Once Again, Baltimore Police Arrest a Person For Recording Them 515
MobyDisk writes: A lawsuit was filed yesterday over a case in which a woman was arrested for recording the police from her car while stopped in traffic. Ars Technica writes, "Police erased the 135-second recording from the woman's phone, but it was recovered from her cloud account according to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lawsuit, which seeks $7 million."
Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.
Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.
So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
Baltimore police lost a similar case against Anthony Graber in 2010 and another against Christopher Sharp in 2014. The is happening so often in Baltimore that in 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to the police reminding them that they cannot stop recordings, and most certainly cannot delete them.
Local awareness of this issue is high since the the Mayor and the City Council support requiring police body cameras. The city council just passed a bill requiring them, but the mayor is delaying implementation until a task force determines how best to go about it. The country is also focused on police behavior in light of the recent cases in Ferguson and New York, the latter of which involved a citizen recording.
So the mayor, city council, police department policies, courts, and federal government are all telling police officers to stop doing this. Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And get new ones. What's so difficult about that?
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And get new ones. What's so difficult about that?
Well, if a crime had been committed then the officers involved would be guilty of destruction of evidence. I should think that would be enough reason to not only fire them but possibly send them to jail.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if a crime had been committed....
Even if no *other* crime had been committed, the officers involved should be charged with:
1) Vandalism.
2) Unlawful destruction of private property.
3) Assault.
4) Battery.
All of which may be possible, and for which the normal protections police enjoy while performing their duties may not apply, because the officer was acting outside the scope of his lawful duties.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And then of course you have to assume once they get their own version of the story straight you move on to:
5) giving a false statement
6) dereliction of duty
7) possibly perjury if it's a sworn statement
By the time you get police doing this kind of crap, they're well past the point where they have any business being in law enforcement, because they're just plain criminals.
Start putting these cops in jail with the rest of the gangsters. That's all they are.
Re: (Score:3)
The PD will never go Bankrupt. The money tends to come out of the state/city money, and more than likely insurance. Threfore they can perform the action, and really not have any repercussions .
Re: Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that such fines are typically paid by the taxpayers - we need to make the individuals responsible *personally* liable for their actions when clearly outside the bounds of the law. Especially when they've been told, repeatedly, what those boundaries are.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless your local PD is running at a profit
Look up Civil Forfeiture [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
No, put the C on their backs where it will be more visible in the shower.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Informative)
Gangsters? You and OP look to be in the same clan when he claims they're doing this "in a rather violent manner". Hyperbole much?
Did you watch the video? The cops are physically violent, and excessively so. Even if this woman was breaking the law (she was not) there would be no excuse for the way the cops behaved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An unjustifed arrest is assault and kidnapping. It is a violent crime.
That's true even when the pigs (and those who trample citizen's rights deserve that epithet) don't apply chemical weapons or electrical torture devices, or beat citizens into submission, or use lethal force.
If I forced someone into a cage at gunpoint for no good reason, I would go to jail for a long time. The same shou
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're fully correct that's what they should be charged with. But everyone knows they won't be.
And the fundamental failure here is the DAs & city officials that won't pursue this course of action.
This is why it's so hard to get corrupt/bad cops out of the system. The entire system is built to protect them, at all costs.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's not what we're talking about here, these are EGREGIOUS violations of civil rights without any inkling of a valid reason behind them.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering your comments, would you too side with the cops who run people over in their cars while texting on their personal cell phones and then blame the victim for throwing themselves in front of their cars, all the while perjuring themselves as has also happened recently?
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Informative)
Considering your comments, would you too side with the cops who run people over in their cars while texting on their personal cell phones and then blame the victim for throwing themselves in front of their cars, all the while perjuring themselves as has also happened recently?
It's getting a bit off topic but examples of the above have actually happened [readthehook.com].
Well, okay, not the blaming the victim bit, but "immediately before the incident, the Albemarle officer, Gregory C. Davis, was involved in "excessive texting." Furthermore, according to the document, Officer Davis may, under oath, have intentionally downplayed his texting."
Then there is this story [tomsguide.com]. The officer in question was criminally charged this time, but still got away with a mere 30 months probation (and two years suspended from the job, with pay). The two girls he slammed into, on the other hand, got to remain dead. Anyone else who had committed the same crime would have lost their job (with no pay) and ended up in jail for a long time.
