Cop Seeks Wiretapping Charges For Woman Who Videotaped Beating 662
An anonymous reader writes "A police officer who was disciplined for his role in the beating of a Massachusetts man (many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness) is looking to bring criminal wiretapping charges against the woman who caught much of the incident on video. The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating. He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed."
This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:5, Informative)
The full video being available in the second link, but it looks it's being taken on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy.
On another note, the individual referred to in the summary (identified in the stub-of-an-article as Michael Sedergren), was not the guy who beat Jones senseless, but in my personal opinion, he's just as dirty, and should have been fired, too.
FTFA:
“They’re really just trying to intimidate and silence her, but whether she’s charged or not (the tape) can still be used in court,” said attorney Shawn P. Allyn, who represents Jones in a civil rights lawsuit against the police in U.S. District Court.
Case and point. Guy is a complete dirtbag.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's no such phrase as "case and point". What you're thinking of is "case in point", and providing a direct quote from an article covering the case already under consideration isn't, in fact, a case in point. It's just a quote.
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:5, Funny)
For all intensive purposes, in this literally doggy-dog world, it just begs the question: does this go hand-and-hand with the way that language is undermind?
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...and mute points are a diamond dozen.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The idiom is "Moot point", not mute point.
If you're going to correct someone, you should at least be right about it.
It's a "Moo point". It's like a cow's opinion, you know, it just doesn't matter. It's "moo".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0583431/quotes?qt=qt0254874 [imdb.com]
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:5, Funny)
Your knew hear, arent you?
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fired? Cops don't get fired for beating and killing peons like you and me. They get a paid vacation...I mean disciplinary leave.
Cops aren't there to protect us from criminals (and as courts have repeatedly said, they're under no obligation to do so). They're there to protect the government class from its greatest foe: us, and to ensure that the other tax feeders can continue to suck us dry without fear that we'll resist. Once you understand the premise, it makes more sense.
William Grigg [lewrockwell.com] writes frequently about the constant abuse of power (and physical abuse of innocents) by the cops.
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:5, Informative)
I would like to point out that the cop who did the actual beating was fired and is facing criminal charges. The cop who is filing the complaint (and who received the 45 day suspension) is one of the officers who stood by and watched.
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What would you suggest then? Longer suspension? Jail time? I think 45 day suspension and mandatory retraining is an appropriate punishment for not stopping the beating soon enough. You need to take into consideration the situation. The cops were in the middle of arresting a criminal, and the criminal tried to run away. It's easy for us to say after the fact, in the safety of our computer chairs, the he should have intervened a lot sooner. But when you're out on the street at night arresting a repeat offende
Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (Score:4, Insightful)
Jail Time - Conspiracy to Witness - 10 years.
It was good enough to land me in prison, it's good enough for this fucker.
Re: (Score:3)
Again, I'm not saying these cops where in the right. They all were wrong to a certain degree and all needed to be punished. I'm just not exactly sure what you expect his punishment should be.
I agree with you morally. It just seems that the law is unreasonably harsh for civilians who do the same - stand by while their friend beats someone up before they realise what's happening - and the law needs to be consistent.
Perhaps the better solution is to define "accessory" more stringently for everyone.
pornographic insight (Score:3)
This is a textbook example of "I knew it all along" porn. Once you understand the premise of mistaking the accessory who received a mild suspension for the perpetrator who was fired and is now facing criminal charges, it makes more sense.
The human social order is a more complex beast than a toddler's mine/yours calculus can circumscribe. Of course in any stable society the power elite is protected by the power apparatus, it's practically a chicken and egg problem: which came first, the elite, or that whi
postscript to the carousel of douchery (Score:3)
I want add that taxation is a smokescreen issue, a public outcry which the power brokers incite to serve their own interests.
Better regulation could have averted the recent bail-out of the luxury yachts by the work-a-day SUVs. It had nothing to do with the tax code. The power brokers do their magic tricks by inciting a mass protest on the western front when they are up to tricks on the eastern front.
I mean really, railing about taxation in modern society (it goes up, it goes down) is about the stupidest
Re: (Score:3)
Cops ceased to be about protect and serve the moment that they were allowed to ticket people.
Mm, I believe "protect and serve" was lost once cops and firemen were told to protect themselves before the public.
Sacrificing oneself to protect the innocent wasn't above and beyond duty, it used to be their duty.
