Citizen Photographers v. The Police? 407
"Police told Hairston that they did take Cruz into to custody, but they said Cruz was not on his property when they arrested him."
OK. I'm more inclined to believe the cops... wait a second...
"A neighbor said she witnessed the incident and could not believe what she saw."
"He opened up the gate and Neffy was coming down and he went up to Neffy, pulled him down...
Oh, you dumb, dumb cops. Of course Neftaly Cruz was "not on his property" during the arrest if you went onto his property and dragged him off! Why would you do that in front of witnesses?
To tomstdenis's argument that, even if the police really did violate people's rights, they should be treated leniently because "[P]olice are people and do bad things," reader alienmole points out a crucial difference:
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.
Reader BINC wants to know whether Pennsylvania actually has a law which would illegalize Neftaly Cruz's cellphone photo of police in the act of arresting a suspect. He writes
Many readers linked to online information and commentary on the recognized rights of photographers (at least in the U.S.). Reader pen was one of several to point to Bert Krages' site:This seems to be part of a national push. In Montana it extends beyond photography. I have recently been threatened with being charged with "Obstructing" for not yielding to a warrantless search of my property, so I looked it up. See data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.htm especially paragraph (2). !!
General defense in Montana is insisting on trial by jury — provided one represents himself; otherwise it invites rapid bankruptcy — but trial by jury is not guaranteed by all states' consitutions for all crimes.
Reader hacker linked to an informative PDF and offers a useful summary:Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.
Except in special circumstances (e.g., certain government facilities), there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.
Trespassing laws naturally apply. If a property owner demands you leave, you must. But if a place is open to the public — a mall, office-building lobby, etc. — permission to enter is assumed (although it can be revoked).
In terms of the law, trespass and photography are separate events; the former is illegal, but the latter is not. Only if the use of photographic equipment itself violates a person's privacy (e.g., by using a long lens to look into someone's private room) might it violate privacy law. Further, while people have a right of privacy, businesses do not except as it relates to trade secrets.
Subject to specific limits, photographers can publish any photos they take, provided those photos do not violate the privacy of the subject. This includes photos taken while trespassing or otherwise being someplace they shouldn't be. Taking photos and publishing photos are two separate issues.
Please read the full PDF here with much more detail. I print copies of this on 4x5 index cards and keep them with me at all times when I'm taking photos in any public place.
Also, if someone demands your "film" or your camera, let them know that it is not legal for them to take it, unless you have been arrested of a crime involving that camera and that film. The crime for someone to demand and take your camera or film, is called theft, and threatening to do so (or to "break your camera"), is called coercion. Don't tolerate either of them, and if your equipment IS taken or broken, call the police and file charges.
PsychosisC contributed a link to a short video called " BUSTED - The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police Encounters," writing "I've only had two encounters with police officers... but both of them sort of leave me thinking less of them."
Rights on paper aside, many readers posted horror stories of arrest-happy police; leereyno pointed to one that made the news in the Mid-Atlantic region, writing
According to reader rs79, this sort of thing on wouldn't happen north of the border; rs79 writes "I've photographed cops here in Canada arresting people a couple of times. They don't care." To this, RajivSLK says[T]here does seem to be an increase in cases of police officers getting confused and thinking they work for the Gestapo. There was a case a month back or so where the daughter of a police officer was arrested for "trespassing." She and a friend were lost and had stopped to ask a police officer for directions. The officer refused to help them, stating that they would have to find their own way out. A few moments later they spotted another officer and drove over to where he was to ask for help, at which point the first officer rushed over and berated them for daring to ask her partner for help when she had already told them to get lost. ... A few minutes later these same officers arrested them for "trespassing" ..... on a public street. The girl and her friend spent the night in jail. They weren't charged of course because they hadn't committed any crime.
I don't know how this case turned out for the officers involved, but it shows a serious lack of oversight when two cops are able to run wild and abuse the public in that manner.
[...]
In most parts of the world, being a police officer is met with about the same level of respect as a personal injury lawyer would be here, if not less. The police are held in contempt because in most parts of the world, particularly the 3rd world, corruption and abuse are almost part of the job. Police officers in the U.S. are, at least among healthy segments of society, viewed with respect if not admiration. But this esteem is fragile because at the end of the day the police are armed agents of the state and that makes them difficult to love. So when officers abuse and betray the trust of the public and make false arrests, all it does is make life that much more difficult for them and and their fellow officers. Things like these are noticed, and remembered.