And this [datehookup.com]
Compared to the above, the fact that police illegally delete video from a phone without any repercussions is in no way surprising.
Re: Fire all the officers? (Score:3)
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
There needs to be a middle ground.
There does fucking not need to be a middle ground for cops illegally abusing their powers. NOR for those protecting illegal cop behavior.
Go straight to hell with that attitude.
Cops have a very hard job - I would never want or be able to do it - but that does not EVER absolve them from illegal behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
We love to rag on cops, but they do a dangerous job...
I keep hearing this over and over, but you know what jobs are more dangerous?
There may be more, that's just the top 10 in the US.
Source [forbes.com]
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want a more industry standard source for the relative danger of different jobs, the National Council of Compensation Insurers is a good source to look at. They are the source of information on occupational hazard for workers compensation insurers, so they have an extremely strong incentive to rate work related hazards correctly.
NCCI rates occupations by their Expected Loss Rate - the average number of dollars that an employee will receive in workers compensation payments in a year, per $100 of salary. This tends to be a pretty good indicator of relative occupational hazard for just about everyone except clergy and active duty military, because of the extreme uniformity of claims handling procedures within each state.
Looking at Maryland, where the police in question live, law enforcement officers have an ELR of $1.28. That's compared to, say, rock excavators and stone crushers, who have an ELR of $7.20. So, by that metric, the guys you see on the side of the road in the front wheeled rock crusher have a job that's about 5 and a half times as dangerous as law enforcement work, at least in terms of economic harm.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The number of times ACs are actually correct is vanishingly small next to the number of times they are just acting like trolls.
FTFY
Re: Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bull shit. Cops are trained extensively.
The problem is that their extensive training is about how to act like a thug with a badge.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
The punishment should be harsher for the police. They are granted extraordinary powers, and with them comes the extra responsibility not to abuse them. Abuse of power should automatically double the sentence, the same way that in many jurisdictions carrying out a crime while armed makes the penalty more severe.
Re: (Score:3)
With great power comes great responsibility.
Or something like that.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly... (Score:5, Interesting)
See the article, below, for more evidence of the problem:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, the police feel they are under assault.
The police are under assault. That's what happens when your job is violence and you don't have public support. It's one of the reasons why the principles of a republic are so important: if a bunch of self righteous crusaders in 27 states get marijuana outlawed across all 50 states, then in 23 states you end up with a police force enforcing laws that the local people do not want enforced. And so you get LA gangs and and no one defending their local police and they do indeed "come under assault". But the
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a parable that gets told in IT circles all the time:
An otherwise good guy makes a bad mistake - one that costs his company a million dollars. When the boss shows up at the employee's desk, the employee sheepishly says, "I understand. I'll save you the trouble and quit before you fire me." The boss is shocked. He says, "Why would I fire you? I just spent a million dollars on your training."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Was that a joke, or are you a fascist?
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension and/or loss of their job should the issue be repeated. The loss of their pension and benefits will be intensive enough to keep it from happening.
Bullcrap. With greater power comes greater responsibility. Showing you can't handle the power responsibly is just cause for being fired, same as any other job (if not more so because we're talking about people armed with guns, tasers, pepper spray, etc).
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if what you say is a good way to handle things.. (plenty of other people arguing against that, no need for me to)
Would you really start at step 1 when this is an issue which has been happening with other officers in the same department and getting press coverage, attention of the mayor, etc...? Shouldn't they pretty much all know better at this point? Wouldn't you think this is pretty much beyond the "warning" phase?
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't they pretty much all know better at this point?
+1 And how come officers can claim 'I didn't know any better' when that shit doesn't fly in court for a regular citizen (Ignorance of the law is not a defense, etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning
It sounds like they already *were* warned. Repeatedly.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is worse than that. It is almost common knowledge that courts everywhere have ruled that recording police is just about legal in just about circumstances. The police should know this by now, plenty of other people know it.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be an elevation of discipline that should start with a written warning and ending with suspension
This animal farm 'some animals are more equal' 'police union approved' punishment that we've actually been doing needs to stop. Any normal person caught on camera illegally committing assault, battery, and theft while armed does not get a strongly written letter as a reprimand. Police officers are citizens a need to be treated no better or worse than anyone else.
