NY Couple On "Wanted" Poster For Filming Police 541
Hugh Pickens writes "Ben Fractenberg and Jeff Mays write that the NYPD has created a 'wanted' poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube — branding them 'professional agitators' who portray cops in a bad light and listing their home address. The flyer featuring side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez and the couple's home address was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room in the 30th Precinct house and warns officers to be on guard against them. The couple has filmed officers stopping and frisking and arresting young people of color in Harlem and around New York City, which they post on Gonzalez's YouTube account. They said their actions are legal. 'There have been times when it's gotten combative. There have been times when they [police officers] have videoed Christina,' says Swaye. 'But if we were breaking the law they would have arrested us.' Swaye was part of a group of advocates including Cornel West who were detained at the 28th Precinct in Harlem in October for protesting the stop-and-frisk policy which Mayor Bloomberg strongly defends. "
Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing what we let what amounts to State employees get away with.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
we don't. democracy in the US is a failure. the feedback loop between government action and election of representatives is so tenuous as to not be perceptible.
during an election a candidate gnashes his teeth about some hot-button issue, which, if elected, he will completely ignore.
education and immigration are classics.
the government just continues to do things, a mindless bacterial colony
i don't see how you can ascribe any intent or meaning to any of it except the reflexive actions of a colony of self-perpetuating organisms
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, go find a random person and talk to him about the importance of copyright limitations, and see how long it takes before his eyes glaze over in boredom.
Then take a topic people actually do care somewhat about, like collusion between banks and regulators, and they'll agree with you, saying, "Yeah, someone should do something about that, it's horrible!" This is a medium level of caring. They care, but not enough to stop watching American Idol or stop playing video games or whatever.
Finally take a topic people actually care enough about to vote on. If a politician raises taxes, there's a good chance he'll be voted out next election. Take money from my wallet, I'm really going to be upset! As a result, taxes have gone consistently lower, in every administration, in a bipartisan manner. Not even Obama dares to raise taxes on everybody.
Politicians respond when people actually care. When people don't pay attention, they do whatever they want.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
If the representatives get away with something, it's because people don't care.
Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.
Finally take a topic people actually care enough about to vote on. If a politician raises taxes, there's a good chance he'll be voted out next election.
And replaced by a clone who keeps taxes just as high as they were, because even if he does cut the specific tax that resulted in his election, he sneaks in other stealth tax increases to compensate.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
>> If the representatives get away with something, it's because people don't care.
> Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.
Well, that would be caring.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.
That's very optimistic. So few of them vote in the primaries. More than two people to look into and form opinions about? That's more effort than most people are willing to do. If they were just fed up about having poor candidates, you'd think they would actually support reasonable people running for office rather than waiting for big campaign contributors to decide for them.
And replaced by a clone who keeps taxes just as high as they were, because even if he does cut the specific tax that resulted in his election, he sneaks in other stealth tax increases to compensate.
Well yeah, because while we hate taxes, we also hate reducing entitlement programs, defense spending, or government benefits. And the third option of "Do both and run up the debt" is becoming an exhausted option.
That leaves 1. Doing some of both, making a reasoned, rational case for this approach to the voters, and getting thrown out of office by an angry mob, or 2. Doing either and pretending you're not.
The problems with politics in this country are mainly due to the voters themselves. It'd be really nice if there were just a small group of politicians and shadowy figures messing things up, we could pretty easily revolt and lock them up. But that's not the case, it's much worse, it's most voters that are the problem, and educating them is far harder a revolution.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that they won't vote for the reasonable person because they know their vote won't count, so they vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils Basically everybody hates republicans and democrats and would rather see a literal pile of manure take their place, but they vote for one to keep out the other, and this mass of people voting against the two parties is why the two parties are the only game in town.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.
Uh, yes. You may feel like your voice personally is not being heard, because it's not. You are one of millions. You are an insignificant, meaningless nit. And your friends around you, who all agree, are a small, insignificant segment as well. Government does not represent you personally, but when the general electorate strongly wants something, it will respond. Problem is the general electorate doesn't care about the things you care about.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
There are 535 member of Congress. There over 10,000 registered lobbyists [opensecrets.org] and the real working number exceeds that by between 3x and 4x. That means that there are nearly a 100 lobbyists for every single person in Congress. Considering these people go after the largest number of representatives possible, that means every person in Congress is beset by a virtual HOARD of lobbyist, hundreds even thousands of people representing mostly corporate interests (though everyone from AARP to the Sierra Club has folks wandering the halls of the Capitol.)
