Photograph the Police, Get Arrested

Servo writes "Last month a man was arrested in New Hampshire after presenting evidence of a police officer being verbally abusive that he had captured on his home security camera system. Now just recently in Philadelphia a 21 year old student was arrested on his property after he took a photo of the police who were in the process of arresting a drug dealer down the street." From the article: "Cruz said that when he heard a commotion, he walked out of his back door with his cell phone to see what was happening. He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate."

welcome!

He said that when he saw the street lined with police cars, he decided to take a picture of the scene. 'I opened (the phone) and took a shot,' Cruz said. Moments later, Cruz said he got the shock of his life when an officer came to his back yard gate.

You must be new here.

Welcome to America. Remember to leave your civil liberties at the door, thanks.

Bah

In 1976 for the first time, Americans spent more on private security firms than on police forced.

I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care.

Re:What about these Canadian angels in uniform

He never said the Canadian police are angels. He said that they don't care that someone takes their picture while making an arrest.

Re:What about these Canadian angels in uniform

"This isn't a major civil liberties breach because it's an isolated incident, not far reaching."

First off, if you even read the summary let alone followed the links, you would know it was not an "isolated incident" but just the latest manifestation of police making up "laws" to fit any situation they do not like.

Second, even if it were an "isolated incident" (whatever that means), that does not mean it "isn't a major civil liberties breach." Any breach of rights is major and serious.

Third, even though the guy "got off," the chilling effect (just what the police/government hoped for) is VERY "far reaching." Who among us after reading about incidents like this will not henceforth think twice before photographing police or any other government official?

On a personal note, I was once threatened by a fire marshall and told, "You've taken the last picture you are going to take here!" because I was photographing a wildland brush fire--and I was/am a journalist.

Re:What about these Canadian angels in uniform

"Much as people might like to think otherwise, police forces don't coordinate much with each other."

It isn't so much a matter of "coordination" as infec tious concensus building. If cops in City A get by with something, cops in City B will (a) leanr about it and (b) adopt it. There is no conspiracy or collusion, just observation and mimickry.

Further, police (and I have 5 cops in my immediate and extended family, so know a bit about them) very much have a common "us against them" attitude. Incidents like this camera fiasco are manifestations of that.

(On a side note, one of my grandons-in-law who is a cop in a major city has a refrigerator magnet that reads: "Hi, I am police officer and I can kick your ass and get by with it.")

Re:Bah

I have mod points but I'd rather post.

It's not so rosey up here in Canada. This past Canada Day the Victoria police instituted a policy of manditory searches on all buses heading downtown. They can get away with this because, on Canada Day, the bus is used mostly by young people going to clubs. I objected to being searched thinking that I would simply not be allowed back on the bus. Instead, to my complete surprise, the officer began to become very verbally abusive and I was arrested for "Drunk and Disorderly Conduct".

No breathalizer, no soberiety test, nothing. 100% soley based upon the officers "observation". I was processed and thrown into a dirty cement holding cell that lacked even toilet paper let alone a bed. As it stands the Victoria police can arest anyone at anytime under the charge of "Drunk and Disorderly" with no evidence and no soberiety test.

I can't wait for the day when *I* can video tape everything. That should provide a little balance to things.

Re:Bah

That's why you fight it in court. It would be very easy to win such a case if the arresting officer has no evidence.

Re:Bah

Citizen cops would be an even worse idea... They would lack training and make different, even worse mistakes. I think officers should be treated the same as some police cars. Have a camera and a microphone attached to a recording device, and have it always on. If they can't account for several hours, or arrest someone while the camera is off, they get fired. Period. That sort of scrutiny should solve most problems.

Re:Bah

It's also worth pointing out that based on writings (letters, journals, etc.) leading up to and following authoring the Constitution, the "well regulated" clause was in reference to/meant "well-trained", not "run by the government" because the whole point of the second amendment was a final check and balance against tyranny within/from the government.

Bad cops

Yeah police are people and do bad things. But come on, people are people and do bad things.

The difference is that police have powers which ordinary citizens don't have, so when police do bad things, it can have severe consequences. Quite often, they're not held accountable for that, which again results from an abuse of power. That's what this is all about: accountability for the actions of public servants, particularly those with extraordinary powers. Cops in general are not the enemy, but bad cops are certainly an enemy which needs to be guarded against and eradicated whenever possible.

Re:Bad cops

That's just the point. If you want to block public roads and intefere with the lives of millions you had better have permission first. In short, who the fuck are you to block my way to work? To the movies? Airport? etc...