In my opinion, today's cops are bullies wearing diapers. If I get pulled over, I keep my hands on the steering wheel and say "yes Sir" and "no Sir" -- not out of respect, but because the cop is likely to be a chickenshit who might shoot if in doubt, and beat me up if annoyed. Respect? They lost
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's because of poorly raised excuses of humanity like you that we need cops.
I do not think you know me well enough to make this statement
I further wonder if you have ever been pulled over when you were breaking no laws at all. I HAVE. I have been stopped for no other reason than that I was out driving past midnight (I was taking my brother back to college). I watched as the cop walked around my vehicle twice looking for anything he could stick me with. Of course there was nothing so he rudely told me not to speed and sent me on my way.
My licence plate numbers and other personal in
Re: (Score:3)
However in my life I have never had a cop around when I felt threatened unless the cop was the reason that I felt threatened.
This is the sad truth. I am more afraid of being shot by a cop than by anyone else.
I'd feel more comfortable around a pimp or pusher with a gun in his belt than with a cop. Because the crook at least values business and doesn't feel an urge to shoot potential customers. There's a good chance he has that that gun to protect himself from the police or organized criminals who sponsor the local donut brigade.
Re: (Score:3)
"What's your name?"
"What is your name?"
"You name please"
I know why the copper asked me three times - to see if I was lying. But was it nessecary?
When he'd finished his 20 questions and looked inside my car and out, he proclaimed that my car was dirty (it was) and that I should clean it. Yes, the police in the UK no
Re: (Score:3)
Point in case (used it right there, btw), red light cameras actually reduce fatal accidents where they are installed (I can cite several articles, but I leave it to intelligent folks here to use their google bar for once).
That's not strictly true. There have been cases where in addition to providing the red light cameras. the municipality shortened the yellow light period. The end result was more revenue from people running red lights and more accidents as people reacted more severely to signal changes.
Massachusetts laws are fucked up (Score:5, Informative)
He'll win, easily.
It's illegal to record audio of people without their express permission in Massachusetts [citmedialaw.org]. Period. Doesn't matter where.
About the only exception is if it's blatantly obvious that you're being recorded, which has been taken to mean "news team" - in other words, an absolutely gigantic, impossible-to-miss camera, or a large microphone, like TV reporters carry with the station logo on it.
Otherwise, it's "wire tapping."
Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!
Incidentally, as far as I know, you're allowed to take video of people in public places. Just not the audio.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Massachusetts laws are fucked up (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!
Well, not with that attitude. Unjust laws usually look like they'll never change up until they do. Acting like we're stuck with them forever is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Re: (Score:3)
Problem is, this is one of those laws that people think are unjust when used against them, but think makes perfect sense when used in their favor. "If someone wants to record me, they hella better get my permissions first, doesn't matter where or what the circumstances are!" But at the same time, "If I want to record someone else in a public place, then I should be able to record them!" The problem per se isn't that the law is unjust, t
An Appropriate Facebook Screen Name... (Score:5, Funny)
This idiot cop's name is Jeffrey Asher, and his Facebook page is here:
http://www.facebook.com/jeffyjewjagoff [facebook.com] - NO KIDDING!
Such an appropriate "screen name"...
Re: (Score:3)
"...on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy."
I am sure you did not mean it that way, but it sounds as if the beating happens at the precinct in
an interrogation room then the officer has expectation of privacy. Quite the opposite.
All police actions should be filmed to protect the rights of ALL parties involved.
I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:2)
Seems like no matter how many injustices we hear like this, we never to anything to put a stop to it. He'll be back on the job and busting heads again in no time. And we'll let him.
Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mostly because of the following appeal to emotion type argument:
"The police face dangerous people every day, and need to be able to respond to percieved threats accordingly. Enforcing more strict controls over police escallation of violence places our public servants (The people who protect us from violent offenders) at risk. You dont want to be responsible for letting criminals run loose because you prevented the police from reacting, do you?"
This argument bears a superficial resemblence to the "Support our TRUUPES!" argument:
"Our men and women in uniform fight to protect our freedoms from dangerous terrorists overseas. If you dont support our men and women in the armed forces, you are selling out our country, and are complicit in the terrorist's cause."
Both provide "Enforcement" agencies with Carte Blanc to do pretty much watever they feel like, because if you disagree with the tactics or reasons for their activities, "You are a criminal/terrorist sympathizer."
