Police Using YouTube To Tell Their Own Stories 299
stevegee58 writes "Posting videos to YouTube allegedly showing police misconduct has become commonplace these days. Now police themselves are posting their own videos to refute misconduct claims. 'After a dozen Occupy Minnesota protesters were arrested at a downtown demonstration, the group quickly took to the Internet, posting video that activists said showed police treating them roughly and never warning them to leave. But Minneapolis police knew warnings had been given. And they had their own video to prove it. So they posted the footage on YouTube, an example of how law enforcement agencies nationwide are embracing online video to cast doubt on false claims and offer their own perspective to the public.'"
Okay then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they should stop confiscating the cell phones and cameras of protesters if they have nothing to worry about.
The difference is, the only real attention the media will give will be to the police, and this AP article illustrates this perfectly.
Re:Okay then... (Score:5, Insightful)
the only real attention the media will give will be to the police
That hasn't been the case so far. And it's easy to see why.
Allegations of police brutality (and the controversy surrounding it) gets eyeballs. Police just doing their jobs is boring. Guess which one "the media" wants.
See how that works?
What about cops? (Score:2, Insightful)
I seem to recall a show called Cops that would disprove your claims.
Re:What about cops? (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to recall that show focusing on the "fun" stuff (for varying definitions of fun). I never saw a single episode where a cop rolled around his beat for 30 minutes, and cut to credits. I don't even recall seeing a routine stop. Imagine that episode: cop flashes his lights, car pulls over, speeding ticket issued, no drama, motorist apologizes for the violation and goes about their business. That's boring, doesn't get airtime.
Every episode had some form of chase, either on foot on in the cars, or they had cops tackling drunken rednecks or breaking up fights, getting shot at, etc. That's exciting, that's what airs.
Fast-forward to the current situation: protests. We-the-people don't want to see video of cops politely asking 15 times for someone to clear out. We get bored watching police standing around while protesters peacefully demonstrate, which is what's actually happening 95% of the time. We want the videos where someone gets punched, or slapped in cuffs and dragged away from their tent... even if you have to cut out the previous 6 hours of the cop telling people that they're not allowed to take a crap in the grass.
Re: (Score:3)
But, they got easy access to shoot the "fun" stuff by making sure they only showed stuff where the criminals were acting like idiots. If Cops had made a habit of showing police brutality that actually made the cops look bad, they wouldn't have gotten permission to make the show any more. That fact influences the way the police are shown by the media. Even subtler things like who the cops are friends with effecting who hears about breaks in a popular case effect the way police are portrayed in the media.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about cops? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aye. When I was younger, like everyone else I used to watch videos of violent demonstrations on TV. Then the G20 summit came to town and one day I went to watch the protest. I followed the peaceful march to downtown then watched the protests from a footbridge for 2 hours. The demonstrators peacefully chanted slogans, beat on drums and waved signs, much to the dismay of the watching bystanders who'd occasionally yell "come on do something!" Sure once in a while a bored cop would fire something into the protesters who'd simply retreat and advance back cautiously asking for peace, again much to the dismay of the bored spectators...
Later when the crowd had dispersed, I ran back home and excitedly turned on the News to see the coverage of the first peaceful G20 protest ever. What did the media say? "Protesters were out again today during the summit, they smashed the windows of a McDonald's and Starbucks and police had to repeatedly fire warning shots at them." No mention of the hours of peaceful protest, none, zip, nada.
The media today isn't the press of 1890s. They're not there to report the truth, they're simply trying to make a buck like the rest of us. If they reported the entire truth, it'll be either boring and people would switch to another outlet, too shocking and people would switch again, or start a revolution that might make the media lose their comfortable home and present way of life. So they don't lie, but they sure as hell don't tell you the entire story. Beware.
Re: (Score:3)
I would really love to see videos of cops doing their jobs as models of proper police behavior. It's much nicer than police footage that disappears, is lost, is confiscated, or otherwise isn't admissable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's supposedly a show that supposedly showcases the cops in situations where it should be easy to come across as the both the bigger man and the good guy.
You know what I see about 50% of the time when I flick past it on the tv? Some cop acting like a complete dick to someone for no reason at all.
If this is positive propaganda for the police in the US then I dread to think what it's like when you come across a US cop having a bad day.