Now consider that huge PACs can openly influence political campaigns and billions of dollars will be thrown at candidates for this fall's elections thanks to the Supreme Court's decision, and what part of what I say to you sounds like nutty conspiracy. Have you not been watching your government at work over the last 12 years? Have you been avoiding the news? Are you not clear about what's at stake and the erosion of your Constitutional rights? This is no conspiracy, these thieves are working in broad daylight, and self absorbed, apathetic, weenies are too involved in their GameBoys and iPads to bother with the fact that our collective Freedom is going down the toilet.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
I thought you Americans didn't pay taxes. At least, what you pay is nothing compared to what we in Europe pay. But we have healthcare and social security, words you don't even know the meaning of. You should try it sometime: pay taxes and get benefits from that.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
Before the rise of socialized medicine (and HMOs are just that, under a private label) and before health insurance became more or less mandated (via employer programs etc.) .. I spent a day in hospital for $90. I went to a specialist for $10 (no waiting, I just called and came in). I had a procedure by a specialist for $60 (same day as I consulted him, no waiting). I got a whole bottle of meds for $3. Tell me how that was so much worse than $900/month for health insurance (remember, what doesn't come out of your wallet comes out of your paycheck, one way or another) and an uncertain wait to see a specialist?
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
Lol.. Taxes are not the lowest they have been in 60 years. Certain taxes are, but the fees and other taxes added together are not.
The problem isn't really taxes either. It's expecting too much from elected officials who traditionally have limited power. Most of what people expect from a federal government is more appropriately accomplished at a state level. This is somewhat obvious by the way many federal programs are implemented whereby they mandate states create the programs that comply with federal law and then pass money collected at the federal level to the states to be implemented within those programs. Food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, education, the vast majority of highway funding, all operate this way with only social security and parts of medicare actually having the federal government in control of the entire programs or program parts.
I'm going to ignore your 1% rhetoric as it is meaningless dribble in comparison to reality.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going to ignore your 1% rhetoric as it is meaningless dribble in comparison to reality.
Meaningless in the sense that closing tax loopholes and expiring some of the Bush tax cuts just for that 1% would have equal or greater impact on revenue collected than raising the effective income tax rate of the bottom 49% to 100% of their income.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it completely depends on what you mean by "Taxes are Lowest". Try this on. Taxes for the richest tax bracket are lower now than any time since 1932 save the period from 1988 - 1991 due to Ronald Reagan's parting gift to and George H.W. Bush's continuing gift to the wealthy. Clinton jacked the highest brackets tax rate up by 25%, without raising taxes for the lower brackets and in the process, fixed the economic disaster that Reagan and the first Bush had created, generated a booming economy with a resultant trillion dollar surplus, and prevented us from going to war. Upon leaving, the Clinton folk warned the Bush Administration to keep a close eye on Bin Ladin, he's planning something. The rest as they say, is history.
If you want to go look for yourself here [wikipedia.org], you'll see that the highest tax rate ever involved folks making over 2.4 million adjusted dollars, and occurred in 1944, that tax rate was 94%. If you recall, that was also during the biggest boom in the American economy in its history. During Reagan's last year it dropped to 28%, and rose over Daddy Bush's term to 31%. The rate jumped to 39.6% during the Clinton administration, and has been sitting at 35% since the Bush II debacle (though since there are now only 6 brackets, and the top bracket begins at just over $300,000 its impossible to show the the MASSIVE tax cuts to the wealthy institute by George W. Bush impacting primarily people making over $1,000,000 per year.)
So let's recap. Taxes are at a historical all time low with one exception due to Alzheimer's, The Cato Institute really has acknowledged that the "Starve the Beast" strategy has been "Problematic", at least twice. And, with the top 400 people in the nation possessing the same wealth as the bottom 155,000,000, I dunno, I'd say the tax system is broken beyond all means to accurately describe it. High taxes never hurt the country. That's a lie, a myth, its a pretense foisted on us by greedy people designed to trick us into giving them all our money. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Please people, bother to check the numbers, stop listening to talking heads spout crap. Don't even listen to me... go see for yourself. Its a pile of crap, and we've been sorely misinformed by a media owned by the very people who benefit from the lies. Wake up
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, don't call me an idiot, all I did was refer to simple tax information available right there on Wikipedia. I said at the very start that I was only speaking about a specific representation of information... it turns out the one I could most easily find. There are a million ways to turn this and anybody can cherry pick facts to justify anything including the sky is falling. I think there is wisdom in all the political positions, The key is looking for what is applicable in today's reality, and keep checking because the world is dynamic and the answers change frequently. As a politician, Clinton was sharp, that doesn't mean I'm a Democratic knee-jerk, I'm not the least bit happy with our current president, and if the Republicans could proffer a candidate that was neither retarded nor deranged I'd honestly consider him (I actually gave Newt a look... warts and all.)