I had to deal with this recently when in Ottawa the farmers were protesting the governments lack of handouts by driving their tractors slowly on the highways. I think they had permits for it but it was still a pain in the ass. Took me three times longer to get to work. Do I now care [or really know about] the plight of the farmers? No. I hate their faces. I'd rather buy produce from the states as my way of protesting.

To have an organized society we have to have consensus. To have a progressive society we need disturbance. The trick though is to know the limits. You can damage your cause with unruly protesters just as easily as you can help it with an orderly permitted march.

Tom

Re:Bad cops

That's just the point. If you want to block public roads and intefere with the lives of millions you had better have permission first. In short, who the fuck are you to block my way to work? To the movies? Airport? etc...

Oh, you mean like President Bush, who visited Nashville, TN a month ago and had ALL THE MAJOR HIGHWAYS CLOSED going into the city, causing headaches and other problems? Who the fuck is he to do such a thing without the consensus of all the million+ people that rely upon those roads for travel to get to work inside the city? I think you need to get out of Ottawa and come live in the USA to find out what it's all about. You OBVIOUSLY don't live here - you've got no legitimate reason to go around spouting your post-70's typical anti-hippy BS.

public servents

i actually find it rather disgusting that you'd say something like "Who the fuck is he to do such a thing". we, as Americans, should be more focused on the safety of our President than an extra 20 minutes commuting to work in the morning!

Yes, I'll say it, "Who the fuck are you?" The president of the USA is a servant of the public that's who he is, the public who pays his salary. He's not King George, as much as he'd like to think he is.

Falcon

Re:Bad cops

Riddle me this, Batman : when does 'got arrested' ever come off your personal life record? As in when a prospective employer says 'have you ever been arrested?'

Answer : never. If the charges get dropped you can always say 'Yes, but ... ' and then fill in the rest of the story about how 'bad cop' or 'violated my rights' or whatever, but the employer checks the 'got arrested' box and you don't get hired.

There isn't a state in the union where an employer can legally ask if you've been arrested before. Convictions and pending charges, yes. Arrests not resulting in conviction, absolutely not, for exactly the resons you outline above.

Re:Bad cops

Most places don't ask "Ever been arrested?" - they ask "Ever been convicted?"

I was arrested once, because I said no, when the clerk asked if I wanted my receipt. Once I said no, she pocketed the cash, called the cops and said I stole the items I'd just paid for.

Unfortunately for her, I had exact change from the purchase, from the money I'd just gotten from the ATM machine.

Unfortunately for me, she was the chief of police's wife.

Unfortunately for her, she had a record of doing this from before she was married.

Fortunately for me, I had friends (business owners) who knew me and stood up for me.

She ended up in jail. The officer got slammed with a false arrest charge (as he didn't read me the miranda to me), and proceeded to inform me that I was lying and that I'd better stop - all without offering to have a lawyer present. I kept repeating that I wasn't lying.

That I think used up all my luck for quite a few years to come.

So when asked - have I ever been arrested - I have to answer yes.. Was I convicted - never. Innocent until proven guilty.

I'd sue the company that didn't hire based on an "Ever been arrested" question.

Re:Bad cops

Exactly. We do, and should, expect a higher standard of behaviour from police officers than from the general public because they are police officers.

Re:Bah

Wouldn't you thank your lucky maple leaf?

Its not just the US

I'm in the UK, and I've seen this and worse happen for years. At an anti capitalist demo (I'm not a loony, but I do think some of the issues raised at those demos need to be raised - like subsidising the third world out of the world markets etc... but lets not go off topic)I've been charged at by police on horses FOR NO REASON AT ALL!.

And yes I've seen cameras blocked, and their owners arrested. I've seen the unlawful detainment of hundreds of demonstrators (I would have been one of them, if I hadn't been light on my feet, and had a friend to help me over a piked fence. Ironically the fence of the Royal Courts of Justice I believe).

So its not news, that there's a problem. But whats the solution?
I propose that a form of open source decentralised government evolve that slowly but surely makes the centralized government more and more obsolete. Leaching the power from centralised government will force them to be more democratic, and less hyopocrytical. I hope.

Of course "what about the money"?!?!

Well - taxes can be legaly sidestepped. Previously it was only the rich who could afford off shaw accounts etc... With this shiny new interweb of ours, we can build open source solutions to tax, for the masses!

So - imagine a karma system generating elected, regional education 'node leaders', for home and comunity eductator to amasses comparible resources as those in state schools. Now health, security, transport, energy,....