Re:What about cops? (Score:4, Insightful)
Classic story. So you got busted for riding a bike with "fictitious tags, no license, and no insurance", and your biggest complaint is about the "redneck" cop who was yelling at his dog? And you admit to doing 70 in a 35? You're such a dick you don't even realize it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's rare that you get the media actually investigating police brutality. You heard about the pepper-spraying, but you probably didn't hear anything else about it.
Re:Okay then... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is, the only real attention the media will give will be to the police, and this AP article illustrates this perfectly.
So long as people continue to watch media which only gives half the story, only half the story will be given. I go through a lot of effort to seek out alternative media and accounts of major stories, and what I've discovered is that domestic media only provides the appearance of impartiality; Just enough to suspend disbelief. This is most evident in how they give "equal time" to, say, creationism, as they would a scientist, when doing a report on the latest global warming. Domestic media is there to provide just enough facts for each 'side' to continue to perpetuate the idea of a controversy, when in fact, there very rarely is one. The media will even manufacture controversy if their corporate sponsors are paid enough; the recurring gay marriage stories and 'controversy', for example -- if you look, there wasn't much polarization before the general public was saturated with coverage of it.. people were like "Well, maybe I don't like it, but why the fuck do I care? There's about a billion other things more important than that." But the republicans needed a victory, so they pumped Murdock and behold, a polarizing story designed to get their voters to the polls to defeat their democratic rivals.
So yes, domestic media is totally corrupt, and they will happily splice and cut footage up, take people's quotes out of context, and generally 'spice' things up, but there is a very specific agenda behind such things. Indie media though is even worse... people desperate to get "their side" of the story or portray "the truth" often do such a piss-poor and slanted job of it that only the political activists in their own little microcosm would ever approve of it. I've tracked OccupyMN since they pitched their first tent... they've released hundreds of YouTube videos... all with only a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand at most, viewing it.
The Occupiers never got organized, they just barfed content onto the internet and made a cacaphony of conflicting statements, all basically saying "See! See! This proves what we've been saying all along!" ... Of course, nobody really knows what it is they've been saying at all... the Occupy movement is sortof a blob of negative emotions projected by the working class onto the rich, and while some of it is justified, the lack of any real cohesion means it basically reduces to a king sized bitch fest.
And then there's 'Collateral Damage', a widely-watched indie media video produced by Wikileaks, which later led to it being hunted by the 'land of the free' with a zeal that harkens back to soviet-era media manipulation. Indie media had a great potential to show us the actual cost of war, and to underscore how drone attacks and remote bombing may not harm homeland security in the short-term, but it definately creates lasting hostility to this country which definately harms it in the long term. 9/11 was a direct consequence of this kind of media manipulation -- it forced political reactionaries abroad to use bombs to get the general public's attention, because what was going on on Afghanistan was so far removed from public view that few people on the street could even tell you what we were doing there.
And this is the loci of the problem: No matter which 'side' you're on, the concept of 'sides' is the real enemy in journalism. Democracy absolutely depends on impartial reporting; Democracy fails catastrophically when the population becomes illiterate and misinformed or underinformed (both are equally bad). And that's exactly what's happened in this country -- ever since the vietnam war protests, our government in concert with wealthy private interests have carefully constructed a sort of "glass curtain" around the country. Unlike an iron curtain, like the soviets had, or similar systems which the Chinese have, our form of censorship is subtle and depends on controlling the broadcast media via private corporations and individuals so the government has plausible deniability; But it accomplishes the same basic goal: To mislead the general public about government actions.
Re:Okay then... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would treat your entire diatribe with far more respect and empathy had you not used the term "pig" in every single line. Frankly your name calling to justify a point just shows immaturity. Then the fact that people modded you up as AC makes me wonder what modders are thinking today. While your post is informative, it is also antagonistic.
Re: (Score:2)
I would treat your criticism of the AC post with more respect if you'd addressed the actual events listed.
I can't (yet) find a single comment by you on the actions or crimes of those whom we expect to serve and protect - except that they shouldn't be called "pig" under any circumstances.
There's some irony in your use of antagonistic as that is the first recourse of the police in too many situations where kneejerk violence or intimidation is not warranted.
And for you to read that litany of crime and murder b
Re:Okay then... (Score:4, Insightful)
Couple o' things I can think of offhand:
1) Huge accusations, but no cites. Considering the accusations, some credible and substantiated citations would have been damned useful, at least before you demand that someone form an opinion one way or the other (and no, "Google it" doesn't cut it, given that most of the links that are likely to come up will be slanted one way or the other).