You can't have it both ways, either Clinton cut taxes or his magical surplus was the result of raising taxes... which is it? In fact it was none of the above. The surplus was the result of enhanced revenue from the single largest economic boon in American History [wikipedia.org]... not my words, read for yourself.
Perhaps you don't remember, but I do very well, the moment George took office, he systematically undid everything that Clinton had built and began switching the nations economy over to promote those that put him in office, you do recall George arriving in cities across American on an Enron jet don't you? In fact, in California, we had to endure 6 months of rolling black outs ( artificially caused by the collusion of a Texas energy provider who used the opportunity to rob California of $15,000,000,000, and then received protection from an Attorney General appointed by, you guessed it, W) ultimately jump starting the Dot Com crash. The surplus vanished because George succeeded in crashing the economy in the first 6 months of his Presidency. He punctuated crashing the economy by spending nearly 2 months that summer clearing brush on his home ranch, the longest Presidential vacation in history. George and friends completely ignored the warning from the Clinton staff regarding Bin Laden as Dick Cheney instead looked for a way to revive a 1980s satellite missile defense project so he could pump money into his company Halliburton. So for an encore after ignoring Bin Laden completely for 9 months, we arrive at 9/11... Boom! Do you recall what happened to the stock market immediately after? The surplus was very real and all it took was an imbecile to put a trillion dollar crater in the country and the economy in 2001.
Look friend, we probably agree on a lot more than might think. I just personally believe that you should look for facts, then look for frameworks that fit the facts. Not the other way around. Even at that, I'm completely open to changing my mind if a consistent body of information arises that stands on its own, whether it fits my picture or not, that's the definition of intellectual integrity. I never claimed omniscience, but I do bother to make certain that there is ample information to back my position... debate training still kicks in even all these years later. Here's another piece if interesting information. The gross receipt of taxes have changed dramatically over the last 60 years. In 1950 tax from corporation represented 30% of the total taxes that were collected in the United States. Today taxes from corporation represent less than 5% of the total taxes collected. To take their place, Payroll Tax has gone from 10% in 1950 to over 40% of the total taxes collected today. So when corporations complain about the ridiculous tax burden they suffer today, you now have a bit of useful information to refute that [wikipedia.org]. You still haven't refuted the comment that the strongest periods of American economic development coincided with periods of highest taxation.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxing the other party (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, each party is happy to raise taxes on the other party, they just don't call it raising taxes.
Democrats are happy to raise taxes on rich people who are unlikely to vote democrat. The individual mandate is an example, as well as the fight over raising taxes during the budget struggles last year.
Republicans are happy to raise taxes on poor people. This is what ending welfare and reducing EITC do. They call it ending subsidies or socialism or welfare instead of raising taxes, but they're happy to do it.
Re:Taxing the other party (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is when I raise the taxes on the wealthy, they can't afford their twelfth McMansion. When I cut subsidies to the poor, babies die and children go to bed hungry at night. I don't know, I say let those pay who can by all means best afford it. To tax the impoverished is ghoulish.
Re:Taxing the other party (Score:5, Informative)
US has lower individual tax rates, and higher corporate tax rates.
That is gross misinformation, even if technically true.
US may have high corporate tax rates on the books, but the effective tax rate is about 13.4% [thinkprogress.org] which is much closer to the bottom on the world scale.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Tax rates are misleading since what is considered income varies between the countries (I know what I'm talking about, as an American in the EU, I regularly file both kinds of taxes).
For example, health insurance in Germany is mandatory and 1/2 of the costs are deducted from your salary (employer pays the other half). Since it is mandatory, it would be counted as a tax in the table you link to. In the US, your health insurance is often (not always, I know) a fringe benefit, meaning it is hidden income. Your
Re:Taxing the other party (Score:5, Informative)
Healthcare in USA is 18% of GDP, the next highest developed country is France, with 12%.
Re:Taxing the other party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Taxing the other party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Until people realize that this country is run by a single pa
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
BTW did you see the infomercial for the xhose? I need that thing.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
The failure here is humanity's, not the system. Elections are actually a pretty good way to keep things from getting bloody every generation or two.
