Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed has reversed himself completely over the charges against Brian Kelly, arrested for wiretapping after videotaping a police stop. Now let's see if they are good enough to compensate Kelly for the 26 hours he spent in jail and the anguish of the cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest. From the article: "... [DA] Freed said his decision will affect not only Brian Kelly, 18, but also will establish a policy for police departments countywide. 'When police are audio- and video-recording traffic stops with notice to the subjects, similar actions by citizens, even if done in secret, will not result in criminal charges,' Freed said yesterday. 'The law itself might need to be revised.'"
Don't feel safer just yet, Mr. parent post. Last night in Crown Heights (Brooklyn), a civil rights attorney (Michael Tarrif Warren) and his wife Evelyn (also a civil rights attorney I believe) witnessed a police officer making an arrest. He stopped to observe the arrest and was told by an officer to, "Get the fuck out of here, this is none of your business." Michael replied, "You don't have to talk to me that way sir, I'm a lawyer." He was told, "I don't give a fuck who you are." and walked away. Michael proceeded to take notes while in his car - at this point the sergeant (one Sgt. Talby of the 77th Precinct, NYPD) punched him several times hard through the open window and arrested both Mr. Warren and his wife.
Thankfully, the news got to the local media quickly, and when they broadcast news of the arrest, 200 folks showed up at the 77th Precinct's door (full disclosure: I was one of them). Sadly, this is hardly [mxgm.org] an [wcbstv.com] isolated [mindfully.org] instance [indybay.org]. It just happens to be the one that happened yesterday.
I realize that some of the sources I'm linking aren't exactly bastions of objective journalism, but if you'd like the other side of the issue, you have two choices: 1) Read the recommendations of NYPD officers on NYPD Rant, the largest message board for NYPD officers. In response to St. Louis ACLU handing out cameras to monitor police misconduct, many recommend "disappearing" the tapes or refusing to work in the area (see here [ezboard.com]
2) Next time you see police arresting or ticketing someone, pull out a notepad. Make sure to not interfere in any way with the police action - just take down names, badge numbers, police car numbers, and physical description of the arrestee. See what happens. I tried doing this once or twice in NYC, and was told, like Mr. Warren, that it was none of my business, to get lost.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 22 2007, @05:38PM (#19614807)
While no judicial and law systems on the planet are perfect, the reaction in the US over this charge, and the eventual reversal say only one thing; as far as direct action is involved the USA is *still* one of the best places on the planet to do it. I can't remember the quote exactly, but it goes something along the lines of us in the west having freedoms we simply don't take advantage of. We pussy foot about and don't act, and that is the problem. If Brian here had not received the support that he did, he might still be in jail. I feel safer in the USA than I do in any other country when it comes to expressing my rights, even though I know that in some backwater town that ability may be more suppressed than in other areas.
I wonder if this man would have been freed if not for the media whirlwind and outcry over this.
In this era, it's almost our duty to raise hell about wrongheaded actions like this, since media attention and publicity can often be more successful than bona fide legal arguments.
Funny how that freedom of the press thing works when it operates correctly. I think that was exactly the purpose of that even in the world before mass communication. I think our legal system was meant to be a last resort thing not first resort in this sense. More convoluted laws only hurts this, and it seemed clear to me the idea was to have more of a light and lean and modifiable legal system to try and cope with strange issues like this. Only when things absolutely cannot be worked out should the court system get involved.
God, I hope so. To which I add this when will we see some justice doled out on the "victim". I had a friend live through this when he got back together with an ex-girlfriend. She set him up and he only stayed out of prison when it was learn she had a HISTORY of false accusations and was several bananas short of a full bunch.
While I am impressed that the DA admitted that a mistake had been made, he still went too far in covering the ass of the very unprofessional police officer who made this stupid arrest. From TFA:
[Freed] said the officer who charged Kelly acted in a "professional manner."
Avoiding accountability by throwing someone in jail for recording how you do your job is NOT professional. Rather, it is the act of a petty tyrant on a power trip who, if left unchecked, will most likely end up harming the public in other ways in the future. The citizens of Pennsylvania deserve better than this from their law enforcement agents.
The cops are better off having us use the things right out in the open: at least they'll know where they stand. If arresting citizens for videotaping their police in action becomes an offense worthy of arrest, people will simply start using hidden cameras. Google for it... it's astonishing how small CCD imager can be made these days. Hell, the one in my cameraphone is maybe a 32nd of an inch in diameter.