2) GGP running around calling cops "pigs" at every other breath? It labels him quicker and more effectively than it labels the cops. He just doesn't understand that, and apparently neither do you.
I figured that someone with a low UID would be old enough by default to understand such simple things...
Re:Okay then... (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't Wikipedia but there's more than enough info provided to find multiple sources, some with video, in a matter of moments.
If you can find Slashdot, we do expect you know how to Google or that you have access to YouTube.
There are, of course, many other examples of questionable and criminal activity by police - many obscure.
But most of the ones above are easy to find although I've not found the stories about Proctor Valley Rd or Lousiana.
Ones of the benefits of my age-accrued wisdom and my extensive Slashdot experience is that I learned a long time ago to control kneejerk reactions.
It's clear that Nocturnal Deviant isn't yet at that level or perhaps it's too early in the day for him to be thinking clearly.
Consider the following:
"Yup. And, every time some video sneaks out, it demonstrates criminal sadistic behavior on the part of the police.
Even with video of cold blooded murder by cops (shooting Oscar Grant in the back while held down by a bunch of cops who showed they were conspirators to murder when they tried to collect every recording device (cell phones, etc.) in the Bart station to destroy the evidence), nothing but a slap on the wrist to the murdering pig, and nothing to his co-conspirators"
Story and video of this is easy enough to find. My opinion is that the officer did confuse the Taser with his pistol but tasering a man who was held down by 6 cops was excessive - surely more than one of them had handcuffs or tie-wraps.
As this was the 1st use of "pig", let's give this inference a pass.
"Police have _far_ too much power for the number of controls on their behavior. They should be recorded at all times (any incident without video and audio should default to the victim's account), and there should be civilian oversight boards from every community they police (that share the demographics of the community). These oversight boards should be empowered to make binding decisions about misconduct claims, and be given a say in the discipline such as recommending murder charges be pressed (the regular prosecutors office should recuse themselves from these cases due to their blatant conflict of interest). And, no cop should ever collect a pay check during an investigation (or, must repay 100% within 30 days + interest if after the investigation, the cop is shown to be in the wrong)."
No insults at all in this paragraph - why no comment from Nocturnal Deviant? Is there nothing here that's Insightful?
"Victims should be able to make claims against police pensions-- that alone would probably reign in many of the pigs"
"Pigs" appears only at the end and you could read right up to the word "many" without losing any of the point of this sentence. He does misuse "reign".
Perhaps that error had a subliminal effect on Nocturnal Deviants heightened sensibilities.
Okay, now if we skip over the remaining lines where "pig" appears, we get to the closing statement:
"If we treated cops like other criminals, entire precincts would be sitting on death row or at least be in prison right now."
This is, at most, an exaggeration but it's not unthinkable if RICO laws, or slight adjustments to them, were applied in cases where police criminal activity or the coverup thereof, was suspected.
Now, if the original AC poster had, instead of using the insult directly, had linked to videos where friends, family or witnesses had described the events while referring to the cops as pigs, would you (or Nocturnal Deviant) think they were less deserving of empathy?
I would says that most cops do try to be good officers but there are many who not only fall short but are as bad as, or worse than, the criminals.
Why they are given so much more leeway than we would grant a soldier?
Re: (Score:3)
Now, if the original AC poster had, instead of using the insult directly, had linked to videos where friends, family or witnesses had described the events while referring to the cops as pigs, would you (or Nocturnal Deviant) think they were less deserving of empathy?
It's not a question of empathy, really. Nocturnal Deviant was only pointing out that maybe AC would've gotten the point across better if it wasn't inflammatory to the point of stupidity. If we were to exaggerate only a smidge, it would be like reading a post about Mideast peace talks while seeing the word "kikes" tossed around every other sentence or so in reference to Israelis. The original complaints and any salient points get drowned.
Hell, I perfectly agree that any abuse of power is incredibly wrong, an
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the ones mentioned are of general knowledge and don't really need any cites. Some are new but also there are many, many others not mentioned. People get rightly infuriated when justice is blatantly one sided, where corruption is clearly the rule of the day. Some days when people are in better moods then can express themselves more effectively, how ever when they are exposed to a series of criminal abuses by those in power the humour tends to trail off and the express themselves in purely the way th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
^ what he said.