Here's an illustrative example. In 2000, I was pretty broke and living with four roommates. We had a circle of about 15-20 friends who'd regularly hang out -- come over, watch SouthPark or something. I was really concerned about the upcoming Gore -v- Bush presidential election. Without being a nagging pain about it, I tried to keep the upcoming election on their radar. I reminded them of the voter registration deadlines. I located our polling station --a five minute, seven-block walk from our house. Night before election day I reminded people to vote. Election day came, about 10 people were sitting around watching Southpark, and I reminded them again -- still plenty of time to get to the polls, it was close and there was no wait. Of course they didn't end up bothering to go vote. Had the country had a mere thousandth of a percent less apatheteic --had one of those friends in 10 across the country bothered to take a few minutes to vote-- we would not have had 8 years of W. We certainly wouldn't have a war in Iraq, and... well wishful thinking about what could have been is useless. Just happened again with the failed recall of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.
Point is, don't blame the system; blame the lazy fucking public. Most people do not vote. It's a minor thing that could literally change the world, but hey no can do -- Game of Thrones is on and/or I have to head out to da club/mall/I'm too busy on reddit. They'll be sure to bitch about how bad the system is though, ignorance and apathy notwithstanding.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
The failure here is humanity's, not the system. Elections are actually a pretty good way to keep things from getting bloody every generation or two.
Exactly. This point needs to be emphasized over and over. Democracy doesn't guarantee you a good government, it gives you the government you deserve. Not you personally, but the collective you, with the people around you.
And when the time comes that the majority decides they want a better government, they can do it without a bloody revolution. Need it be said that voting is much more convenient than killing?
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Read about the Stanford Prison Experiment. The take away lesson should NOT be that the people chosen to participate were morally inferior (an aspersion you seem willing to cast at all humanity), but that poorly designed systems will turn good people into evil people based on the role they are assigned.
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not what the Stanford Prison Experiment taught us. It is not what history has taught us either, because so far humans have managed to take every iteration of every single system designed by other humans however well-intended, and turn it into something that fosters corruption, abuse, injustice, violence, self-interest, and brutality.
Every. God. Damn. Time. We're humans, this is part of who we are. Think it through: if most anyone can turn into a brutal prison guard in under 24 hours if you just tell them a certain story, that would indicate a problem in most anyone, not in said certain story. How can you conclude otherwise?
I'm asking you sincerely: if you can describe a better system --one that will actually work better-- please, please do share. This one is far from perfect, and yes it's responsible for a whole lot of death and destruction, but at this point in out limited evolution this system seems like the best option. Compared to past ones, it remains the best one so far. Honestly, if you have a better solution please do tell me. I have no drive to stick to a system for its own sake or because I am comfortably familiar with it and frightened to change: I've looked around, and every other one I've seen has considerably worse failures --measured in blood and bodies-- than this one.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing two important factors here: fear and anger.
Fear is a favorite tool of politicians, because once it's ignited it makes people irrational. Emotions are "refractory" (they resist going away), and fear is the most refractory of all emotions. Once somebody is afraid, you can't talk them down with reason. The other favorite tool is anger, which works very nicely with fear. Once somebody is afraid of someone, it's easy to turn the object of that fear into a hated scapegoat.
This is why people vote in politicians who do nothing for them, or worse, work against their interests. People who let themselves be scared and riled up with hatred are brain-dead in the voting booth.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
democracy in the US is a failure. the feedback loop between government action and election of representatives is so tenuous as to not be perceptible.
You seem to be implying that a majority of the voters object to stop-and-frisk. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Personally, I find the practice to be appalling, and I am surprised that the courts consider it to be constitutional. But in casual conversations with my fellow citizens, my perception is that a clear majority support it, or at least tolerate it. So I don't see how this is a "failure of democracy".
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Not mindless at all. The government works at the direction of the entities that have bought it.
If you look at all of government behavior, you see a set of rules and strategies that are designed to provide the greatest benefit to a very few. Even things like social welfare programs are designed to benefit the very few who finance the elections of all legislators and officials. For example, the greatest beneficiaries of the food stamp p
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Great. Now dude, fucking leave if you don't like it here!
You come across like a douche, but technically that was the approach used by Europeans to escape tyranny at home. Unfortunately, I don't think there is anymore free land we can trade glass beads and firewater for. So, now we are forced to deal with people like you.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think there is anymore free land we can trade glass beads and firewater for
Yes... sometimes White Man gave us beads and firewater for land. Not all the time. Sometimes it was blankets that made us sick, and other times, well... we wished for some beads and firewater instead.
That was many moons ago though. We have protected land and casinos now. That look on White Man's faces when we take all his money and he leaves casino can't be bought with beads and firewater. No Sir. That's priceless.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in Chicago and recently we surpassed 250 murders; an increase of 38% from last year. In fact, there are more murders in Chicago then LA and NY. There needs to be armed troops patrolling the streets in S. Chicago to ensure the safety of the AVERAGE American of any ethnicity.