No self-respecting politician with any hope of being re-elected will act on either agency in any fashion besides a stern wrist slapping, because of the danger of violating the de-facto taboo that these appeals to emotion invoke, regardless of how desperately these entities actually need such corrective action. (This is why the GITMO prisoner torture was downplayed, and why "Wiretapping" charges keep getting lodged against citizens reporting and recording instances of police wrongdoing.)
Additionally, the egregious activities of these agencies work hand-in-hand with power hungry parent entities (City, State, and Federal governments), because slowly escellating violence against both foriegn and domestic entities desensitizes the public, and allows for greater abuses of power at higher levels without causing moral panic or alarm.
Without some form of mass moral outrage against these practices, and I mean *RIGHT NOW*, there will be no going back and this country will continue to fast-track toward a police-state.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama was crucified for merely making the offhand statement that the police acted stupidly in arresting a man in his own home on suspicion of being a burglar. What do you think would happen to anyone who actually tried to push for real change? There's no hope for turning back at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama was guilty of commenting on police affairs while black. I doubt very much that there would have been the sort of uproar had it not been for the fact that both the President and the man being arrested are black.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no, no. Don't buy into those lies.
First of all, arresting someone for being "disorderly" in their own home is just another form of contempt of cop.
Secondly, Obama had enough facts to make the right call - that the police were acting stupidly. He only backtracked because the media crucified him.
Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:5, Funny)
Interrogation room
Cop: *pushes a blank piece of paper to the man sitting in the chair
Innocent Person: "What's this? You want me to write a confession?"
Cop: "No, those are your rights."
Re: (Score:3)
"The police face dangerous people every day, and need to be able to respond to percieved threats accordingly. Enforcing more strict controls over police escallation of violence places our public servants (The people who protect us from violent offenders) at risk. You dont want to be responsible for letting criminals run loose because you prevented the police from reacting, do you?"
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from surveillance." If the police aren't doing anything wrong, then they should have no objection to their actions being recorded. It's the same argument that law enforcement agencies keep trying to shove down our throats, and objecting when it gets turned around so that they're the ones with the cameras pointed at them just reveals the depth of their hypocrisy.
Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (Score:4, Insightful)
You must not watch much fox news, or listen to the talking heads on talk radio. (Something I am sadly subjected to by ideologue relatives.)
While I could see the reason to divide 'blame the soldiers' with 'blame the govt that sent them' I also must stress that 'I was only following orders' does not absolve persons of guilt in cases of wrongdoing.
As for the 'Support our troops' line not being purposefully confused by the media and from DOD representatives to de-facto imply that you MUST support the stupid wars we have sent our people to die in, I simply have to question what form of domestic reporting you have been consuming. IIRC, we were demonizng people left and right under the bush admin ("America, love it or GTFO" type slurs against people critical of our occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and also later of GITMO) for suggesting that our actions were out of line. The public controversy over "The dixie chicks" spings instantly to mind--
Further, with the Vietnam confict there was an involuntary draft. These days they just pressure people to enlist through bogus government "shcolarship" programs. Choosing to become complicit with the destructive whims of our current government for cash is quite worthy of some level of contempt in my book.
Re: (Score:2)
Needless to say, that doesn't make up for it, it's still an injustice, and shouldn't have happened in the first place, they need to stop hiring the scum of the earth to uphold the law, but don't let rampant cynicism get the best of you.
I am still fuzzy (Score:5, Insightful)
on how wiretapping is the same as recording video.
Re: (Score:2)
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, it's because laws often define the words used in them. Literally define them. Usually those definitions are pretty much what you expect, but that's how you get a law called the so-and-so wiretapping act where the definition of wiretapping could include videotaping someone without consent.
Don't construe this response to be support of this obvious abuse of power. It's clearly exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
After all, bugging someone's house isn't much different from wiretapping.
Re: (Score:3)
So ... violent beatings are now considered "conversations"?
I guess next we'll see the police officer who committed the assault try to raise a first amendment defense against his criminal prosecution?
my thoughts (Score:3)
He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed.
Too bad... fuck 'em.
Re: (Score:2)
but, If the tables were turned and some one video taped a gang beating up a cop.......
the videographer in question would be considered heroic, lauded by the police and generally there would be no mention of wiretapping and many statements made about how this state (county,country, etc.) needs more civic minded people like this......
just saying
Re: (Score:2)
I Wish Darwin Applied To Employment (Score:2)
This guy tells me we need a Darwin Award category.