I actually know firsthand what police brutality and antagonistic tendencies are. I open carry.
(If you do not know what that is, and are commenting on police brutality, then I will now say my first antagonistic comment which is get your head out of your ass and off of slashdot.)
I however treat them with respect deserved by a fellow human being. You calling every single police officer bad, just states ignorance. That's like saying every black person steals and does drugs, or every Asian
Re: (Score:3)
Cops used to be much worse decades ago but the fact that they are better doesn't mean they should be given a free pass when they're blatantly in the wrong.
This is a strawman, Nocturnal Devian never claimed they should get a free pass.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
and they all cover eachother, even when it involves breaking the law to do it. If only they would self regulate we wouldn't have a problem, if only it was ok for a partner to say to the chief i don't think this officer should be running around with guns and clubs because he is in it for the fight not the peace. Which is fine when it's a murdering rapist but what when it's teenager reaching for a handkerchief? If the police department wont try to put a stop to this (which honestly if anyone one should have t
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They all do act remarkably similar, state to state, year to year.
Who taught police departments from Miami, Houston, Phoenix, New York City, San Francsico, Los Angeles, St. Louis, Oklahoma City, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, Washington DC, etc. to all yell "STOP RESISTING!" while repeatedly tasering someone? They all managed to learn how to use the passive voice in any report about their actions-police never shoot anyone, 'shots were fired', 'a gun was discharged', etc.
Area to area, year to year, you'll pr
They are taping everyone now (Score:5, Insightful)
For the Chicago G8 protests, the police filmed every man woman and child who entered the protest area and had dozens of officers filming the entire protest.
A few minutes after the protest ended they attacked everyone who didn't leave. They never showed tape of that.
The police want laws to say they can't be filmed but they want to film everyone. They want maximum transparency of the population and none for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
The police want laws to say they can't be filmed but they want to film everyone. They want maximum transparency of the population and none for themselves.
Nope. Nothing says it was the same policemen having both ideas. Besides, someone could prefer no filming, but still resort to filming oneself while filming remains legal.
Re: (Score:3)
>>>The police want laws to say they can't be filmed but they want to film everyone.
While that is true, no State Law can overrule a State Constitution, and not Congressional Law can overrule Constitutional law. The right of the people to report on events (whether using an old-fashioned pencil, or a modern video) may not be outlawed. It's called freedom of the press.
As for the article itself: UK police have been filming protests almost ten years now. The have a designed officer who does nothing bu
Re:They are taping everyone now (Score:4, Interesting)
The have a designed officer who does nothing but film, so that they can protect themselves against protester allegations (both in the public view and in the court).
Indeed. Funny how when Ian Tomlinson was murdered, the only video was posted by a tourist from the safety of his home country.
The police in the UK have done a good job of looking like clowns recently. They managed to crack down really hard on legitimate, peaceful protestors (how hard is that?), suppressing freedom of speech, but when some real riots and looting actually happened, it turned out that they were bugger all use.
Re: (Score:3)
Police in the US are paid by cities, counties, and states. City councils have stepped up and been the ones to have police carry cameras and recorders. That's because, despite malicious rumors to the contrary, we still have a democracy and the city councils have to answer to the voters and they don't like allegations of police misconduct. Police can not act with impunity unless their bosses let them. If their bosses are not holding police accountable then the voters need to take action.
Re:posts like this make me laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
but as long as you have this "us" versus "them"
You mean the exact mentality the police ADMIT they have?
they are accountable to us, they are accountable to YOU
No, this is a lie. They are accountable to their supervisors, and to accountability boards that are staffed by ex-police, and to Internal Affairs, who are also police.
NOWHERE in that process can a citizen bring accountability. Qualified Immunity prevents lawsuits except in the most egregious, and rare, circumstances. If IA and the accountability boards don't hold a cop responsible, you're out of luck.
You can't elect them out, you can't vote them out, so this "they are accountable to you" tripe is just blatantly false.
not the entirety of the police force
The entirety of the force colludes in protecting the bad apples. And you make excuses for them because they "kiss their kids at night" or some other "think of the CHILDREN" sappy bullshit.
stop talking about them like they invasive inscrutable species out to hurt you for no reason
I will when they stop living up to the description.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/18722525/2012/06/06/prince-georges-county-police-officers-under-criminal-investigation?obref=obinsite [myfoxdc.com]
FTFA "WALDORF, Md. -Two Prince George's County police officers are under criminal investigation in Charles County for allegedly handcuffing, detaining and assaulting a teenager in order to teach him a lesson."