If you feel that a video record of your actions will be so damning that you consider an armed attack on anyone you spot with a camera is the best option really gives us an idea how you act the rest of the time, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget to factor in the intimidating complication that any act of self defence will be used as evidence that the crimes against you were justified, even though they caused the need for self defence.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Interesting)
You LITERALLY cannot find a workplace in this country that you can assault, batter and steal from someone and not expect to be thrown in jail and lose your job.
Except for being an officer, apparently.
Re: (Score:3)
It's one of a small handful of jobs where you're placed, repeatedly, in confrontational situations.
Regardless..I said it once, and I'll say it again: People who commit crimes should pay the price for it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Since when do police go to jail? /sarcasm
Re: (Score:3)
They arrested someone for something that they have been well informed is not a crime. So they committed the crime of false arrest AT LEAST.
Beyond that, since the department has been ordered to stop doing that, they also defied orders in the process (or someone up the chain of command did by not passing those orders on).
The latter is a disciplinary matter, the former is a crime.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
It keeps happening because they can get away with it. The solution is to start a "See a cop, film a cop" campaign where all the cops will all be overwhelmed by everyone pulling out their cell phones and filming them all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Drive to Baltimore
2. Whip out my camera on the doughnut brigade
3. Take my beating
4. Collect $7 million
That's a hell of a bargain. Take 1 beating, then don't have to work for the rest of my life!
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah good luck with that strategy. This lady was "lucky" that:
1) she wasn't killed or fatally injured (she may have lasting permanent damage though)
2) the police were not successful in destroying her evidence. They appeared practiced. Who is to say they won't do a better job next time.
3) The police fabricated (and witnessed by other police stories) was an obvious fabrication thanks to her evidence. They accused her of trying to run over the police and had other police officers to back them up. They would have been "justified" in killing her to "defend themselves". It sickening the amount of power that corrupt police officers can have.
I have met plenty of good (or so I believed) officers, but now I am terrified of them.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:4, Interesting)
And get new ones. What's so difficult about that?
In general I agree with this, but first the officers should be given additional mandatory training to be completed within a short period of time.
If an officer fails to complete the training, they should be suspended until they do. If an officer does it after being trained appropriately about the new directive, then they should be penalized.
Re: (Score:3)
And get new ones. What's so difficult about that?
How about tattooing 'Dirty Cop' on their foreheads(Snow Crash style) and then introducing them to the general prison population?
The janitor will need a nice bonus and a hell of a stiff drink; but the problem will likely be solved.
Re: (Score:3)
because its not the individuals, per se, but the system that is broken.
the system allows and encourages thugs-with-badges mentality.
you also have to de-militarize the police or nothing else you do will have any effect. cops think they are playing video games, these days, with their 'toys'. this has GOT TO STOP or nothing else can change.
Re:Fire all the officers? (Score:5, Interesting)
The mentality and intelligence level of the officers is screened to fit a certain profile. Perhaps that profile is the issue.
Link: http://thefreethoughtproject.c... [thefreetho...roject.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to find people willing to be shot at who actually take the job to protect and serve the public. So these jagoffs are filling the gap.
Actually it isn't that hard. It's called the military. People are willing to go into places much rougher than the typical American city for far less pay. Put the cops on the same pay rate as GIs, and it will actually be easier to get cops than it will be to get soldiers. Why? Because it'd be the same deal as the military except you can drive home each night.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there's a general theory that I've heard before: A lot of the attraction to be a police officer is that they're tough and powerful. Therefore, the people who are attracted to becoming police are those who want to be tough guys and like the idea of having power over other people. If true, then there would be a tendency to end up with police officers who are wanna-be tough-guy bullies.
Now I want to stop short of asserting that this theory is true. It makes sense to me, but I don't actually know if i
Fire them. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's simple, if the police are flouting the law then fire the individuals concerned - the others will soon get the message.
Re:Fire them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck "due process!" Due process is for citizens who have been accused of a crime. Nobody has the "right" to be a government official; officials accused of abusing their authority should be considered guilty until proven innocent!
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. There is no such thing as due process for employment. "Normal" employees are employed "at will" and can be fired at any time, for any reason or no reason at all.
There is no reason whatsofuckingever why police officers should not be treated exactly the same damn way!
Re: (Score:3)
they can determine quickly and unilaterally which specific cases are firable offenses?
yes the cops are ignoring a law and a directive but they are doing so specifically because your stupid suggestion isn't possible and they know it.