"Idiots Who Lose Their Job Because of Supreme Incompetence".
Re: (Score:2)
If only he'd lost his job, but apparently according to the summary anyway, he only lost it for 45 days...
Which I suppose would provide the Darwin Award category to the citizens who are supposed to be protected by Police, not beat by them, of "There is no justice."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that douchebag still wearing a badge? (Score:3)
What has happened to law enforcement in this country that too many of them have started acting like there's no such thing as accountability?
Charging someone for videotaping police never stands up in court, so it's just another example that we're not dealing with the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Pick me for that jury, or just let one person like me on there and this case is over.
Just let one person like me on there... (Score:2)
Sadly, hung juries [wikipedia.org] are no longer permitted these days. Directed verdicts [wikipedia.org] seem to be the order of the day, and if the judge finds out you're the lone holdout, you'll just be removed and replaced with someone more malleable. If you try to do anything about it, like talking to the media, you'll find yourself charged with contempt of court. [wikipedia.org]
Our judiciary is far too corrupt for mere juries to fix...
Re: (Score:3)
We just need states to either take the initiative and outright declare public video taping of public employees legal, or a case to make it to the SCOTUS so that we can finally put an end to these stories, which are getting more and more frequent (for obvious reasons).
Even when this gets thrown out, people will still be intimidated by the hassle involved, and that's the ultimate reason they do this sort of thing... it doesn't matter if it gets thrown out, it causes enough problems to be a deterrent.
Re: (Score:3)
What has happened to law enforcement in this country that too many of them have started acting like there's no such thing as accountability?
They haven't started acting like it, they've always thought there wasn't any. And until recently, there wasn't much. Ubiquitous video cameras and the internet have changed things, and they don't like it any more than the RIAA.
fair is fair (Score:5, Insightful)
The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating
What do you think would happen to me if I beat a police officer enough to cause "many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness"?
It Depends. (Score:5, Insightful)
How much money do you have? If it's billions, then your security detail defended you against a lone rogue officer who violated department policy, and the City offers it's apologies and takes this matter very, very seriously.
If all you did was study hard, work hard and then follow the rules after you served your Country honorably, then criminal lowlifes like you will not be tolerated or coddled...
National Record The Police in Public Day (Score:2)
Ppl are doing this wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is time to take back our nation from these bastards. Out them, but do not give them a target. BTW, assume that the corrupt DA and police union disallow those films. That is ok. The victim can still sue the cop CIVILLY and get the bastards pensions. Do a few of those and watch how quickly cops change their attitude.
Why wait? (Score:2)
Why only release it after the trial? By all means stay anonymous, but for the sake of the victim, at least supply a copy to their attorney.
Re:Why wait? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let the courts convict the man, but follow the case CLOSELY.
It is not just that a cop commits a crime. It is all the ones around that person who will lie FOR THEM that is just as much, if not worse. I have little doubt that when given a chance, many cops will lie to protect their friend. WIth this approach, you take down all of these cops. The victim will be righted, and more importantly, will be to sue these cops, and the municipality that did this for lying.
Look, our problem today is that we are turning into a corrupt nation. We did not use to be. We really were one of the good guys. But for the last 30 years, we have become a corrupt nation. Our cops are no better than Nixon, reagan, Clinton, and W, who are all criminal (reagan multiple times over). Any cop that lies on the stand is just as bad as the one that is thumping somebody. So, if you allow 4 cops top lie to support their buddy, then all 5 will be gone. At the least, that can be used in future trials against them to show that they are corrupted cops. Pretty much destroys those ppl.
Re:Why wait? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you want to cause an innocent man to be convicted to further your own personal agenda against cops ...
How exactly is that different than what they do? Because you think you're on 'the good side' ... as you let someone else suffer ... not you, someone else.
Douche.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ppl are doing this wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Here in America we have the corrupt neo-cons/tea*, the corrupt DAs and the corrupt police that support these kinds of actions"
I can't tell you distressing and frankly offensive I found this sentence to be.
As politically conservative as they come, and a proud Taxed Enough Already activist, I deeply believe in the bedrock value of the "Rule of Law" and insist that the U.S Constitution be recognized and upheld as the highest law of the land at all levels of government.
