man will take responsibility for doling out the beverage and he will dip his hand right into the cooler, and he will assert that only one person may dip his hand into the koolaid, because he deems this to be more sanitary. Also the black man known as the house man, will have rules you need to follow to stay there, as if you have a choice. Hes very big on following the rules, because you know he always follows them by the fact that hes also in jail with you for not following the rules. Anyhow one rule is you dont get a mat to sleep on til you have a shower. So you have a shower, get a mat, take a nap, then they release you without having to post bail, because they are going to arrest another 1000 people that night, and they really need the space. =D
- JohnSteel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17http://www.digg.com/politics/Photographer_arrested_and_beat_up_by_police_after_photographing_them
The photographer posted his story on a messageboard. - J03L, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23I think I'd like a bit more info. The Flikr photo is ok, but without any other evidence it's a bit to swallow. Ya, ya ya, I know that anything is possible, and "Damn, the Man", and "F!@# the Pigs", and all of that, but one picture with a narrative doesn't a conspiracy make.
If your gonna post a story like this, then maybe a more reputable source (ie, not a forum or blog) could be cited to support the claim. I know that this stuff DOES REALLY happen, but I am skeptical of most claims of torture. Without evidence and second hand accounts, it is really easy to fake this kind of thing. I'm not saying that THIS is faked, just that I could probably take a picture of some cops and post it on Flikr, and claim I was beaten down for taking the photo too. (Maybe that will be my next post!!)
Good Story though. It's dugg it either way, true or false.
Aaaaand .... digg down commence. - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"By law, you have to listen to and obey police officers."
Honest question, can you cite that law? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16You've spouted your *****, kid, so get back to bed before some grownup comes around to beat the crap out of you.
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19This could be an interesting case study into the power trip cops get when they get a badge and a gun.
- ropers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13``"And on a side note, us anarchists have rights the same as everyone else in this country so don't try to criticize him for that."
You call yourself an anarchist but you still want your rights protected? Wow. Do you actually know what anarchy means?``
@cawpin, Juano11:
Giving the OP (dnissley) the benefit of the doubt, he probably does, but you clearly don't. Anarchy stems from the Greek an-archia (without rulers).
You have rights, I have rights. Neither you nor me have unlimited rights. My rights go only so far until they collide with your right, and vice versa. Our rights are limited based on the principle that if I were to extend my rights OVER you, I would become a ruler, and that's no longer anarchy. Thus anarchy does NOT mean that anyone can do anything to anybody; it means the opposite: that you MUST NOT RULE over others -- which means you have to respect their rights.
I will grant you that a majority of non-anarchists frequently misunderstands anarchism and (mis-)defines anarchism to mean "the absence of any force, order, or any form of justice". Its ubiquitousness does not however make this inaccurate definition accurate; at best it establishes an ill-defined colloquialism, and arguably one's concept of the word "anarchy" can thus serve as a shibboleth.
To elaborate: many critics of anarchy hold that it is doomed to failure, because in an anarchical society there is no ruler one could appeal to if one's rights have been transgressed. However, even though there may not be a ruler, an individual can still defend him/herself up to the extent where the transgression is equalised and balanced out, but no further. If someone steals 10 quid from you, you can take 10 quid back from him, but you can't take 20 quid. The very old (and equally often misunderstood) law "an eye for an eye" here serves to **limit your response** to the maximum of the damage you suffered yourself, but does NOT obligate you to retaliate in kind. If your retaliation were stronger than the original transgression, you would infringe on the other guy's rights and thus rule over him/her, and that's a no-no in anarchy. Also, apart from personal retaliation, you can appeal to a plenum and have your rights restored that way. Anarchy thus is not the absence of any RULES, but it is an absence of RULERS, meaning absolutely no one gets special rights over anyone else.
That leaves the question of enforcement. Let's say John has stolen 10 quid from you, keeps his own money under lock and key and is not giving your 10 quid back, despite the plenum telling him to. Can the plenum then delegate authority to some person tasked with restoring your rights vis-a-vis John? Views among anarchists differ, but strictly speaking the logical conclusion would be that they can't. However, the group can practice passive, non-violent resistance until John sees the light and returns your 10 quid.