No, the Fascists in Chicago should allow citizens to legally own and carry a firearm for self-defense as is their Constitutional right. Obviously, by the very stats you cite, the only people that anti-gun laws are preventing from carrying a gun in Chicago are the law abiding citizens that are currently forced by the government to be defenseless sheep for the slaughter for any armed Chicago thug.
Strat
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend of mine told me years ago, that when he was living in Florida when the concealed carry law went into affect, there was a sudden decrease in the quantity of violent crime incidents. He then noted that tourists started getting mugged and killed fairly regularly after that. Now, rental car companies don't put their stickers on the bumpers anymore, and I've heard of people getting sideswiped off the roads by gang bangers before they're even off the airport property.
Why? Tourists can't carry guns on planes, and ground travel with a loaded gun gets dicey pretty quickly. Cops don't like people to be able to defend themselves. They start to wonder why they need cops then.
There were quite a few reports of official seizure of personal firearms after hurricane Katrina, leaving many people without means of protecting themselves or their property. I know that got a couple people killed or robbed.
A person can only count on their own ability to provide themselves any safety or security. Having other people work towards that goal also is helpful, but relying on others for basic security needs is just making you their bitch. Your choices are to basically stand on your own feet, or get down on your knees. These are lessons every biker, outlaw, and combat soldier know. Police know it too. The "nice" people are usually kept in ignorance by whomever their guard dogs are, so that they willingly give it up when its time to be sheared.
I relinquish the floor to the trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
the only people that anti-gun laws are preventing from carrying a gun in Chicago are the law abiding citizens that are currently forced by the government to be defenseless sheep for the slaughter for any armed Chicago thug
I've no idea about the situation in Chicago, but I wonder how many of those murders are actually law abiding defenseless sheep being slaughtered and how many are not-so-law-abiding citizens killing each other.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
As a state employee (I'm not a cop) its amazing what we let corporate employees get away with too.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
So I can choose not to provide any funds to the state if I don't like their actions like I can with a corporation?
Corporate employees can wreak havoc with my life like the police can?
While your statement is true, it does not reach the level of equivalency.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Walking while black (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Walking while black (Score:5, Insightful)
Well obviously the Harlem residents must be guilty of something, otherwise the police won't stop and frisk them...
Yes they're guilty of being Harlem residents.
"Professional Agitators"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like libel, especially since they are not making any money off it. They should get in contact with the ACLU.
Also, very classy of the NYPD to do a public smearing of people who show their abuses to the public. They'll happily invade your privacy at random, but don't you dare film them while they abuse people on your dollar!
Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, why would the police care if the police are doing nothing wrong? Are the videos revealing operational secrets that will make these "stop and frisk" actions less useful? Whatever their reason is, I would like to use that reason against them when they are requiring the same of me.
Which brings me to a question: How is "stop and frisk" not a violation of rights? It seems to be CLEARLY a violation of the 4th and perhaps even the 5th.
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Which brings me to a question: How is "stop and frisk" not a violation of rights? It seems to be CLEARLY a violation of the 4th and perhaps even the 5th.
Unfortunately, the US Supreme court disagrees. It's called a Terry stop:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop [wikipedia.org]
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair enough. From the link you provided, "The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity".
To me, it sounds like there is no REASONABLE suspicion of criminal activity though. It sounds like they are grabbing random people who are not dressed like a businessman or who do not have the proper skin color... Which disqualifies them as true Terry stops. :/
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:4, Informative)
> To me, it sounds like there is no REASONABLE
> suspicion of criminal activity
A "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that the suspect is armed.
These stop-and-frisks are not Terry stops.
There is no basis for them under the law.
There are some law enforcement personnel who are allowed to do stops like this in the post-9/11 era... The Customs and Border Protection arm of the DHS.
Re: (Score:3)
I do not think the policy came about to pick on black people. To give the benefit of the doubt, I would say that some people are very scared and choose to harass anyone who looks scary. Due to history, a lot of it probably centers around black people but I would bet puerto ricans, mexicans, iranians, etc are all being targeted too. As a matter of fact, if I were to say it were profiling, it would be profiling YOUNG people. People under 30.
I am sure there are some police officers in New York who are prejudic
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Informative)
This is in no way a Terry stop, which requires reasonable suspicion, these are pseudo-random (read: Profiled) searches. Random stops are not allowed under the constitution. I do not care if they worked so well they effectively eradicated all violent crime they are illegal, immoral and utterly contrary to liberty. One of the great things about this constitution is that without amendment it does not allow us to surrender our liberty even if a majority wanted to. This is by far it's most important function.