Police Officers who cannot embrace or be trusted with the truth (like a video of their own actions) should find themselves permanently unemployable in any law enforcement capacity as they clearly have forgotten that in their roles as Police Officers, they are servants and protectors of the People, not overlords.
Re: (Score:3)
I confess to not knowing what the Tea party stance is on civil liberties and law enforcement. As another poster pointed out, the fact that tea partiers come from the political right means there are a lot of brands of social conservatives and neocons mixed in there. Social conservatives pay lip service to rule of law and respect for authority but want to use torture if it works. I'm not saying you believe that, but "rule of law" turns out to be nebulous in modern politics.
If you can separate the general a
Re: (Score:3)
The anonymous thing might be difficult (Score:5, Interesting)
How is one to know whether your video recorder or phone has put sub-protocol information on the recording that identifies you. Ok, even if its a camera, it can put the serial number of the camera there. And if you bought it with a CC, then they can relate the two. Or , if you post other video of your camping trip or whatever, they could relate two recordings.
If recording the audio is a crime, then one should strip the audio before giving the recording to anyone. This would block the seizure of the tape as evidence that the recording itself was a crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Pot Kettle Black (Score:2)
I've seen the "Cops" TV program. Do the police get the suspects consent to film them?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, every time. But the cops, while doing their jobs, shouldn't have any expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cops should have full time recording of audio and video of them, and if it *goes missing* then consider it a felony with a minimum 20 year sentence, with no chance of parole, no appeals, no questions asked - the officer who tried to turn off the recorder, the chief who let something happen, the IT geek who did the erasure - all 3 of em - same penalty.
Then we'll see how many accidental erasures *cough bullshit cough* happen.
This law was supposedly to "protect your privacy". (Score:2, Troll)
Think about that next time you demand more "privacy" laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more an issue of lazy lawmakers than intent. When you don't clearly evaluate the repercussions of a new law, you end up with crap like 18 year-olds with 10 year prison sentences for having sex with 15 year-olds.
But, that's a sign of the times and not that "politicians are stupid." Bad guys frequently have their rights and due process violated because people don't think bad guys deserve the same justice as the good guys.
Isn't it about time... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unenumerated Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is time for another Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights discusses a great amount about the OUTPUT of citizens, but little regarding the INPUT...mostly because at the time of the founding it was impossible to -record- such things. The only means was to write about experiences, what someone heard, saw, smelled, tasted, or felt. However that equation has been altered greatly in the past 150 years, starting with photography. Yet the citizenry's right to secure backup of the human sensory system (or electronic record that corresponds to the human sensory system) has not been recognized accordingly.
Photographers are still fighting photo bans, and dealing with unconstitutional charges that result. And that is for the oldest form of "record keeping"! There are still outright bans on audio in many states, though video--due to its similarity to still photography--is in a somewhat legal limbo.
This is going to require an Amendment to fundamentally enumerate and incorporate the human right to record the environment. That should not extend to electrical interception (true wiretapping) or electronically-assisted interception (unidirectional microphones and telephoto lenses), but simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception. Although "photos can lie", human beings should not be hamstrung to the subjective judgement of character (he said, she said) when significantly more accurate measurements are available. If the citizen has a 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, they should certainly have a right to provide individualized proof of innocence!
Plrease for the love of F'ing God, Court System... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tossing out the case and giving a lecture will never make them stop. They'll just keep trying, and occasionally get lucky with an authoritarian judge. The right way to handle this is disbarment for any prosecutor who files such clearly retaliatory charges. Just watch how fast this bullshit stops after a few DAs find themselves on the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Silent Video? (Score:2)
This would, of course, side step the real issue, but it could be an interesting case nonetheless for bringing about a ruling o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
asshole cop is an asshole, film at 11 (Score:2)
the key word there is not "cop", it's "asshole". the beating in the video is a clear case of police brutality. this suit is just a case of a stupid jerk being a stupid jerk. And in all likelihood it will not turn out well for him.
Organized crime (Score:2)
Stupid Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Damn you horribly biased, agenda pushing slashdot summary writers!
The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating..
No no no no nooooo. The officer who did the beating was fired and is facing criminal charges. It is one of the officers who stood by and watched that got the 45 day suspension.
