Cop Seeks Wiretapping Charges For Woman Who Videotaped Beating 662
An anonymous reader writes "A police officer who was disciplined for his role in the beating of a Massachusetts man (many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness) is looking to bring criminal wiretapping charges against the woman who caught much of the incident on video. The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating. He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed."
I am still fuzzy (Score:5, Insightful)
on how wiretapping is the same as recording video.
fair is fair (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating
What do you think would happen to me if I beat a police officer enough to cause "many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness"?
Ppl are doing this wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is time to take back our nation from these bastards. Out them, but do not give them a target. BTW, assume that the corrupt DA and police union disallow those films. That is ok. The victim can still sue the cop CIVILLY and get the bastards pensions. Do a few of those and watch how quickly cops change their attitude.
Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly because of the following appeal to emotion type argument:
"The police face dangerous people every day, and need to be able to respond to percieved threats accordingly. Enforcing more strict controls over police escallation of violence places our public servants (The people who protect us from violent offenders) at risk. You dont want to be responsible for letting criminals run loose because you prevented the police from reacting, do you?"
This argument bears a superficial resemblence to the "Support our TRUUPES!" argument:
"Our men and women in uniform fight to protect our freedoms from dangerous terrorists overseas. If you dont support our men and women in the armed forces, you are selling out our country, and are complicit in the terrorist's cause."
Both provide "Enforcement" agencies with Carte Blanc to do pretty much watever they feel like, because if you disagree with the tactics or reasons for their activities, "You are a criminal/terrorist sympathizer."
No self-respecting politician with any hope of being re-elected will act on either agency in any fashion besides a stern wrist slapping, because of the danger of violating the de-facto taboo that these appeals to emotion invoke, regardless of how desperately these entities actually need such corrective action. (This is why the GITMO prisoner torture was downplayed, and why "Wiretapping" charges keep getting lodged against citizens reporting and recording instances of police wrongdoing.)
Additionally, the egregious activities of these agencies work hand-in-hand with power hungry parent entities (City, State, and Federal governments), because slowly escellating violence against both foriegn and domestic entities desensitizes the public, and allows for greater abuses of power at higher levels without causing moral panic or alarm.
Without some form of mass moral outrage against these practices, and I mean *RIGHT NOW*, there will be no going back and this country will continue to fast-track toward a police-state.
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fired? Cops don't get fired for beating and killing peons like you and me. They get a paid vacation...I mean disciplinary leave.
Cops aren't there to protect us from criminals (and as courts have repeatedly said, they're under no obligation to do so). They're there to protect the government class from its greatest foe: us, and to ensure that the other tax feeders can continue to suck us dry without fear that we'll resist. Once you understand the premise, it makes more sense.
William Grigg [lewrockwell.com] writes frequently about the constant abuse of power (and physical abuse of innocents) by the cops.
Unenumerated Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is time for another Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights discusses a great amount about the OUTPUT of citizens, but little regarding the INPUT...mostly because at the time of the founding it was impossible to -record- such things. The only means was to write about experiences, what someone heard, saw, smelled, tasted, or felt. However that equation has been altered greatly in the past 150 years, starting with photography. Yet the citizenry's right to secure backup of the human sensory system (or electronic record that corresponds to the human sensory system) has not been recognized accordingly.
Photographers are still fighting photo bans, and dealing with unconstitutional charges that result. And that is for the oldest form of "record keeping"! There are still outright bans on audio in many states, though video--due to its similarity to still photography--is in a somewhat legal limbo.
This is going to require an Amendment to fundamentally enumerate and incorporate the human right to record the environment. That should not extend to electrical interception (true wiretapping) or electronically-assisted interception (unidirectional microphones and telephoto lenses), but simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception. Although "photos can lie", human beings should not be hamstrung to the subjective judgement of character (he said, she said) when significantly more accurate measurements are available. If the citizen has a 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, they should certainly have a right to provide individualized proof of innocence!