The police chief and/or the mayor and/or the police department has the ability to decide what is a fireable offense and what is not.
Many places falling asleep on the job even once is a fireable offense and some even showing up to work late once is fireable.
If the fireable offense are listed and well documented then even most unions will leave them alone.
There are plenty of fireable offense for a police officer. The only reason this is being ignored is because it is not considered serious.
Putting out a memo
Citizens Arrest? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Very simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Have a very obvious delete button on the recording device and make sure that all recording is backed up to the ‘cloud’ so it doesn't matter if said button is pressed.
Cop happy, you happy, everyone happy.
Lawsuit, paid by... (Score:5, Insightful)
$7M paid by...The taxpayer!
No need to correct the problem when it's everyone else who pays for their mistakes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they really wanted to stop the behavior, you'd sue the police chief for not punishing them, sue the DA for not prosecuting them, and sue the union for impeding the ability to fire the bad apples. And none of that would come out of the tax payers coffers.
Pay with the pension fund! (Score:5, Interesting)
I have friends who are cops. It's a shitty, thankless job where you get to enjoy the worst of human behavior. Oh, and occasionally your life is on the line; risking widowing your wife and leaving your kids without a father. Many of them were soldiers who enlisted, had a gun put in their hand at 18 years old, and taught to kill other people. It's easy to see how cops can become jaded and not give a crap about rights. A lot of them are pretty nice work-a-day randos just trying to get through life like the rest of us.
That said, I think in this instance the best way to police cops is to let them police themselves by hitting them where it really hurts: personal finances. So for example, the resulting remuneration from a lawsuit where cop takes your phone and erases a video is paid for from the police pension fund. Further, that officer's personal pension is reset to zero, or halved or some other appropriate consequence. That's a pretty powerful motivator, and there will be huge pressure from within the ranks to keep their shit wired tight. I also think it would need to be very narrowly defined. The last thing we want is officers afraid to do anything for fear of losing their pension.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, that's fair. You take a guy who's given thirty years of dedicated, exemplary service and you "hit him where he lives", because of some other guy.
You know, there's a certain mentality, I'd even call it a faith, that harsh measures have to work,because they're harsh. "Look at how much misery we're causing! It must be doing some good." I'd like to say that's a joke, but after years of watching the war on drugs, the the war on Terror, it's a real, enduring feature of the American mindset: harshness as an
Re: (Score:3)
I think there's a much simpler and less arbitrary method: Prosecute them for the crimes commit. If I knocked you down, beat you up, took your phone, erased your data and refused to let you go, I'd have committed several serious crimes including assault and battery, theft, vandalism and unlawful imprisonment. Now, if these actions were actually necessary in the pursuit of an arrest, those are justified. But the actions that were not necessary in the execution of their proper duties were not justified and sho
Re:Lawsuit, paid by... (Score:5, Funny)
Hoping not to get killed. By the cops you are recording.
If not, $7M for you!
It's like the lottery. And the purge. Combined for your entertainment!
Learning through repetition (Score:5, Insightful)
Best solution? Encourage everyone to record every interaction with the police. This will systematically education the police on the rights of citizens.
Just like the 2nd Amendment public carry folks with a big old riffle slung over their shoulder on the sidewalk - it educated the police & public at the same time, and nobody gets hurt. (The the latter case, jimmes get russeled by some liberals, but, meh)
It's called "Risk Management" (Score:3)
We put cameras in places where risk is high -- banks, retail stores, convenience stores, ATMs, etc., etc., are all being recorded and we don't complain about them, because the risk of corruption and crime is very high.
Police officers are at high risk for corruption, and they always have been. Their personal opinion of someone can be used to punish that person physically, emotionally, and financially. It's not too much to ask that their actions as employees be more closely monitored.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:its not as if american cops have anything to fe (Score:5, Informative)
False, and false. The chokehold is *not* a valid police measure and is in fact specifically prohibited by his department's regulations. He was *not* released as soon as he said he couldn't breathe, and in fact said he couldn't breathe several times.