Just for the record, I think this wiretapping charge is bullshit and I think all the cops involved should be punished appropriately. But the summary makes it seem like a cop only got a 45 day suspension for assault with a deadly weapon, which is incorrect and borderline flame bait.
Re: (Score:3)
Say, if a normal person stands around with their friend as they beat on someone, isn't that an accessory charge?
Re: (Score:3)
what grounds was the disability pension granted on? mentally unfit for police duty?
Bad c(r)op (Score:4, Insightful)
New Rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that this pig will be made to pay that woman heavy (heavy!) damages for all sorts of things, as a warning to other public servants who think they can get away with abusing their power. What a rotten piece of shiat.
Probably not. Even if she (or the guy he beat so badly it should count as attempted murder) wins any money, he, and the police brass who let it happen and covered it up, won't be out a penny. We the tax payers will end up covering the costs. And the cop will get a six figure annual pension after working for 25 years.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have to drive the car off a bridge, leave a woman behind in the car, then walk back to your house and go to bed first.
THEN you qualify.
Re: (Score:3)
Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.
s/Cops/Bad Cops/
There _are_ good cops. They almost never make it into the news because that's just not the way news works, but they do exist.
Re: (Score:3)
Poor attempt at irony. You used a real universal truth to illustrate a bad stereotype.
What? Universal? Uh-uh. No, sorry... had he said StarWars-Loving-Nerds it would have been a poor attempt at irony.
Law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian (Score:5, Insightful)
The Law should not be applied equally to cop and civilian. Penalties should be HARSHER when the authorities break the law, and the benefit of the doubt should not apply, because law enforcement officers are charged with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This idea is usually expressed as "the color of authority" [wikipedia.org], and it is an essential and traditional safeguard of Liberty.
Yes, the rules are absolutely different when you carry the awesome power to kill in a split second. They are, and they should be.
Cops shouldn't solicit charitable donations from businesses, because it looks like protection money. Military officers may not sleep with their subordinates, because it looks like "command rape." The FBI shouldn't be assembling dossiers on political activists, because it looks like oppression.
These used to be commonly accepted ideas before we gutted public education and Fox News began blaring propaganda 24/7.
No, I'm pretty sure things have changed... (Score:3)
...because the numbers say they have. My political awareness began with Watergate. In 1972, concentrations of wealth in this country were radically different. Unions still had some sway. Textbooks in public schools were not a rare and precious commodity.
I didn't get strip-searched to board a plane. I carried a pocket knife to school, and my science teacher borrowed it to open a box of reagents. We had the capability of putting a man on the moon. Engineers made good money and their sole income could support
Re:45 day suspension? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops have the ability to ruin your life legally and as part of their job. When they're corrupt, they can do much, much worse than you or I can, and they need to be treated as such. The more power someone has given to them by the state, the harsher we need to be on them if they're found to be in violation.
Re: (Score:2)
If a civilian beat someone up that badly, he'd be facing a few years in prison.
Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.
How about we just have the law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian?
IMHO, law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. A bad cop screws up the system for everybody - cops and civilians alike.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the close order of zero. Almost any cop will cover up, by acts of commission or omission, overtly bad acts by other cops. That makes them bad cops too.
Re: (Score:3)
how many McDonald employees hold down and bash someone? I'd imagine McDonald employees to rival the number of police officers in the country, yet why do we not see an equal distribution of violence and aggression if its just "a couple of bad apples", when do you stop blaming the individual apples and start declaring the Tree defective?
also, why is an officer getting sent to an "anger management class". If you have anger issues you shouldn't be carrying a gun
Re: (Score:2)
You're in a public street, idiot.
Does the name Rodney King ring a bell? Videotaping of police has been happening for *decades* now. At this point in time police officers should assume that they are being recorded at any given time. After all if they aren't doing anything wrong they don't have anything to hide right?
Re: (Score:2)
Public street, well, she might not be able to release the audio depending on the state law. My state you can't. Video/stills, yes.
Technically the crime was committed when she recorded it, not when she released it. (She is in MA, one of the two party consent states like mine).
Re: (Score:2)
In most jurisdictions it's the secret recording of audio, that's illegal, not the recording of video; so technically it's OK to video the Cops or anyone else beating the shit out of someone as long as you can't hear the cops or anyone else swearing at the victim while they are doing it. Personally I think recording the audio and video of a public servant, serving the public in public can hardly be considered being a secret activity; as they say if your not doing anything wrong why would you object being rec