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Informative)
> Seriously, why would the police care if the police are
> doing nothing wrong?
Guilty conscience.
> Which brings me to a question: How is "stop and
> frisk" not a violation of rights? It seems to be
> CLEARLY a violation of the 4th and perhaps even
> the 5th.
I don't get it, either. It's so obvious a violation of due process and flagrant bigotry that it should never have been proposed. Yet, they're doing it; they've been doing it since at least 2004; they're amassing a database containing information on those people who have been subject to stop-and-frisk; they're using the database for racial profiling and harassment (some people have been stalked by the police, stopped and frisked dozens of times); and nobody is stopping them.
The NY ACLU is only suing them over the database. Not the practice.
The law spells out very specific circumstances for a stop and pat-down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop [wikipedia.org]
The police are ignoring the law.
This is the sort of thing that East coasters ridicule Arizona for, but it's going on right here.
A true WTF.
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
As my reply to an Anonymous Coward points out: They are breeding terrorists with these actions. I do not live in NYC and *I* feel violated. I can only imagine how the people being subjected to this shit feel.
Violating a person's "right" to not be molested for no reason by "authorities" WILL create a violent response. I guess random bombings and murders are better than random thefts and murders. One is terrorism, the other is crime. Not much of a difference from my point of view except that one has at least some sort of justification. :(
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Informative)
You don't live in NYC, but don't feel left out! Copy-cat policies are on their way to a city near you!
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SF-mayor-considering-police-stop-and-frisk-policy-3669799.php [sfgate.com]
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
The police care because recording them violates their deeply held opinion that they have the right to do whatever they want without any threat of punishment. That attitude permeates government from the top all the way down, and unfortunately has the predictable effect of corrupting nearly every person who gets the slightest bit of state-backed power.
Now that budgets are being slashed, the fascist tendency towards punishment and extortion through fines for small offenses has only become more engrained in our culture. How are they going to pay for their tanks and UAVs without making every deviation from total conformity illegal and expensive?
Re: (Score:3)
When that happens, they'll have no choice but to tolerate it.
Course, it could suck in general for everyone, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cops who posted this need to be identified and fired, IMMEDIATELY.
And if there are any of you in the US who still think the majority of the cops are on the side of the good guys, you should think again. If this doesn't clearly show who's side they are on (their own and their political owners), then nothing does.
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see why the police should have any additional rights above that of a citizen. They should be subject to the same laws. They should be allowed to detain someone but in order to search need a warrant. The person being detained should be allowed to sue for kidnapping if the officer can't prove there was a reason for the stop in front of a jury.
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
A blow on the head from a night-stick will soon fix that!
Re: (Score:3)
Look Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am NOT looking for causes to fight for/against. I honestly do not believe that this stop and frisk bullshit is racially motivated anyways.
When I see something wrong, I call it out as being wrong. This "policy" of stop and frisk is wrong regardless of whether or not blacks are mostly being targeted (got any data to back up that blacks are being targeted, rather than just poor people or people who are dressed wrong?). If I were to witness such an event, I would make a citizens arr
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously suggestion the NYPD will search down Slashdot posters for their controversial "this sucks US is Nazi George Bush=Hitler" posts? Or alternately, that any sane person would be afraid of this? It's time to take off you tinfoil hat my good sir.
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you for being sensible. I agree that many innocuous things can be, and are, blown way out of proportion or misrepresented.
I still disagree with needing to be more on their guard merely because of video recording being present. They should always act professional and the police that I have interacted with in the past, even when they clearly did not have my best interests at heart, always (except once) acted professionally. Thankfully, I do not live in NYC. Just wow.
The KGB will be with you .... always (Score:3)
Except now they're called "NYPD." This is how my grandfather ended up in a Siberian gulag.
More proof.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That police are simply thugs. If they are doing no wrong, then they should welcome public oversight like this.
Any cop that is against being recorded is a dirty cop that needs to be removed and put in jail.
If I ran the country (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were up to me, police would *always* be recorded while on-duty. Cameras, or at least microphones, in the car and on the person, both recording to a tamper-resistant medium and broadcasting online (with a time delay).
Why? Because the police are supposed to work for the government, and the government is supposed to work for the people. The people have a *right* to know what they are doing, to ensure that they are actually working properly.
And if the police are doing their jobs properly, it will actually help them. They'll have video evidence of any crime they witness. That would be more than a little helpful.
Of course, if it were up to me, we'd have nuked North Korea flat decades ago, so maybe it's good that I'm not actually running the country. But I still think my "record the police" idea is a good one.