It's not so rosy up here in Canada. This past Canada Day the Victoria police instituted a policy of mandatory 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 sobriety test, nothing. 100% solely 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 arrest anyone at anytime under the charge of "Drunk and Disorderly" with no evidence and no sobriety test.
I can't wait for the day when *I* can video tape everything. That should provide a little balance to things.
ZorbaTHut suggests the sort of technological answer that RajivSLK's looking for, which might remind Neal Stephenson fans of the "gargoyles" in Snowcrash.
I've been waiting for a mini-stealth-camera-and-recorder to appear. I want a little device, the size of a cellphone camera, that fits in a button or a necklace or a belt buckle or something equally inconspicuous. It should be connected to a waist controller, which would include battery pack, storage (hard drive or flash), and wifi. Wifi so that, whenever it can find an available internet connection, it can upload its contents to a secure server located elsewhere.
Just imagine that. "Sorry sir, you took a picture of something you weren't supposed to. I'm going to have to confiscate your camera." "The pictures are already in Texas, and in ten minutes they'll be posted online. Same as the recording of what you're saying right now. You really want to illegally take my possessions, Officer Frank, Number 3894?"
Many thanks to the readers (especially those quoted above) whose comments informed this discussion.
The bottom line is this (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.
It's an action of a local municipal police department, period. These inappropriate actions have been executed by people in positions of authority since the beginning of time. The point is we heard about it, it got covered, and hopefully it will be corrected. And hopefully the police department will issue a directive to think twice before they harass and/or arrest other citizens who aren't doing anything wrong from exercising their own rights.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy shit! I think we just found the world's only omniscient individual.
First of all, the future depicted in 1984 is fast approaching, or did you miss the fact that there's a lawsuit proceeding (besides the one just thrown out) against AT&T for allowing the feds to tap their communications? Sure, it's twenty years late, but he was remarkably aware of the date.
is because of the environment fostered by the PATRIOT act. In particular, law enforcement all over the country is utilizing the U SAP AT RIOT act to bypass process and protection. Did you really think that attitude wouldn't become essentially endemic of the freedom-less atmosphere engendered by that piece of trash legislation?
The corellary to "actions have consequences" is that they also have causes. This didn't just come out of nowhere. Everything that you can see is the result of pressure in other forces. Period. This works at all levels, in all systems; they're not all genetic, but ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. When you see light, that's the result of photons; those photons were in turn released when an electron's energy state was reduced; that in turn occurred because it was first increased. "Pressure" - or more to the point energy - makes things happen.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
But, to answer your questions honestly:
No, I don't "see" 1984 coming. All I see is a government availing itself of everything possible technologically to do what it believes is the right thing, with technology enabling the kind of massive, omnibus monitoring. Can this be abused? Of that I have no doubt. Do I simultaneously believe that, *at present*, it was done with the sole goal of attempting to
Trust the government. (Score:5, Interesting)
This may be all you see. I've noticed a lot of people are willing to turn a blind eye on this (and the last) administration.
If the government is only trying to protect us, why are they so quick to step outside the bounds of legality to accomplish its goals? Why have they often resorted to lies and misdirection to accomplish their goals? Why have they so readily blocked investigations that might clear up their honor?
My Dad used to tell me, "If they act untrustworthy, they probably are untrustworthy." Respect and trust are to be earned, not demanded, nor due. This current administration has destroyed the little bit of trust and respect I had after the *last* administration.
The government that demands transparency from its citizens, but is in turn completely opaque, is hiding something dishonorable. *That* is why some of us make a big deal about seemingly insignificant details. After all, most of us realize it takes a lot of pixels to make a picture.
Personally, I'm glad we're making a big deal about this. Part of it is education. There are too many people who think police have the right to infringe on *your* right with no just cause. Too many people are unaware that we as citizens *have* many rights.
And finally, it's always nice to see a bully get his come-uppance. I really hope that fucker gets nailed to the wall. I mean, literally. I've got a hammer they could use.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a fairly accurate description of 1984, though perhaps the justification is different.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Informative)
The rub is, that at this point in the development of our society, the minority has no realistic, effective way to counteract the power of the majority, so the
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Funny)
Big hugs,
Big Brother
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Funny)
Well, those with two neurons to rub together already understood what I was trying to say, so it wasn't necessary for me to expand. Those who don't already get it won't really get much out of an explanation of any level of detail, so I won't go into it here.
Actually, the consensus here on slashdot is that my name couldn't be much more ridiculous than drinkypoo.