Ok, technically P is right and GP is wrong. But P seems a tad idealistically naive here. Anyone who has ever had a brush with the wrong end of the law enforcement business knows that this is not about an officer enforcing the law because he has a noble goal of enforcing the law; rather it is - as GP says - a power trip.
P ought to get out of civics class and into the real world.
As you suggest, the law in question is stupid, as are thousands of other laws. [dumblaws.com] But if the officer were acting professionally, he wouldn't make an arrest for any of these laws. Part of being a professional police officer is exercising proper discretion as to when to make an arrest.
Contrary to your statement, officers are generally not obligated to enforce any particular law. If they were obligated to enforce every infraction of every law they ever witnessed, their entire day would consist of arresting everyone violating the speed limit directly in front of the police station, they'd never make it three blocks down the street, and many more important laws would be broken on streets with no police station.
Police officers are expected to use intelligent discretion to enforce the laws which will have the greatest impact in improving the quality of life of the community. That means some prioritization is necessary. Arresting murderers and rapists is an excellent use of police resources, and is quite easy to justify. Arresting jaywalkers and people who litter on the sidewalk is a poor use of police resources, and is harder to justify. Each arrest takes time, effort, and money which could be better used elsewhere in the community. Police officers' time is particularly valuable because just by walking or driving down a street, they can deter crime! A key question for police priorities could be, "is what I'm doing more or less productive than simply cruising down the street?" As a taxpayer and a citizen, I have an interest in police using their time wisely. An officer arresting someone for videotaping a publicly-accessible event was clearly not using his publicly-funded time wisely, just as setting up a strict speed trap in front of the police station is also not a wise use of resources.
Furthermore, I speculate that this officer was probably not aware that the wiretapping law could be used in this case. I wouldn't expect a traffic cop to be well-versed in wiretapping laws. He arrested the guy with the camera, then, according to the original article, "The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney." Chances are he was embarrassed about having lost his temper ("He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal") so he arrested the guy, probably for "disorderly conduct" or some other catch-all, then went to the DA's office to see if there was anything better to charge him with. Maybe the guy's pal was being a jerk and deserved to be yelled at. But if it was justified, the cop had nothing to hide, and in either case he had no legitimate reason to go after the guy with the camera.
For the record, I got an A in civics class... I'm a nerd, after all!
Videotaping of officers in the line of duty is an issue for every law enforcement union in the country. It would be for any union realistically. How would you feel about being videotaped while you were working?
The difference is that police are in a position to suppress, harrass, and intimidate those who would potentially be taping their activities.
While I agree that the officer most likely did not consider wiretapping as the original charge, I would postulate that he had absolutely no reason to arrest this
This is one of my soapbox issues. More and more, investigations into your personal history (job applications, police investigations, security clearances, and the like) are questioning your *arrest* record. Being arrested (or even charged, but that's another discussion) denotes NOTHING about guilt, intent, or even behavior. You can be arrested for nothing more than being an out-of-state bystander who is witness to an (alleged) crime.
The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative, as is the inference when you refuse to reply, or respond that you have not been convicted of any crimes. (I started to type "have no convictions, but it got very confusing very fast!)
And no, I personally have neither convictions nor arrests.
Exactly this phrase also peeved me off. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are a lot of people out there wringing their hands with glee over all the drama that comes along with living in a functional police state, which America is increasingly becoming, as more and more people believe that credit ratings and arrest records and nose cleanings represent the value of a human to society.
I can agree with your point 100%. Here in the UK, after being involved in a car crash, in which I was a passenger, the police attended the scene. Since the car my friend was driving was in the process of having the ownership details transferred by the legendary slow DVLA, the police checked up on us to see if there were any warrants out for us. When it came to check my record, I had none. I'm almost 30, and up until that day, I had never been arrested for anything. I had a bank card in my name, some photo membership etc.. and the police even phoned my landlord to verify my identity, which when verified, his shoulders visibly sagged. After all this, I was arrested. Why ? "We don't believe you are who you say you are, Sir." Great. So I end up sitting in a cell for 5 hours, get my DNA taken, all after a head-on crash which left me nicely bruised and hurting. Eventually, a jovial sergeant came to the cell "You can go now." with a smile. Thanks a f*****g lot. To have the fact that I was arrested used against me in any way is just plain wrong. Companies should not be allowed to discriminate on information that provides no indication of wrong-doing.