Re:its not as if american cops have anything to fe (Score:5, Insightful)
I would suggest that when someone is being choked and can barely breathe, their words will not be complex, nor will they carry nuanced meanings such as the level of difficulty they are having with respiration. When faced with life-threatening situations, our minds focus, and become exceedingly direct: "I can't breathe" is entirely within the acceptable range of philosophical inaccuracy under those circumstances. You wanted him to say, instead, "my fellow man, I'm having a rather hard time re-oxegenating my blood -- would you mind releasing the pressure on my trachea for a moment?" Or, "I'm panting because you're crushing my thorax, and am unable to draw a full breath -- would you mind removing your knee from my chest?" Or, "my inability to form full words is because you've pinched off my carotids, and I'm facing imminent loss of consciousness -- would you mind removing your bear-sized hands from my neck?"
If someone in a highly stressful situation tells you "I can't breathe" then you should act accordingly to prevent loss of life. Simple as that.
Re: (Score:3)
The untold part of this story is the reason he was being arrested, and evidence of a Police State, was because he was selling "untaxed cigarettes" aka Loosies. The state, using the force of government will collect its taxes from the serfs.
ALL taxes are regressive, and generally oppressive. While we accept that taxes are a necessary evil, we have forgotten that they are, and will remain, evil. The true goal of a free people is to reduce taxes. Period.
However, too many people only care about controlling other
Re: (Score:3)
This is really important.
A buddy of mine posted an article the point of which was something like "never enact a law you're not willing to kill to enforce." Because, at the end of the day, that might be how you enforce it, and this is exactly that sort of case.
I don't care if this guy sells cigarettes. Seriously, of all the wrongs in the world, this is one I can't possibly care about. I don't want someone choked out because they might be selling cigarettes. I don't want them accidentally killed, for sure
She was really arrested for DWB! (Score:4, Informative)
And if you didn't know, DWB is Driving While Black:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... [wikipedia.org]
Here's an idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet it continues to happen, and in a rather violent matter. What can people do to curb this problem?
How about putting police who violate peoples' civil rights in prison?
Need a flash mob.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone needs to organize a flash mob of people just showing up and recording police in public all over the city.
Force those thugs they call police to behave.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually yes, interfering with police business by photographing them or videotaping them IS THE ANSWER.
Because if you freak out with someone videotaping you from tens of feet away, you are mentally unstable and need to be documented. Cops more so as they are armed and dangerous.
How about criminal charges ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to curb the problem? Have some high profile prosecutions.
Charge them criminally, kick them off the force, strip them of their pensions, make examples of them. It should be a felony for a police officer to do this, because they wield so much more power in this equation.
If the police aren't going to bother either learning, or following the law ... they have no business being police officers. If they can't get it through their heads they have no right to prevent this, then when they do it, bloody well lay charges.
The police are becoming thugs. And if they want to be thugs and criminals, start treating them as such.
And if the "good" cops won't stand up and get rid of the bad cops, they're just as guilty.
None of this circling the blue wall crap, and being on paid suspension. Fire the bastards.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder about this, but I also wonder what the secondary of effects of harsh punishments would be. What happens if the police end up being just deliberately ineffective?
It's not like they don't have myriad ways to be ineffective that are basically impossible to control or punish -- evidence lost, conclusions not reached, investigations short-shrifted.
Maybe some or all of these happen now, but could they get worse and what would the larger effect be?
Re: (Score:3)
No, stick to your guns. Firing is not enough. If you did this, you'd be prosecuted. When they do this, they should also be prosecuted. If that's not happening (which it isn't), then go up the chain until you find the elected official who can fix it. I assume that's the mayor. Fire him at the next election. Repeat until there are prosecutors who actually prosecute criminals who happen to be police.
Re:How about criminal charges ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thing is, this is really the status quo. A few years back when that Henry Louis Gates arrest happened here. There was all this racial outrage at what happened but, one thing people totally missed was....the police actually had no reason at all to arrest him.
The very charge he was arrested on, there are cases, right here in our state, of FAR more egrgious actions where the courts ruled did not meet the criteria for disorderly conduct. 20 years prior to that arrest, a the courts had ruled that a person who had refused orders to leave the scene of an arrest and yelled at police, and even approached them flailing his arms wildly.... he did not meet the criteria for arrest.
So if this has been known for 20 years...how are people still today being arrested on this charge? Quite simply because they face absolutely no penalty for getting it wrong. They can search illegally, they can arrest with little to no reason, they face absolutely nothing but a pat on the back for doing the best they could.