Police corrupution is the norm, not the deviation (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, or the two dozen or so cops I've known (some in my hometown, some fraternity brothers from college) not a single one of them WASN'T corrupt in at least some way. Hell, some of
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Interesting)
When we can't take pictures of our police and our government, and document either the criminal activities or just as importantly the good things that police do, then it's something to worry about.
Citizens, point your cameras at the government.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course this isn't new. We are at war. We have always been at war. Oil production is up 13% this year...
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but I could have sworn it was with Eastasia.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because is is a cliche doesn't mean that it is an inaccurate or useless comparison.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes it is. As the post you replied to mentioned, you can't go to war against an idea, much less expect to win.
No they aren't. Criminals are real and soldiers are real, but there's no such thing as "terrorists." Everyone you call a "terrorist" is, in reality, either a civilian criminal or a soldier, as defined by the Geneva Convention.
This mentality and the belief in "terrorists" and a "war on terror" go hand-in-hand. They're all the result of cowardice and intolerance.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts." -- J. Michael Straczynski
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:5, Interesting)
The simple fact is the police can arrest you at anytime if they don't like what your doing, under the guise of being drunk/abusive/offensive etc. It's more hassle than its worth to try and make a complaint and even then it's unlikely any action will be taken (your word against theirs) also police are just people and 'people make mistakes'. So what happens is as a citizen do you stand up and have the inconvinience of spending the night in a cell? no, it ends up being far easier to just do as they say...
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:2)
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Informative)
Most likely nothing. And that's as it should be. Why? Because he most likely thought that he was in the right
That doesn't matter -- he was out of line, no matter how justified he believed his actions to be and he needs to be accountable for them. By your logic, very few crimes of passion would be punishable... unless you believe there's a different standard for members of law enforcement. In point of fact, I believe there is a different standard, but it is and must be a more strict standard than that applied to the general public. If we cannot expect those who enforce the law to avoid even the mere appearance of impropriety, how dare we expect the general public to abide by, much less the law those individuals enforce?
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't matter -- he was out of line, no matter how justified he believed his actions to be and he needs to be accountable for them. By your logic, very few crimes of passion would be punishable... unless you believe there's a different standard for members of law enforcement.
Ok. I load our criminal code onto our police department's cars, and they all have easy access to it. Now, I'm sure it's in the general orders manual that they should know/read and be famailiar with everything in the criminal code book. That's an ideal. Usually, they train to a given standard and for all types of crimes write up the report in a form manner. Patrol's charge's usually have to be revised by CID. CID usually determines if a crime actually fits what the state criminal charge is or revises the charges to the closest one that they can charge the suspect with. When I stated he most likely thought he was in the right, I'm saying that the cop most likely actually thought that what the guy was doing happened to be illegal and for CID to find the charge/a charge to make it stick. What most likely happened is CID looked through their Lexis Nexis criminal code and couldn't find any mention of public citizen's taking police officer's photos being against the law.
If the person was using the images to threaten undercover policemen, then it might have been, but just the act of taking photos shouldn't be. The person incharge of CID should have sent a memo/called the person in charge of Patrol and had him make and annoucement at all the shift's roll call that it wasn't illegal and not to do it again. Police aren't perfect. They revise their standards, and what their written policies are all the time.
The problem is that the public usually just sees the lowest level patrol person on the street. That person isn't responsible for changing policy or running things. Usually a Captain writes/changes policy so that's the level that you'd need to complain to. The individual patrol person should be just carrying out their general orders manual with some slack every now and then for the unexpected. Do you really want to know the number one thing that the general public complains to their local pd about? I'll let you in on it. Animal services is the number one section that recieves the most compliants, and citizens will not be happy with whatever the policies are. Take animal's to the animal shelter and the citizen isn't happy if their critter dies when it isn't picked up after 2 weeks. I've heard of an entire shift chasing down a stray animal that there was a complaint over when nothing else more important was going on.
You want to change your police department? Communicate with it. Find out who you need to talk to and phone them up about once a month or so. Make sure all your neighbors also know the individual to contact. You will be listened to, and the police in your neighborhood will change their policies when it is possible and within reason for them to do so.
I don't know if your police department offers this, but mine has these "close watches" and any citizen can request for the police to keep and extra eye on their property if they are going out of town for week or have seen strange people in the neighborhood. Both individuals and business owners request this from the police department. They send out a group e-mail for the close watches.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Interesting)
I appreciate your expanded explanation for your comment, but I still think it's missing the seriousness of what happened -- when someone doesn't do their job right, there's cause for concern. When their job includes actions that directly restrict one's liberties (arrest even if charges are never filed certainly falls into that category), then there's cause for serious concern. Correct me if I'm wrong, but arrests stay on your record, regardless of what happens after that. Moreover, you'll always have to answer that you have been arrested on job applications etc., doing otherwise could bring serious legal consequences but doing so may well exclude you from opportunity. Pulling back, no matter if one genuinely thinks they're doing their job correctly, if they make a serious error in judgement, they need to be held accountable -- and they would in many professions. I see no reason why the case of a police officer is any different.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you 100%.