All that said, I'm not an anarchist, thought I recognise that there are consistent theories of anarchism, and I once visited a small anarchical community. And all this said, I'd much rather live in an anarchy than in a police state. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@ALLCAPS: "According to the law, everyone has a right to photograph the police."
Not sure about Miami, but some cities do have laws against photographing the police. The idea being that drug dealers would photograph an undercover cop during an arrest or something. Doesn't seem to apply in this case, and certainly doesn't justify a beating. - dynamolife, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15@darkstar949,
Uh... No, the suspect does not have a right to privacy when he is on a public street. You have a right to privacy in your home but not in a public place. You may be photographed at an intersection, in a mall, and anywhere where the general public traffics through. You cannot shoot upskirt or other crap like that because the clothing infers a level of privacy to your body, but this does not apply to a general photograph. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9And people call Tancredo bad things because he said Miami is like a third world country. Sounds like it *is* to me.
- lemur33, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I am a photographer as well as a photojournalist.
This guy (and seemingly most of the people here) forget a big rule that most photojournalists adhere to: if you don't do what the cops say (no matter how crazy) you can be arrested for disorderly conduct (at least).
If this guy did as any respectable photographer and photojournalist would have done he wouldnt have had his head smashed into the concrete like the dumbass he is.... - tqup, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15OBEY
You will be told where to walk, when to walk and what you are allowed to do while walking, DO NOT look at the gov't employee, do not take note of gov't work.
Do not question your gov't. You will be told what is good and bad,Obey. THE GOV'T WILL PHOTOGRAPH,VIDEO,AND RECORD SOUND, while you are the sheep to be tended to, and have no rights to photograph,video,sound. The gov't is totally truthful,and fair. The gov't only does good things. Do not question your gov't. Do what you are told.
OBEY - Cerrato0426, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Haha I wonder if the other guy just walked away. How can they defend themself with a claim saying the photographer impaired their duty if they left the main person to go after the photographer.
- BeardedTacoFish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The guy blatantly disobeyed a direct order from a police officer, he deserves exactly what he got. What an idiot, thinks he's special because he has a camera.
- MrViklund, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12This is not good. Lets hope they get charged.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No, bad Duston! Stop interfering with our fantasies that the government actually gives a ***** about our boring-ass lives and let us continue thinking that we live in a police state, forgetting the fact that if we did, this guy would be dead and the camera obliterated rather than him spending a night in the drunk tank.
- vhold, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Considering your judgment of what should and shouldn't have happened was colored by what you weren't allowed to see, I'd say the relevance of your opinion is quite slim in this case."
What is it in your version of the story that changes the fact that a bunch of men were standing around watching one man crawling around get beat and that at any time during that beating they could have just all rushed him, hand cuffed him and put him in the car like they do at the end?
You could justify absolutely -any- behavior with your excuse. "Officer, you would have killed this person too if only you had seen the way they were looking at me." - vhold, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7dralezero: "Just because your in a uniform doesn't mean you aren't allowed to not want your picture taking. Am I not allow to tell someone not to take random pictures of me? Heck I'm not even a cop that would be such a invalid order!"
Well, yes, you are allowed to tell somebody that, you aren't allow to kick their ass though. Taking pictures of on-duty authority figures doesn't really seem all that random to me.
It's called journalism and it's a cornerstone of an elected government. Would it be good for if no authority figures could be recorded and thusly held accountable for anything they did? - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+7You must have got there when the Reno 911 force took over.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Accurate or not, we have no idea, take it with a grain of salt.
It's one guy's side of the story of getting arrested.
If you ask most anyone who's been arrested, they always make it sound like a miscarriage of justice, police brutality, and/or civil liberties. - Nok1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8http://www.digg.com/politics/Photographer_arrested_and_beat_up_by_police_after_photographing_them
Already made front page.
Dupe. - insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6As I posted below, you may want to read it, the Miami police are by far the most corrupt and have a long well documented history of corruption.
Every police commissioner they have had has at some time been expelled for corruption. Corruption stems from the top and works it's insidious seed all the way through the department. Any officer int he department has to go along with it or he won't be around very long. - spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Too bad he misused the instance of Rodney King there. In that case, the police were in the right, King had hit the officers, was high on meth and several other drugs, and was as physically imposing as a linebacker. King resisted arrest, injured officers, and threatened to do worse. The police had to subdue King for their safety as well and King's.