Now, that's two cops plus every other cop who covered for them. You forget, they have a responsiblity to uphold the law, so every single officer who knew about that incident and didn't turn those cops in is legally culpable. But you ignore that in your rush to paint a portrait even more distorted than the one you're crying about.
maybe you'll actually get something accomplished about their behavior
No, the current "Fuck the Police" attitude has done more to bring attention to these issues than the copsucking you're suggesting ever did. That, and ubiquitous cameras. However, I don't fault you, collaborators always suggest collaboration, it's easier than resistance and you collaborators tend toward laziness and cowardice.
I appreciate your opinion, but as you can see, you really have absolutely no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Frankly, you take a startlingly similar line to cops themselves, and I have to wonder if you have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome.
You're a citizen. It's your DUTY to resist tyranny. Not sit by and defend it because it kisses it's kids forehead at night.
About time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sure law enforcement agencies would never resort to creative editing. And I'm sure the media won't be more prone to parrotting the official "truth".
Then again, I live in a fantasy world where authorities can be trusted.
Re: (Score:2)
The media reports what makes good viewing, they are not controlled by the police or governments in most countries. The idea that media are just lackeys is most a myth in first world countries. They may not focus on the important stories all the time which is true. But it makes for good counter-culture media reporting to claim that the other media won't report the truth.
Re: (Score:3)
As usual, the fault in these incidents lie with both sides; the cops, for often being quick to move into "riot control" mode, and the protesters, because they believe that nobody will give a shit about their cause if there aren't at least a few of them with blood pouring down their foreheads.
As for the other 98% of us, we just want to get through the day without being fired, mistaken for a protester or having our stupid ass kids that we've invested so much time, money and emotion into getting involved in th
Re: (Score:2)
the occupiers usually come off as smug hipsters with a victim mentality - demonstrated through their actions and creative editing
Bullshit. Show me the context where the occupiers' actions justified pepper spraying.
You simply don't like the occupiers, and are trying to justify the other side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When they block a public right of way and refuse to dispurse (e.g. UC Davis), same as the right to life protestors who block abortion clinics and get pepper sprayed.
Re:About time... (Score:5, Funny)
Psh, I was hating hipsters before it was cool...
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that someone had to invent the word "hipster" before you could properly hate them. Until then you're stuck saying things like "All those guys with their iphones 7s who drink mochacappulattechinos and talk about the new restaurant that is so out of the mainstream that it has only one table, you know the sort I'm talking about, right? Well those are the guys I hate." You need the label so that you can properly focus.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC 'Hipster' the term was invented by Hunter S. Thompson during the 70s. I think the column is in 'Campaign trail'. Been a long time sense I read it.
He used it to describe someone who wasn't 'hip' but was desperate to appear so. Meaning hasn't changed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not hip enough to have read Hunter S. Thompson.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. All the cool people hate "hipsters" these days.
So it's hip to hate hipsters? Does that make hipster haters hipsters?
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they put it on like a '49ers fan putting on a packers jersey when they have a bad year.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you at least concede that putting a second side of the story up might actually further distort the facts?
Re: (Score:2)
What's your solution then? Only one side allowed to be heard, with the other side silenced? That's indefensible.
"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to allegations against police too. It MUST. Claiming otherwise is, in my opinion, as evil as committing crimes under the color of law.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is not trustworthy forum, regardless of how many sides of the story it hosts. Moreover, the police are not subject to any sanction that would be enforced solely based on the one-sidedness of YouTube videos. They can not be "proven guilty" in any meaningful sense by losing a YouTube propaganda pissing match. At worst, they could be subject to scrutiny by a real authority, which will give them ample opportunity to defend themselves.
The solution is for police to focus on enforcing the law (inc. WRT
Re: (Score:2)
That works for legal standing, not for public standing.
When these things are looked into, and after all the evidence is considered the police are found to be justified... you hear words like "slap on the wrist" and "old boys club" thrown around a lot.
This is true not just in cases of law enforcement, but in just about every civil matter. When you are accused of something it is all over the news. If they decide to paint you as a monster, you are screwed.. because when they find you innocent, it will be a tin
I'm okay with this (Score:5, Insightful)
If we can film them in public places then they can do the same: liberty is a two way street. Let the information flow and justice prevail.