Law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian (Score:5, Insightful)
The Law should not be applied equally to cop and civilian. Penalties should be HARSHER when the authorities break the law, and the benefit of the doubt should not apply, because law enforcement officers are charged with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This idea is usually expressed as "the color of authority" [wikipedia.org], and it is an essential and traditional safeguard of Liberty.
Yes, the rules are absolutely different when you carry the awesome power to kill in a split second. They are, and they should be.
Cops shouldn't solicit charitable donations from businesses, because it looks like protection money. Military officers may not sleep with their subordinates, because it looks like "command rape." The FBI shouldn't be assembling dossiers on political activists, because it looks like oppression.
These used to be commonly accepted ideas before we gutted public education and Fox News began blaring propaganda 24/7.
Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:45 day suspension? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops have the ability to ruin your life legally and as part of their job. When they're corrupt, they can do much, much worse than you or I can, and they need to be treated as such. The more power someone has given to them by the state, the harsher we need to be on them if they're found to be in violation.
Re:Massachusetts laws are fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!
Well, not with that attitude. Unjust laws usually look like they'll never change up until they do. Acting like we're stuck with them forever is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Re:45 day suspension? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the close order of zero. Almost any cop will cover up, by acts of commission or omission, overtly bad acts by other cops. That makes them bad cops too.
It Depends. (Score:5, Insightful)
How much money do you have? If it's billions, then your security detail defended you against a lone rogue officer who violated department policy, and the City offers it's apologies and takes this matter very, very seriously.
If all you did was study hard, work hard and then follow the rules after you served your Country honorably, then criminal lowlifes like you will not be tolerated or coddled...
Re:Ppl are doing this wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Here in America we have the corrupt neo-cons/tea*, the corrupt DAs and the corrupt police that support these kinds of actions"
I can't tell you distressing and frankly offensive I found this sentence to be.
As politically conservative as they come, and a proud Taxed Enough Already activist, I deeply believe in the bedrock value of the "Rule of Law" and insist that the U.S Constitution be recognized and upheld as the highest law of the land at all levels of government.
Police Officers who cannot embrace or be trusted with the truth (like a video of their own actions) should find themselves permanently unemployable in any law enforcement capacity as they clearly have forgotten that in their roles as Police Officers, they are servants and protectors of the People, not overlords.
Re:Why wait? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you want to cause an innocent man to be convicted to further your own personal agenda against cops ...
How exactly is that different than what they do? Because you think you're on 'the good side' ... as you let someone else suffer ... not you, someone else.
Douche.
Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
You must not watch much fox news, or listen to the talking heads on talk radio. (Something I am sadly subjected to by ideologue relatives.)
While I could see the reason to divide 'blame the soldiers' with 'blame the govt that sent them' I also must stress that 'I was only following orders' does not absolve persons of guilt in cases of wrongdoing.
As for the 'Support our troops' line not being purposefully confused by the media and from DOD representatives to de-facto imply that you MUST support the stupid wars we have sent our people to die in, I simply have to question what form of domestic reporting you have been consuming. IIRC, we were demonizng people left and right under the bush admin ("America, love it or GTFO" type slurs against people critical of our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and also later of GITMO) for suggesting that our actions were out of line. The public controversy over "The dixie chicks" spings instantly to mind--
Further, with the Vietnam confict there was an involuntary draft. These days they just pressure people to enlist through bogus government "shcolarship" programs. Choosing to become complicit with the destructive whims of our current government for cash is quite worthy of some level of contempt in my book.
Re:Ppl are doing this wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Cry some More, facist.
i don't know if you are delusional or dishonest, but if you just took an honest look at what the teabagger^H^H^H^H^H^H party candidates have "accomplished" you would run, not walk, away from the movement.
for every small government individualist there are ten fundies, racists, homophobes and Christian Dominionists
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:4, Insightful)
Jail Time - Conspiracy to Witness - 10 years.
It was good enough to land me in prison, it's good enough for this fucker.
Bad c(r)op (Score:4, Insightful)
New Rights (Score:4, Insightful)