Just wondering, but did you sue for wrongful arrest? I am not a lawyer, but I'd advise speaking to one if you didn't. It sounds like they didn't have anything like the minimum evidence requirements for an arrest. Also, 'We don't believe you are who you say you are, Sir' is not grounds for arrest. If they didn't tell you what they intended to charge you with, it sounds like they violated procedure in a number of ways.
oh.. they told me what they were charging me with, which was "suspicion of theft of a motor vehicle". Laughable really. I'd love to be able to sue the police here for that episode, and even get them to remove my DNA from records, to which they have no right. But I can't afford to. Righteousness is only for the rich.
Would you trade your five hours in a police station for a lifetime living in a place where IDs are not checked
I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" was more than just words on paper.
ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity. Police should act when they see illegal or behavior likely to be illegal, or when they have reasonable suspicion, supported by oath or affirmation and signed by a judge.
Police are Law Enforcement Officers, and there is no higher law (in the US) than the Constitution. As such, when police check ID in a manner inconsistent with the fourth amendment, they are in fact violating the law, and not doing their jobs.
You imply that Somalia is like it is solely because IDs aren't checked. Such argument is intellectually dishonest, and neglects differences in culture, and corruption in government. The United States, if less IDs were checked, would have fewer people in jail. It would, on the other hand, be more free - reading the writings of some of the founding fathers will quickly show that this is by design. The government's job in obtaining convictions and performing surveillance is difficult by design.
Are you saying that the UK is a police state? In that case, which countries are not police states?
Last time I checked, traffic lights don't hold you against your will for 5 hours.
On the other hand, being detained by the police is not an every day occurence for most people. My point is that in the big picture of life, it's nothing. It's down among the dental visits, fender benders and sprained ankles. Not in the same league as divorce, bankruptcy and cancer. O
I don't think that USAnians realise how horribly their goverment treat even tourist visitors who've been arrested at anytime (regardless of any charge being bought, let alone a conviction).
Ha! The Federal government does that even to its own citizens! I was arrested back in college. The charges were dropped, but I was disqualified from a government contracting position some years later over the arrest, which didn't even go to TRIAL. That's where I learned about the concept of "protected" discriminations
The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative
I blame the media for that. Increasingly cases are reported on as though the guilt of the accused is in little or no doubt, especially if the case involves children and/or sexual offences.
In California, they only ask about convictions - I think it's state law. I have one, and while it's embarassing to have to write it down, it's never barred me from a job in CA. I know this because because the background form is sent after the employer makes a conditional offer. A friend worked for an intelligence agency. They polygraph everyone, and dig deeply into each crime and arrest. But they do hire people with criminal convictions, if they have been clean for a while. However, that agency will not
...and we're getting close to it already, is to simply arrest everyone at birth. Increasingly, the only people "running for office" in this country are people who've never done anything. Not just "good things" or "bad things," but ANYTHING. A race of innocuous milquetoasts are slowly taking over the political operation of America simply by convincing "voters" that anyone who's ever done anything distinctive or at all out of the perceived mainstream is unfit to lead. Lest we forget... Harry Truman went ban
A tiny rock on a hill of snow can become a gigantic snowball when rolled down with momentum. Let's not forget this incident, and fight similar issues throughout the world, knowing that you CAN make a difference.
Doubtful. Although most police departments faught against the idea of installing cameras in police vehicles they have since discovered that recording arrests protects officers more often than not. People tend to act more professionally when they know they are being watch and I see this new ruling as a step in the right direction. Here's to more cameras! I look forward to the day when everyone carries around a small personal recorder that wireless beams home everything that they see or hear in a given day.
Recording arrests protects officers because the official videotape mysteriously comes out blank when the cops do anything egregiously wrong. That's why preserving the right to tape them unofficially is important.
So, in light of recent events I should be able to videotape police activities, right?
Anytime I see police making a traffic stop, I whip out my camcorder and get some nice clear pictures of the police officer and the person being stopped. Sounds about like what is being promoted here.
The reason this is (was?) illegal in many places should be clear to people but apparently isn't. Yet, I hope.
The first problem is the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even in America today. So what does my videotape show? Someone being questioned by police. This is the sort of thing that attracts voyeurs like rotting meat attracts flies. People will pay for video like this, especially (but not exclusively) if the person is some kind of public figure or celebrity. Should it be legal to publish such video? Well here in the anonymous Internet age once you have something in digital form there is literally no stopping it from being distributed. You can't stop it and you can't shut it down.
See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?