Yes this might sound wacky, but there's nothing stopping us trying. And I'm sick of the winging in here. YES your government is crap! Do something!

Re:Its not just the US

FWIW Karl Marks has been replaced by Karl Euro.

OTOH there was a philosopher called Karl Marx whos work has been much abused.

Re:Its not just the US

How did Karl Marx the philosopher come to grips with having the same name as the snivelling misanthrope who wrote the communist manifesto and laid the groundwork for the two greatest mass murderers of all time?

Yes, that's how personal responsibility works. Similarly Jesus was personally responsible for the crusades, Nietzsche and Wagner was personally responsible for the Holocaust, Benjamin Franklin was personally responsible for Hiroshima and Dresden, and Justinian was personally responsible for all modern western legal systems. Or not.

Re:Its not just the US

What about for people who just think it's important? What about people who don't think it's an important part of communication, but important as it's a factor that creates an outward appearance of the person writing? Does it demonstrate a level of self pride in attaining a certain level of accuracy?

Do people not wash their face and adjust their hair in the morning (/afternoon) before leaving the house, not because it changes how functional they are, but because not checking the things that create an outward impression gives the impression of a lack of self pride? Respect for somebody can suffer purely based on how much they appear to respect themselves.

Yes we can argue that appearance based opinions are shallow, but we can also argue that it's something that reaches others consciousnesses, and IS used to create an idea of how much effort somebody will put into something.

And before anybody jumps up at this being an attack at dyslexia, dyslexia to various degrees is pretty common, I share it myself, I know it's not a matter of just not trying hard enough, but where the extra effort into "learning spelling" would get you nowhere, that effort into checking spelling most certainly would (I alt+tab to a google window to check spelling of individual words, or even just switch to a different word as I struggle with one).

I'm not saying that mine is great, I'm sure people will find (and point out) errors in my post (like the last section beginning with "and"). What I am doing is pointing out the rationale behind spelling errors influencing the impact of what you saying having on people.

Who Watches the Watchmen?

The attitude should surely be, "if you ain't got nothing to hide..." ; it's what they are increasingly coming to expect from the rest of us.

While I can understand that police are probably lairy of being photographed, because it's probably so easy to make mistakes in police procedure that if you were to record their activities, a good lawyer could probably shoot down a large percentage of arrests and whatnot... it does not inspire confidence that a public organisation who allegedly operate inside the law, to uphold the law, should feel it necessary to use their power to conceal the detailed workings of their activities.

Anyone able to point a finger at the legislation that enables them to do this? Or is there none, and they are just overstepping the mark?

do I have something to hide?

The attitude should surely be, "if you ain't got nothing to hide..." ; it's what they are increasingly coming to expect from the rest of us.

If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to watch me?

Re:Who Watches the Watchmen?

They were overstepping their bounds, citing bullshit (nonexistent) laws and violating 4rth amendment rights:

From TFA:

Cruz said police told him that he broke a new law that prohibits people from taking pictures of police with cell phones.

"They threatened to charge me with conspiracy, impeding an investigation, obstruction of a investigation. ... They said, 'You were impeding this investigation.' (I asked,) "By doing what?' (The officer said,) 'By taking a picture of the police officers with a camera phone,'" Cruz said.

Re:Who Watches the Watchmen?

As a general rule of thumb, it's usually safe to assume that anyone can be deemed to be breaking some law or other at any given moment. That, of course, is in itself an appalling state of affairs - it is the antithesis of democracy governed by law, as it gives the authorities carte blanche to arrest and punish whomever they wish.

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged".
- Cardinal Richelieu

'There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with'.
- Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"

Re:Who Watches the Watchmen?

I wish I could find the original quote, but it went along the lines of:

When the laws become so complex that people cannot understand them, the people are no longer free.

The trend is getting more disturbing these days. I grew up with the believe that police were there to protect and serve. I'm not quite sure who they are protecting now. The sad truth is that if police weren't harming the innocent, there wouldn't be so many loopholes that the guilty can use to get off the hook.

And something else to ponder, if a law against cell phone pictures of police were passed yesterday, would you know (assuming the media didn't pick up on it)? Are we really free when the people making the rules have no responsibility to inform the public of those new rules. Yes, I'm aware that they are made available for the public to view, but the lawmakers are well aware that the public doesn't have the time, nor the ability to comprehend, everything that is made into law. So we are left with a world where getting arrested is based on whether the police like you, and how much money you have to pay the lawyers. The same thing applies to paying your taxes.