Unfortunately, the press did not release the video of King assaulting the officers or information about his intoxication until much later, after everyone was engrained with the vision of rogue cops beating an innocent black guy. - BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I think I'll get a picture of some cops, a guy in handcuffs, make up some story about being harrassed, and have a bunch gullible people give me free publicity. Then I'll sell porn videos or something on my site.
- davinic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@PradaPete:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
From an attorney:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf - batista86, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I live in Miami and I have to say, that sounds very much like Miami Dade Police Department. A bunch of savages who abuse their powers every time they get a chance. I know its not fair to judge until both sides of the story are told. But the cops that abused the photojournalist will come up with a false story and make up a huge lie to cover this up. I've seen people down here get beat to a pulp just for looking at them the wrong way. The biggest street gang to fear in the 305 is the MDPD. (Miami Dade Police Department)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23Don't waste your time. What you said is totally correct and makes perfect sense, which is exactly what the loserboy nerds here do not like.
They actually want to feel like they are in some dictatorship, an eeeeevil Police State (gasp!) run by the eeeeevil corporashuns, so that they can pretend they're some kind of Freedom Fighters (hooray), struggling against the Military-Industrial Complex Which Runs the Government.
Such are their loserboy dreams, to which they jerk off while hiding behind the keyboards they fully believe are the Weapons of the Future (TM) which will allow them, the Chosen Ones (gulp! Like in The Matrix!) to overthrow the aforementioned eeeeevil Police State and institute an enlightened oligarchy ruled, of course, by them.
But this is not the reality, of course. The reality is that those Digg-dwellers are a sad bunch of geeks, who have neither the ability nor the courage to do anything. Cowardly by nature, they'll spout out a lot of ***** in the useless attempt to hide their inadequacy.
They have no skills, no capabilities, they live off a technological world they had no part in creating and yet they reclaim as their own, like spoiled brats in kindergarten who hoard off all the toys they can lay their fat, dirty hands on.
Unable to face their inferiority, they put down everybody who is better than them (which practically include everybody who is not a nerd or a child molester), and they do it from behind their pathetic computer screens, safe in the knowledge they cannot, as of now, be traced and confronted.
Here, that's why you shouldn't try to reason with those loserboys. Let them wallow in their ***** and ignore them. - DCGaymer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Paparazzi ... you meant "When don't paparazzi have it coming to them?"
- qsqueeq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This isn't the first time for Miami vs. Photographer
"Miami ACLU Sues On Behalf Of Photographer"
http://cbs4.com/topstories/local_story_051170503.html
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/2007/022507Photographer.html - joineddigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I have to agree, I've lived in Miami too. Very unprofessional police dept.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@Juano11
Anarchy????Anarchy??? Who will keep others from infringing on your rights if you get you way...
----
I would rather live in an anarchy with a shotgun in my hands fending for my own rights then to live in a police state where the people who take my rights do so by way of law.
I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. ~Thomas Jefferson
"That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves." ~Thomas Jefferson
Freedom is not something that anybody can be given. Freedom is something people take, and people are as free as they want to be. ~James Baldwin
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. ~Abraham Lincoln
Many people say that government is necessary because some men cannot be trusted to look after themselves, but anarchists say that government is harmful because no men can be trusted to look after anyone else. ~Nicolas Walter, About Anarchism - blqysmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@VTmruhlin
It may be true that the guy was being a dick, but if you or I asked a guy to stop doing something that was not illegal or endangering us, and we hit him with sticks and locked him up for 16 hours, we'd go to jail for a very long time. What they did was NOT legal. When a cop physically assalts you without due cause (such as to prevent you from harming him or someone else, or to apprehend someone who has clearly broken the law,) he has broken the law himself. The police officer is not to be held to a different set of rules of behavior simply because he has a gun and a badge. Assault is assault, and placing someone in jail because they didn't show you proper fear and deference is not legal.
The cops should be charged with assault, criminal descruction of private property, and false imprisonment. They should be criminally charged and sent to jail for their crimes. Whatever sentance a private citizen would get, they should get. It's because the law is to be applied equally, without respect to persons. -
Show 51 - 100 of 207 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is