This means a simple traffic stop where the cop tells you to watch running through yellow lights has the potential to become an issue with your job. Why? A lot of public-facing jobs really are closed to people that have even a hint of controversy about them. Would you leave your child in the care of a teacher that was accused of having sex with a child? Would you hire someone as a bank teller that was accused of embezzlement? Would you still hire them if your insurance company told you that hiring them would raise your insurance rates? 50 years ago this sort of information could be private and not disclosed. Today, it is readily available to be misused. And it certainly is misused, every day.
Is it right that groundless accusations can prevent people from getting a job? No. Does it happen every day? Yes, absolutely. Is having video tape of accused (but not convicted) people going to help or hurt?
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday June 22 2007, @05:56PM (#19615005)
I will tern into a complete police spy
Tern? That doesn't look like a typographical error, since the "e" and the "u" are nowhere near each other on the keyboard, so we must assume that you intend to watch the police from the water while preening your feathers and searching for fish to eat. Or, perhaps you'd swoop down on them from the sky and crap on their shiny cars?
Oh, you didn't mean "tern" like the type of bird, you meant you'd draw the three winning numbers in a lottery? Well, that's just confusing.
I'm a bit confused about your use of the abbreviation for Post Office though - or did you mean Pissed Off?
Tern? That doesn't look like a typographical error, since the "e" and the "u" are nowhere near each other on the keyboard, so we must assume that you intend to watch the police from the water while preening your feathers and searching for fish to eat.
Sorry, but this reminds me of when I traded some sausage for a pet bird. I took a tern for the wurst.
And then there was the time I was throwing rocks at birds. I wanted to leave no tern unstoned.
Why Stop there? I started keeping my digital camera in my car and ready for the crazy drivers I see every day. I've tried everything to get people to stop tailgating me, but it's almost surprising what happens when people realize that their bad driving is being recorded. Three times already I've had tailgaters back off when they saw a flash pointed at them; One trucker and 2 SUVs. People just act better when they know they are being recorded.
Guess you haven't looked for a job lately. Most places where I've worked ask about one's *arrest* record in addition to convictions. If you have been arrested, you of course could lie about it, but if the company does any kind of background check on you it most definitely will show up unless you were a juvenile at the time, and even then, "sealed" doesn't always mean sealed.
If you get IndyMedia (I take your word that it was covered there) and Reason magazine (that was where I read about it first) to pay attention to the same story and be on the same side of it -- maybe, just maybe, it counts as "stuff as matters", not to mention that geeks are more likely to have camcoders in their pockets than non-geeks, huh?:)
I'd say that sitting on your hands when the victims are largely non-white or foreign and the injustices are huge, while taking action when the victim is middle-class, white, and the system quickly rectifies itself, is a bigger problem. What happened in PA was not tyranny.
thank god (Score:2)
Oh you think so? (Score:2, Funny)
No one's mentioned Michael Warren yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thankfully, the news got to the local media quickly, and when they broadcast news of the arrest, 200 folks showed up at the 77th Precinct's door (full disclosure: I was one of them). Sadly, this is hardly [mxgm.org] an [wcbstv.com] isolated [mindfully.org] instance [indybay.org]. It just happens to be the one that happened yesterday.
I realize that some of the sources I'm linking aren't exactly bastions of objective journalism, but if you'd like the other side of the issue, you have two choices:
1) Read the recommendations of NYPD officers on NYPD Rant, the largest message board for NYPD officers. In response to St. Louis ACLU handing out cameras to monitor police misconduct, many recommend "disappearing" the tapes or refusing to work in the area (see here [ezboard.com]
2) Next time you see police arresting or ticketing someone, pull out a notepad. Make sure to not interfere in any way with the police action - just take down names, badge numbers, police car numbers, and physical description of the arrestee. See what happens. I tried doing this once or twice in NYC, and was told, like Mr. Warren, that it was none of my business, to get lost.
Parent
Re:thank god (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Must be a slashdot reader... (Score:2)
People in the USA are sometimes blessed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:People in the USA are sometimes blessed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Blackadder Reference (Score:5, Funny)
"Permission granted."
"BRAVO!"
Nifong (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if the downfall of Mike Nifong has given prosecutors a dose of humility.
Re:Nifong (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Still too much CYA (Score:5, Insightful)
[Freed] said the officer who charged Kelly acted in a "professional manner."
Avoiding accountability by throwing someone in jail for recording how you do your job is NOT professional. Rather, it is the act of a petty tyrant on a power trip who, if left unchecked, will most likely end up harming the public in other ways in the future. The citizens of Pennsylvania deserve better than this from their law enforcement agents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still too much CYA (Score:4, Insightful)
P ought to get out of civics class and into the real world.