Just one problem: that policeman isn't accountable to the public.
He's accountable to his boss, who is in turn accountable to his boss, so on and so forth. Eventually, one of those bosses is an elected public official.
That official is one of the only people who matters. If (s)he feels no pressure to fire or discipline the policeman, then... maybe someo
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Informative)
Just a snippet of advice: Stand up for yourself if some officer of the "Law" is harassing you. Do it in a respectful manner and respectfully tell them that they cannot legally arrest you for whatever it is they are trying to arrest you for illegally.
This is lousy advice. Telling a cop you know the law better than they do (whether you do or not) will not earn their respect. It will challenge their ego and most of them have some serious issues with control which is one of the reasons they become cops. Seco
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're running to catch a tube train in London, of course.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:2)
How many of these incidents have to occur before it's not just a single action by a single officer?
How many people have to have their rights trampled before it's necessary to do something about it?
This single instance is indicative of the actions that lead many of us to have a growing concern about the role of law enforcement (from the very top of the federal level all the way down to local yokels) with respect to the rights of the individual.
Good News: It's so bad it's a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Interesting)
Some sort? They should be subjected to dismissal and incarceration.
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about.
What this does represent is that for the first time, middle-class white America is subjected to the same kinds of abuses that poor and/or minority comminunities have been for decades.
That's what's new here. That's what's different.
LK
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if all of that is true, I STILL don't deserve the kind of treatment that I've recieved from coward cops over the years.
Unless you have evidence or reason to believe that I am involved in some kind of illegal activity, don't bother me. That's not unreasonable, but it doesn't happen that way. I have been pulled over for DWB, several times. I have been stopped while walking down the sidewalk for no reason other than the police just wanted to know who I was. I have been threatened by the police, Sgt. CJ Hartman, formerly of the North Versailles PA Police Dept once said to me "I don't care if you've done anything or not, there's a book 'this thick' and I'll find something in it to nail you on."
So, don't demean my intelligence or belittle my experiences by blaming me for the misconduct of others.
But racism doesn't count when it's against white people, right?
Being that white people are the majority of the electorate, official conduct on the part of elected officials (police chiefs, city councilmen, etc) and their subordinates isn't racism when it's directed against white people.
It's abusive, it's corrupt, it's dishonerable but it's not racism.
LK
Hang out on photo.net some time. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is, however, NOT representative of a "police state" or anything like what some in the original article went on about. This is also not 1984, nor is it because of the "environment fostered by the PATRIOT Act" or the Bush administration, or anything similar.
Bullshit. You don't read sites like photo.net, where stories of police harassment and intimidation are the norm, not the exception, and many photographers have stopped trying to photograph anything they think they might get in the slightest trouble over.
Those are just the few examples that immediately come to mind.
Try this search on for size [google.com]. Add on fun keywords like "harassment","arrested", "questioned", etc.
People are rotuinely roughened up, threatened with arrest or being "reported" to the FBI, arrested and detained then released before the charge-or-release 24 hours are up, lied to about their rights, what the law is, or what they are criminally liable for, had film/cards confiscated, their IDs demanded (would it scare you more if I called them "papers"?), and so on. These days just about anything gets you on various watch lists and that means even more fun.
We live in a country where you can be arrested for taking a picture of a bridge on vacation and get harassed trying to board a flight home because you were placed on a "watch" or "no fly" list. Wake up and smell the fucking coffee- we're fast headed the way of fascist and communist countries.
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The bottom line is this (Score:2)
Public place... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Public place... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Public place... (Score:3, Informative)
I would say that a public apology from the Police Department and an official statment saying that what the person did was not illegal would be nice as well. This would help dispel the image that photographing the police is a crime.
I do not like abuse of power by the police we do need
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Public place... (Score:3, Insightful)
we do need to cut people some slack when it comes to things like this.
What kind of slack did the officer give the kid?
FalconRe:Police State - Some people are above the law (Score:2)
A previous poster said the NYC had passed laws making it illegal for the public to photograph the police in action. Is this true to your knowledge?