Re:If I ran the country (Score:5, Insightful)
They already do have cameras and microphones that record all the time in many police cars, and many are reportedly tamper-resistant, at least to the officer using it. Yet the videos still seem to suffer from "technical difficulties" anytime they would show police doing something wrong.
These people are the worst kind of troublemakers. (Score:3)
They are guilty of VVS in the worst way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA [youtube.com]
What's good for the goose... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who will watch the watchers? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, there is a separate division of the police department called "Internal Affairs," whose job is to monitor police actions. The IA is small, subject to bias, and monitors few events. The public is large, independent (subject to innumerable biases), and monitors many events. Police are already recording events and making selected recordings available. How those recordings are selected is an issue with substantial insider bias. Unless the right is taken away by law, the public already has a legal and even moral right to record those same events.
Nobody wants to be watched, the chilling effect is well known. When the police make the recordings, their superior or IA is in charge of releasing the video. When the public is making the recording, the availability is more independent. Usually, the "nothing to hide" privacy argument falls apart easily; when monitoring police action, as demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment, independently watching the watchers is a necessary hardship. Thus citizen review boards and citizen videos. There are, of course, endless special cases; so like most everything in society, laws and policies can at best be general guidelines requiring community oversight.
With cheap recorders comes the ability to watch the watchers with fewer "he said, she said" problems. Fewer but not none, as with the selective editing of the Rodney King video. The above applies to police actions, not to the general public going about their daily activities (the recording of which is a different topic).
Bloomberg's NY is the future (Score:3, Interesting)
Let it continue to slide and Bloombergian New York will be the future American Police State.
Stop n Frisk
Police intimidation
Soda Bans
Smoking Bans
TransFat Bans
What is the old cliche... if you are not free to make a bad decision, you are not free at all. We need to stop looking to our elected leaders for solutions and start pushing them to set only minimum standards and allow us to find solutions for ourselves. Otherwise we will be laying down and inviting the boot to step on us
Officer's Perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
As a police officer in Los Angeles, I'm bothered by all the anti-police sentiment and posts portraying cops as fascist brutes just waiting to violate people's rights.
Are there bad/corrupt cops? Yes. However, I can say the vast vast majority are out there trying to do a good job and follow the law. There is no ulterior motive where we go around looking to piss off people or violate their rights. As far as people videotaping us, it happens ALL the time (at least in LA) and I've never worked with anyone who did anything about it or even cared that much. Sometimes it's annoying as the people videotaping assume we're assholes looking to beat people but we don't worry about it because we know our law and policy and do what we're supposed to do.
Most police vehicles have cameras with microphones attached to each officer. We don't mind as it overwhelmingly helps us against bogus complaints or allegations. It gives us documented evidence that we didn't have before.
And yes, I believe in privacy and our 4th amendment rights. I don't want police powers expanded at the expense of an individual's privacy and I do not believe that people have nothing to hide if they're innocent. Many cops feel this way, we're normal, thinking, people too. I went to college and majored in computer science, grew up reading slashdot etc etc. I'm a lot like everyone else here except when I go to work I wear a uniform with a badge and gun. Do I use force when necessary? Yes, but I'm not interested in hurting someone and I'll do everything i can to avoid a use of force, as a lot of us would.
I can't comment on the NYPD's practice of conducting their stops, I'm not familiar with it. In LA of course we do Terry stops routinely and again, we don't do it to unnecessarily harass people. We have to have reasonable suspicion...this usually takes the form of seeing someone in dark clothing, with a backpack (commonly carried by burglars), walking around a residential neighborhood (which has a burglary or car burglary problem) at 3am, who crouches behind a car as I pass by. Will I stop him , identify him, and see what's going on? Yes. I don't think that's so ridiculous and if I lived in that neighborhood I would expect the cops to do their job and talk to that individual.
Anyway, I just wanted to give a different perspective.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you tell, from just watching an office make an arrest, whether he/she is one that is one of the few bad apples? But I know they are there because I've had the opportunity to deal with a couple of them on a longer term basis that clearly to me were among the bad apples. But they didn't do that all the time.
I suspect you can't figure out on first meeting, either. Don't expect the public can. So many in the public will have latent suspicion all the time. "Is he, or isn't he".
The dark clothing should n
Re:Officer's Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the problem stems from the 'good majority' silently abetting the bad few. If police were more willing to, dare I say, police their own, rather than holding the thin blue line, I think a lot of the animosity would go away.
Also, there's a fair amount of basic human psychology at play. 'Us and Them' always becomes 'Us Versus Them.' See the Stanford Prision Experiment. Abu Girab for a more recent example.