Re:I'm okay with this (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be forced to release video (Score:5, Insightful)
In case of a legal dispute, the police should be forced to release their video, as to provide the clearest possible picture of the case. They should not only release them when it suits them. Unfortunately, presumably incriminating police videos often end up "missing", with little or no consequences for the policemen.
Re: (Score:2)
This is called "discovery", and is part of the legal proceedings. The problem is that the authorities ("the police") have the power of a warrant which allows seizure, whereas the public in gen
old problem (Score:4, Insightful)
every single demonstrator should have a camera. every single cop should have a camera. now you have a proper adversarial situation. when something goes bad, whether the fault of demonstrator or cop, now we will clearly know
the more cameras, on either side, the better. who cares if someone loses something? the incriminatory evidence should be available from the side that wants to present the abuse that was perpetrated
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
that's absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
so a demonstrator is allowed to present their side of a story to the court of public opinion, and the police can only present their side of the story to an actual court?
one or the other: both police and demonstrators can engage the court of public opinion, or both police and demonstrators must keep their footage for an actual court of law. you choose
i don't understand this point of view that only demonstrators can engage the public. the police are not alien beings, they are our neighbors, tasked with a job we want them to do, keep the law and order. if they abuse someone, we want to see the video and we want to have them judged. if someone LIES about them abusing someone, we want to see that video too and the liar to be judged. as a citizen, i want to hear both sides. you will not tell me i can't hear or see the policeman's side of the story, just as much as you or the government can't tell me i can't hear the demonstrator's side of the story. transparency is the only way justice can work, and that truth works BOTH ways. shrouding one side, or the other, is when abuses get perpetrated, whether by police, or demonstrator
no, that's called sue for defamation (Score:3)
If a video is selectively edited to portray a cop as a racist when he's not (like was done to Zimmerman's 911 tape by a network affiliate) then go ahead and sue for defamation.
That's absurd. Police officers are public servants and are held to a higher standard than private citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, they are not the bringers of news.
They are often bringers of news, such as knocking on your door and informing you your loved one died in a car crash. Like a lot of police work it's a shitty and thankless task but someone has to do it.
That's fine by me (Score:2, Insightful)
Next, we should give the protestors guns, handcuffs, and bullet proof cars.
Sounds fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live? Police don't have "bullet-proof cars" in my town...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair? Increase the # of cops so that it is 1:1. Now it's fair.
Idiot.
Sounds fine by me. Make everyone a citizen policeman.
What was the point you thought you were making?
I find it hard to believe the police these days. (Score:3, Informative)
I find it hard to be on the side of the police these days. I live in Montréal, and I've seen and read about a lot of police abuse. They always have an excuse, a reason or some lie. I would be more inclined to believe them if they would show us what they are doing against inappropriate conduct by their own officers, or if they would publicly acknowledge any wrongdoing when it happens. When they constantly protect the ass of their officers, they lose credibility. When the press is constantly attacked by the police while trying to capture what is happening, they lose credibility. When they hide their badge number so we can't report them, we know they are up to no good. When they kettle a group of people, and then tell them to disperse while not letting them, well they probably think we're stupid about believing that they gave the people a way out. And when they detain and arrest people for no valid reason, or to issue them a traffic ticket because people were protesting peacefully, well they should consider themselves lucky we're not acting like the miners in Spain and all we do is put a video of their wrongdoing on the net.
In contrast (Score:5, Informative)
Police Unions are resistant to reviews of dash cam footage
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20120422-officers-complaints-prompt-dallas-police-to-suspend-units-reviews-of-squad-car-video.ece [dallasnews.com]
http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-police-union-opposes-random-reviews-of-officers-dash-cam-videos-20120105,0,451142.story [q13fox.com]
/And don't get me started on retention policies for dash cam footage.
//Without any specific laws in place, most police departments more or less do what they want.
Shenanigans (Score:2)
The linked article (yahoo) doesn't link to the youtube channel, which I can't find. All it has is a couple stills distributed by the police and posted in similar articles on other news sites. I call shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/user/minneapolispolice?feature=results_main [youtube.com]
We had occupy protesters in San Antonio too... (Score:2)
Just a bunch of dirty hippies trashing up the park. Most did leave when told to move on. Other than the litter it was peaceful. Nobody got beat up or abused by police and none of the protesters caused a major fuss, but several were arrested when they refused to go. Cartman could have handled them.