Parent
Re:Still too much CYA (Score:5, Insightful)
Contrary to your statement, officers are generally not obligated to enforce any particular law. If they were obligated to enforce every infraction of every law they ever witnessed, their entire day would consist of arresting everyone violating the speed limit directly in front of the police station, they'd never make it three blocks down the street, and many more important laws would be broken on streets with no police station.
Police officers are expected to use intelligent discretion to enforce the laws which will have the greatest impact in improving the quality of life of the community. That means some prioritization is necessary. Arresting murderers and rapists is an excellent use of police resources, and is quite easy to justify. Arresting jaywalkers and people who litter on the sidewalk is a poor use of police resources, and is harder to justify. Each arrest takes time, effort, and money which could be better used elsewhere in the community. Police officers' time is particularly valuable because just by walking or driving down a street, they can deter crime! A key question for police priorities could be, "is what I'm doing more or less productive than simply cruising down the street?" As a taxpayer and a citizen, I have an interest in police using their time wisely. An officer arresting someone for videotaping a publicly-accessible event was clearly not using his publicly-funded time wisely, just as setting up a strict speed trap in front of the police station is also not a wise use of resources.
Furthermore, I speculate that this officer was probably not aware that the wiretapping law could be used in this case. I wouldn't expect a traffic cop to be well-versed in wiretapping laws. He arrested the guy with the camera, then, according to the original article, "The wiretap charge was filed after consultation with a deputy district attorney." Chances are he was embarrassed about having lost his temper ("He said he held the camera in plain view and turned it on when the officer yelled at his pal") so he arrested the guy, probably for "disorderly conduct" or some other catch-all, then went to the DA's office to see if there was anything better to charge him with. Maybe the guy's pal was being a jerk and deserved to be yelled at. But if it was justified, the cop had nothing to hide, and in either case he had no legitimate reason to go after the guy with the camera.
For the record, I got an A in civics class... I'm a nerd, after all!
Parent
To Counter Your Point (Score:3, Informative)
It would be for any union realistically. How would you feel about being videotaped while you were working?
The difference is that police are in a position to suppress, harrass, and intimidate those who would potentially be taping their activities.
While I agree that the officer most likely did not consider wiretapping as the original charge, I would postulate that he had absolutely no reason to arrest this
Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest (Score:5, Insightful)
The *connotation*, however, is becoming increasingly negative, as is the inference when you refuse to reply, or respond that you have not been convicted of any crimes. (I started to type "have no convictions, but it got very confusing very fast!)
And no, I personally have neither convictions nor arrests.
KeS
Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest (Score:5, Funny)
Remind me never to party with you.
-----
F&@k You Binary T-Shirt [prostoner.com]
Funny Shirts @ ProStoner.com
Parent
Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly this phrase also peeved me off. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are a lot of people out there wringing their hands with glee over all the drama that comes along with living in a functional police state, which America is increasingly becoming, as more and more people believe that credit ratings and arrest records and nose cleanings represent the value of a human to society.
Parent
I, on the other hand, (Score:2)
Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest (Score:5, Interesting)
When it came to check my record, I had none. I'm almost 30, and up until that day, I had never been arrested for anything. I had a bank card in my name, some photo membership etc.. and the police even phoned my landlord to verify my identity, which when verified, his shoulders visibly sagged. After all this, I was arrested. Why ? "We don't believe you are who you say you are, Sir." Great. So I end up sitting in a cell for 5 hours, get my DNA taken, all after a head-on crash which left me nicely bruised and hurting. Eventually, a jovial sergeant came to the cell "You can go now." with a smile. Thanks a f*****g lot.
To have the fact that I was arrested used against me in any way is just plain wrong. Companies should not be allowed to discriminate on information that provides no indication of wrong-doing.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest (Score:4, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233613&ci
Parent
Re:Cloud over his future caused by a felony arrest (Score:4, Insightful)
I certainly would. I would gladly spend a month in Jail to live in a nation where "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" was more than just words on paper.
ID is about verifying who you are. Laws concern behavior, not identity. Police should act when they see illegal or behavior likely to be illegal, or when they have reasonable suspicion, supported by oath or affirmation and signed by a judge.
Police are Law Enforcement Officers, and there is no higher law (in the US) than the Constitution. As such, when police check ID in a manner inconsistent with the fourth amendment, they are in fact violating the law, and not doing their jobs.