Re: (Score:3)
As a police officer in Los Angeles, you're either a fascist brute or covering for any number of them. Because when a cop does something wrong in front of any number of other cops, none of those cops sees anything. So either a department is 100% squeaky clean (demonstrably false, as cops get caught on occasion), or every cop is at least coveri
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason they would consider legal options would be because it would bring awareness to their (admittedly excellent) campaign.
If they want to record the cops doing what they believe is wrong, I honestly don't see why the police cannot publicly post a warning to other officers in what seems to be a mostly harmless joking way.
Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.
Pretty sure posting their home address on the flyer can have some legal implications.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Informative)
The cops definitely get upset if you post THEIR pics and home addresses.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pics are on thing, home addresses are another, and you are at least bordering on asshole territory by implying that the two can be treated as equivalent.
Nobody implied that they were equivalent, you inferred that all on your own. The statement as it is written is a bit vague, though; it would better say "or". The statement as written is completely true, and further, it's what the cops have done; post pics and home address, which amounts to where to go and who to harass. Further, the flyer implies that they are criminals and makes unsupported statements about them and thus definitely amounts to deliberate libel, not that this is surprising.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the post?
"The flyer featuring side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez and the couple's home address was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room..."
So the cops publicly posted the photos and HOME ADDRESS of these people.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.
Maybe because police are public servants and private citizens are not.
IMHO public servants should be publically scrutinized.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed.
You can not have authority without accountability.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to record the cops doing what they believe is wrong, I honestly don't see why the police cannot publicly post a warning to other officers
Unfortunately, for your simplistic, naive 'fair and balanced' BS, the relationship between police and non-police isn't symmetrical - the police have governmental backed power and effectively unlimited financial resources (taxpayer dollars).
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I look at it, the police have video cameras in cars and you routinely see traffic stop and arrest footage from these cameras on tv shows such as Cops. Turnabout is fair play.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF, no! It is not a "two way street". Police officers are equipped with privileges that allow them to use force and detain people. That's why public scrutiny of their actions is not just acceptable but necessary. This does not apply to other people, who do not have these privileges. Putting them on a "wanted poster" implies wrongdoing, so this is particularly unacceptable.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:4, Informative)
For one, the right to perform an actual arrest.
Just an FYI, a "citizen's arrest" is limited to essentially yelling "hey, stop!". No use of force, not even grabbing by the arm. No handcuffs, no restraints, nothing. So no, it is not at all the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Citizen's arrest provides pretty much none of legal protections afforded to police officers when they arrest people. You can be liable for both criminal and civil charges if you abuse the limited power granted by the state in performing a citizen's arrest.
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Informative)
- Various degrees of immunity for their actions under the law
- Practically unlimited legal representation at no cost to themselves
- Other police officers who will close ranks to protect one of "their brothers" when they do something questionable
- Powerful unions that can exert substantial political pressure
- Legislation that makes it a crime to post *their* addresses
I can keep going - is this enough to start?
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Informative)
Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.
False.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy [wikipedia.org]
police are subject to stricter rules (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a big difference between what people do in their capacity as private citizens and as government employees. Police are acting as government employees; that gives them both specific powers, and it imposes additional responsibilities on them.
For example, I have a constitutional right to discriminate against you based on your race or religion in my private life; police violate the law if they do the same in their work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:4, Interesting)
It could have been anyone to post the flyer, including the couple themselves.
That's it! The couple posted their pictures and home address for all to see, just to get some cops in trouble!
Seriously, am I the only one on Slashdot who think that conspiracy theorists like this guy are completely fucked up?
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:4, Informative)
mugshots.com
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So they made flyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, it's the kind of joke a sociopath might enjoy. And why is it that any jurisdiction would want such individuals in their police force, or even being allowed to carry a gun?
Re: (Score:3)
In the real world, the difference between Fascism and Communism is about as significant as the difference between Coke and Pepsi.
Re: (Score:3)
As is coke and pepsi even today.
Re:What's Their Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
The cynic in me wonders if this couple is just trolling for an arrest for a big payout in a civil rights lawsuit.
As long as that is a valid tactic, that's a valid action. If you are so likely to get arrested for doing something that is not illegal that you stand a good chance of being able to do it, and it is so illegal that you stand a good chance of getting paid, then actually doing it is an act highly useful to society.
Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me, but it was the police who published the home address of the photographers. So, yeah, ummm.. yeah.
Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, no call for putting the cops in jail for posting this couple's home address? No complaints about the harassment they could get or potential innocent family members that might reside there? Just a "I stand corrected"?
Are you a retired/active LEO?