People here generally clean up after themselves, but it only takes a few to make a mess.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you know this from first-hand experience observing the entire protest, or was it the 10-second news blurb on Fox?
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the litter it was peaceful.
Yes, to me this demonstrates that the occupiers as a group have as much respect for their fellow citizens as your average CEO.
Blue Code of Silence (Score:5, Informative)
This is fine, they should present their own point of view. The evidence suggests however, that police brutality exists and that often there is no persecution of the perpetrators – sometimes they even drop investigations against police and instead charge the victims with resisting arrest.
There is a Blue Code of Silence [wikipedia.org] in the police that will protect a violent minority of policemen. In Germany there was a famous case of police brutality [youtube.com] at a demonstration "freedom not fear", where the CCC released a video of the incident. First of all the policemen had to be identified, which was only possible because it was a HD video, since despite Amnesty's [amnestypolizei.de] calls for a identification tags for policemen, there is none. When the accused police officers were questioned, they were provably lying, because the CCC had another unpublished video disproving the statements by the police. They were later convicted, but only had to pay a few thousand bucks.
Unblinking eye blinking (Score:5, Insightful)
Predictions (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is an entirely reasonable response. Instead of trying to shutdown speech the police are offering another side of the story. Good.
Of course some of the broader implications are pretty interesting. An individual can basically edit a video to show the part where the police are beating the crap out of him and ignore the earlier part where he's spitting and throwing rocks. The police, on the other hand, don't get the luxury of using video simply as a PR mouthpiece. If this sort of response to protesters becomes commonplace it will be interesting to see what happens the first time an edited video comes out from the police. More interesting will be the cases where people start requesting these videos as evidence against the police at their trials.
Who wins? Nobody, really. (Score:2)
When it comes to the protestors, I'm always on the fence. We have the right to protest, but even if only one guy or girl is causing trouble, police have to take some action. The way I see it, you'll have 99 good people and 1 bad; 45 people see that 1 bad doing stuff wrong, while the other 54 don't. The police step in; the 45 step aside, but the 54 think that police brutality is going on when they see them trying to apprehend the 1. They jump in, those trying to get out of the way knowing the police are just
Good! (Score:2)
Yaaay! This is how it should work! Slashdot often reports on poor police response, which taints our thinking. But based on personal experience, when someone tells me the police acted inappropriately it usually turns out that there are other details they were hiding. Let the truth be told and let us make decisions with full information. I'm glad to see the police embracing this technology instead of hiding it.
Re:power to the people (Score:5, Insightful)
i guess police are people, too...
... that must be held to a higher standard.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh you poor nieve fool... dealt with many police officers in your day?
You'd realise, they aren't all that smart and not pillars of the community, rather a bunch of trained meatheads that spent a few months at some camp to teach them a set of black and white processes. I think I saw recently a study on low level cases and their percentage rate of success / failure in the court system. The figures looked something like this.
60% of not guilty pleas are dismissed before a summary hearing or trail is even mentio
Re:power to the people (Score:5, Insightful)
Statistics and misguided hate do not make all police fit your image of an officer. I know, in fact, many extremely smart police officers. Many of them, even those who aren't that smart, are very kind and easygoing people. The fact is, their job requires them to have a very definitive good/bad policy on virtually everything they encounter, and often leads them to deal with very abusive/belligerent/annoying people.
Let's consider that the time you most encounter police is when there is some sort of serious problem occurring. A traffic accident, robbery, assault, whatever. They are tense situations, where you have to understand the cops can't crack jokes and act like your buddy - they have a very specific job to do. Consider, also, that you can't fathom the amount of people who harass them, annoying people they need to deal with a-la bums, drunks, etc. Their job really does suck quite often, they don't get paid that much, and they are there to help you when you need it.
That said, I think it is fantastic that the police are embracing video as those trying to hold them accountable have. Video is a great tool, and for a person charged with upholding peace and establishing the truth of crimes, it is crazy they haven't been using this in every aspect of their jobs already.
I just hope they respect the boundaries on video surveillance placed on them by the law. None of that "Whoops, my camera happened to look in your second story window without a warrant".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Post it all. (Score:5, Insightful)
What?