You imply that Somalia is like it is solely because IDs aren't checked. Such argument is intellectually dishonest, and neglects differences in culture, and corruption in government. The United States, if less IDs were checked, would have fewer people in jail. It would, on the other hand, be more free - reading the writings of some of the founding fathers will quickly show that this is by design. The government's job in obtaining convictions and performing surveillance is difficult by design.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you saying that the UK is a police state? In that case, which countries are not police states?
On the other hand, being detained by the police is not an every day occurence for most people. My point is that in the big picture of life, it's nothing. It's down among the dental visits, fender benders and sprained ankles. Not in the same league as divorce, bankruptcy and cancer. O
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ha! The Federal government does that even to its own citizens! I was arrested back in college. The charges were dropped, but I was disqualified from a government contracting position some years later over the arrest, which didn't even go to TRIAL. That's where I learned about the concept of "protected" discriminations
Re: (Score:2)
I blame the media for that. Increasingly cases are reported on as though the guilt of the accused is in little or no doubt, especially if the case involves children and/or sexual offences.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend worked for an intelligence agency. They polygraph everyone, and dig deeply into each crime and arrest. But they do hire people with criminal convictions, if they have been clean for a while. However, that agency will not
The solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lest we forget... Harry Truman went ban
Lawsuit from Brian Kelly's attorney (Score:4, Funny)
3
2
1
Keep the momentum going (Score:2)
A tiny rock on a hill of snow can become a gigantic snowball when rolled down with momentum. Let's not forget this incident, and fight similar issues throughout the world, knowing that you CAN make a difference.
Peace out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're being cynical. Listen to the message and not my mannerisms.
Peace out.
Negative effect from this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Negative effect from this (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Privacy, anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Anytime I see police making a traffic stop, I whip out my camcorder and get some nice clear pictures of the police officer and the person being stopped. Sounds about like what is being promoted here.
The reason this is (was?) illegal in many places should be clear to people but apparently isn't. Yet, I hope.
The first problem is the idea that people are innocent until proven guilty. Yes, even in America today. So what does my videotape show? Someone being questioned by police. This is the sort of thing that attracts voyeurs like rotting meat attracts flies. People will pay for video like this, especially (but not exclusively) if the person is some kind of public figure or celebrity. Should it be legal to publish such video? Well here in the anonymous Internet age once you have something in digital form there is literally no stopping it from being distributed. You can't stop it and you can't shut it down.
See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?
This means a simple traffic stop where the cop tells you to watch running through yellow lights has the potential to become an issue with your job. Why? A lot of public-facing jobs really are closed to people that have even a hint of controversy about them. Would you leave your child in the care of a teacher that was accused of having sex with a child? Would you hire someone as a bank teller that was accused of embezzlement? Would you still hire them if your insurance company told you that hiring them would raise your insurance rates? 50 years ago this sort of information could be private and not disclosed. Today, it is readily available to be misused. And it certainly is misused, every day.
Is it right that groundless accusations can prevent people from getting a job? No. Does it happen every day? Yes, absolutely. Is having video tape of accused (but not convicted) people going to help or hurt?
Maybe the DA should be charged under federal law.. (Score:3, Informative)
First time for everything (Score:5, Funny)
Tern? That doesn't look like a typographical error, since the "e" and the "u" are nowhere near each other on the keyboard, so we must assume that you intend to watch the police from the water while preening your feathers and searching for fish to eat. Or, perhaps you'd swoop down on them from the sky and crap on their shiny cars?
Oh, you didn't mean "tern" like the type of bird, you meant you'd draw the three winning numbers in a lottery? Well, that's just confusing.
I'm a bit confused about your use of the abbreviation for Post Office though - or did you mean Pissed Off?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:First time for everything (Score:5, Funny)
And then there was the time I was throwing rocks at birds. I wanted to leave no tern unstoned.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why Stop with cops? (Score:3, Insightful)
No cops should be allowed to go unchecked.
Why Stop there? I started keeping my digital camera in my car and ready for the crazy drivers I see every day. I've tried everything to get people to stop tailgating me, but it's almost surprising what happens when people realize that their bad driving is being recorded. Three times already I've had tailgaters back off when they saw a flash pointed at them; One trucker and 2 SUVs. People just act better when they know they are being recorded.
Re:What cloud of his future? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And all their toys are made in China (Score:2)
a communist government right there.
Re: (Score:2)
And both as much as England is a monarchy.
Good luck finding any pure governmental systems being used these days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Paul B.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)