Re:How about criminal charges ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's kind of the problem. While the police are illegally arresting you, and you say "what the hell are you arresting me for", then they trump up the charge to resisting arrest.
At this point, there is no defensible reason for every damned police officer to be wearing a camera. We can't trust them, so we have to more or less treat them as needing objective evidence to prove their version of events.
None of this "they said/you said" crap. Objective, video and audio recording of the entire interaction. Mandatory as part of all duties, and archived.
Start putting some of these guys in prison for this kind of crap, and it might start to sink in.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. The police are charged with enforcing the law; because of that they should be held to a higher standard than normal citizens, not a lower one. I think police should automatically receive triple penalties for all criminal offenses, because in addition to committing the
I have a solution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I have a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Tough talk on the interwebs, but that's all it is.
When you're being tased, or shot, or beaten senseless only to have a group of cops all lie about what happened ... your bravado will be so much electrons and hype. And they'll circle the wagons to say it was all you, and unless someone else gets a video of it ... you'll be pretty much screwed.
I'm not saying I disagree with your assessment. I just don't think it's going to work quite so well as you seem to think.
Soon to be a felony in Illinois (Score:5, Informative)
It uses the word 'eavesdropping' a lot, so it may be argued that it applies only to audio; however, a chance at having a sentence like this would certainly scare off most people who would try to film the cops.
It will be interesting to see how this develops - a similar bill was struck down by the state supreme court in March, and the US supreme court has ruled that police have no expectation of privacy when they're in public, and on duty.
Re: (Score:3)
Personal consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
Move to a malpractice system, like doctors have. Make individual officers personally liable for their own behavior. They carry professional liability insurance, and can be sued if they do something egregiously stupid. Screw up enough, and no insurance company will cover them. Changing jurisdictions won't help, because the insurance companies will be sure to trade information.
Fire the cops (Score:5, Interesting)
Tampering with evidence, for example by deleting a recording, is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. While in this case the consequences were negligible, I suggest prosecuting these cops for tampering with evidence.
How to stop it? Just stop it. (Score:5, Insightful)
When the officer asks for your phone, it's easy.
SAY NO.
There. 'nuff said.
Officer: "Have you been recording me? Let me see your phone."
Person: "Officer, you may have my phone when I am presented with a signed warrant from a judge."
Re:How to stop it? Just stop it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Officer: forcibly takes your phone
You're missing the point. If the police in these cases were following the law, there wouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Person: "Officer, you may have my phone..."
Officer: *yoink* "Thank you for your cooperation"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Am I being detained, or am I free to go?"
"I don't consent to any searches."
"I wish to remain silent."
"I want to speak to my attorney."
These are the only four phrases that you should speak when dealing with Law Enforcement.
Anything else you say will be used against you. (i.e: STFU! For your own sake!)
Source: http://www.flexyourrights.org/ [flexyourrights.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You're obviously not black.
Using words like that is "resisting arrest", and if you're lucky, you'll only be tazed and beaten to bloody pulp and maybe only lose your eyesight. If you're unlucky, you'll be choked to death, shot, or beaten to death or perhaps all three.
Another reason not to go to Baltimore (Score:3)
Between the city allowing illegals to roam free and police attempting to (or succeeding) erase encounters with the public, there isn't really a reason to visit.
It's like printing money! (Score:3)
Forget this boring job, I'm driving to Baltimore with my camera phone tonight!
What can be done? It's obvious. (Score:4, Insightful)
People keep saying "fire the officers", but this should be a criminal matter. Tampering with evidence, violation of civil rights under color of law, etc. Fire them, jail them as provided by law, make the settlement come out of their pocket (or, perhaps, the pension fund) instead of making the taxpayers foot the bill. HOLD THEM PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE. Then, and only then, will it stop.
Re: (Score:3)
The Fourth, and the othe nine, Amendments in the Bill of Rights, are not criminal statutes. They are proscriptions against specific judicial, executive, and legislative actions.
Violations can be tortious and civilly actionable, but not criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
Won't the bear have a problem with you taking his arms?
Re: (Score:3)
Regardless of what she did, the police should not have stolen her phone and deleted stuff from it. If she was committing some sort of crime, that's destruction of evidence. If not, that's just illegal anyway.
The police committed an illegal action, and there's going to be a lawsuit. Fine. If the woman in question violated the law in other ways, she can be prosecuted. That's how the system should work.