So cops come to your house in response to a call and film it, for whatever reason. Turns out you didn't do anything but someone said it was a domestic abuse case. You want that film if you answering the door at 2am public? Even though you didn't do anything wrong? Isn't that an invasion of privacy?
I agree the police side should delete the film, if it was kept, but making it public ... not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with the police filming. I think they should only become public under certain circumstances. IF the police are going to film, then there shouldn't be any cuts in the film, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Post it all. (Score:4, Interesting)
It should, AND losing any video should be a crime in itself. Severity of the punishment should be the same as that for the crime for which the video is needed as evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
They all need strung up.
In other words, take the moral low ground off them and and start digging.
Re: (Score:2)
Very appropriate flamebait mod you got there Phil, For a new user that s pretty quick. Keep at it and you will post at-1 very soon. Personally I am horrified by the way we see US police treat citizens even on camera in a show like cops. Arrogant irresponsible dumb violent cowards just about cover it.
Re: (Score:2)
Note to self, register a website ala Smoking Gun to get all the video footage... Then people's stupidity can be immortalized in the InterTubes...
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No..not available on request. That can turn someone from having a really bad day, to destroying them. Ye,s they need to be available, but you should need to go through the courts to get them.
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:5, Insightful)
Errr....
And so you think spraying large amounts of pepper spray into people's face because they are protesting is ok then?
riiiigghhhtt....
Is democracy completely dead in your country or what?
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:5, Informative)
It's not legal to use pepper spray on peaceful protesters in the United States.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2011/11/16/211132/23 [boomantribune.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It was apparently not legal to wiretap without a warrant in the US also.
How is that working out for you?
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, democracy is completely dead in the US.
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:4, Interesting)
From just his comment it sounds like they were sitting in the middle of a street blocking the crosswalk, which is not only illegal it's also dangerous (especially in NYC.) Most of the OWS people I've seen who are the "victims" of police brutality put themselves into situations where they know they will be forcibly removed just so they can claim brutality. They're not protesting they're being douchebags enticing violence so they have something to point to and say "Look we're victims!" And yes pepper spray is probably the best option considering the second option is beating them with a nightstick till they unlock their arms so you can physically move them one at a time.
Unless of course you have a much more effective method to use in that sort of situation that doesn't put the officer in harms way...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From just his comment it sounds like they were sitting in the middle of a street blocking the crosswalk, which is not only illegal it's also dangerous. . .
They were sitting across a paved foot path that crossed a larger grassy area on a college campus. Just see for yourself how scary and threatening these protesters were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4 [youtube.com]
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:5, Insightful)
They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".
The narrative remained "non-violent protesters, undeterred by threat of violence from police, ultimately met with violence by police".
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because a warning that a police officer is about to use a chemical agent on peaceful protestors certainly removes all hints of brutality, and dismisses our outrage at seeing a policemen casually strolling around spraying a chemical agent at peaceful protestors.
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:5, Insightful)
They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".
Just because they were given fair warning doesn't make it even close to a proper use of force. The police could have arrested everyone for trespassing or illegally blocking a walkway (if that's illegal). Any protester who didn't simply allow himself to be arrested could then be charged with resisting arrest. Only if the protesters fought back would the use of force be reasonable.
How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:4, Interesting)
How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?
Well, "stop making me feel threatened regardless of how reasonable that perception of threat might be or I will shoot you with a gun" is fair play in some states.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and that force could (should) have been cuffing the protesters and hauling them away. What do you think should happen after "these people get arrested"? They should be abused because of that?
Re: (Score:3)
They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice"."
False choice. Do what we say, are you will be in immense pain.
Re:Pepper-spraying sitting protesters (Score:4, Insightful)
Ten the un-edited video came out, and it showed the police office walking up to each protester, telling them that if they didn't move they would be pepper-sprayed, and to a person they all sat ad waited for the officer to do what he said he would do.
Yes, he said he would violently repress their right to peaceably assemble, and then he did. Who could find fault with that?
Re: (Score:2)
so if i come up to you and say "if you don't move your car i'm going to shooot you", you don't move your car, and i shoot you... you're in the wrong? because i warned you?
bullshit
it doesn't matter if i gave you fair warning i was going to abuse you. it doesn't matter if you didn't get out of the way. if i abused you, that's what is wrong. the warning of the abuse or not is immaterial
furthermore, you didn't "choose" to be abused. anyone can threaten anyone with violence. that in and of itself is a crime. to