The State protects itself (Score:2)
This is why you can't rely on the police, the courts, judges, anyone. They all work for the government, they are all agents of the state. Much like how the White House can get cases dismissed, judges are just ano
Re:The State protects itself (Score:2)
Oops.
Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully empathize with people from Kraplickistan living under a dictatorship. If you live in America however, you have no excuses if you chose not to participate.
Say you don't like the good folks at the White House; who's stopping you from writing to your Senator, going door-to-door to get the vote out, starting up a collection for your favorite party. Starting up your own damn party, if you don't like any existing one.
Yes, I understand it is hard work, and it is much easier to sit at home instead of trying to change the system, but at least folks like you should have the courtesy not to stop being a whiney little bitch!
Apathetic jerks like yourself make me sick to my stomach!
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:2)
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I don't mean that I'm convicted of a felony, or an illegal immigrant. I'm a natural-born US citizen with a clean record over the age of 18.
But I still don't have a vote.
Why?
The electoral college. I can vote if I want, but my vote doesn't count. The votes from the Electoral College do count. And you know what? They're under zero obligation to vote the way I voted, or the way I want them to vote -- even if my vote is in the majority. They can vote ho
Wrong, Sir, Wrong! (No better than the other...) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:5, Insightful)
Two simple reasons why our government is no longer (if it ever was) for and by the people:
(1) Secrecy. When you can;t find out what your government is doing, how are you supposed to act against it in a legal manner?
(2) Money. Big money interests (both corporations and individuals) have an undue amount of influence in our political system.
I personally participate in the democratic in many ways, from voting to writing letters to calling my state legislators, to attending functions they'll be at in order to press my point(s). Nevertheless, the actions of the individual (even the actions of hundreds) are far from a panacea to our civic problems.
Government may have used to be the people. Not so any longer, and it's important to recognize that the bureaucratic government holds power that the electorate (us) can't counter. Career politicians, career bureacrats, government agencies whose very existence is secret, monies spent on secret budgets that no one is accountable for...
My tinfoil hat is on... because it's not paranoia if they ARE really monitoring your actions (I've been pulled out of line to be searched waiting to board a plane because my FBI file lists me as an agitator. Had to fly into SEA-TAC during the WTO meeting pre-9/11 for business.)
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments are more often the cause of economic disaster than the salvation of it. The Fed caused the Great Depression by deflating the currency.
The role of government in the marketplace is to prevent violence. Whenever you go beyond that, politicians have something to sell, and sell it they will.
Re:Wrong, Sir, wrong! (Score:2)
That's not how it's done. Start at the local level. Hell, start running for schoolboard. Local elections are local enough that the big players just don't care. Once your 'third party' has local legislatures under control, move up! Plus having local control can also help you do lots of 'neat' things like redistricting.
[P]lease read my post (Score:5, Funny)
If the [P]olice do something wrong, they should be [P]unished just like the rest of us!
Re:[P]lease read my post (Score:2)
If a cop gets a misdemeanor, break his legs. If a cop commits a felony, hang him.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
How about innocent until proven guilty? (Score:3, Informative)
Or did you mean immediately after they've been given a fair trial, had the right to legal counsel, had the right to appeals, etc. and so forth?
I'm not saying this case is one in which there is a lot of doubt, but there are two sides to a lot of stories. Dismissing your police without appropriate compensation (just turfing them out) would (one would think) demand a high level of proof in a court of law to back it up. Just an accusation would hardly be sufficient. At least not if yo
It's everywhere in the US now (Score:4, Interesting)
Add New York to your list (Score:2, Interesting)
Arrested != Convicted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Arrested != Convicted (Score:2)
In fact, this guy's probably going to come out of this better than he came in, not to mention the officer(s) involved are probably ultimately going to be reprimanded.
Re:Arrested != Convicted (Score:2)
I'd suspect that if your prior arrest was assault on a peace office or resisting arrest, then yeah, you're going to get fucked with if you have future dealings with the police. No system's perfect. Sorry.
Arrested is a penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
When a foreigner enters the US they don't ask if you've been convicted of a crime, they ask if you've "ever been arrested".
Also an arrest in many areas means you get fingerprinted and put in the databases. Plus in more and more places you have to give a DNA sample.
Re:Arrested is a penalty (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything in your personal life shuts down for however long it takes to process you. Apart from the "one phone call," there's no way to let everyone who needs to know that you're alive and well instead of just missing. Dependents are a whole other issue in themselves. There could be everything from a pet that doesn't get fed to a grandmother who doesn't get reminded to take her pills to children who don't get picked up from school. The emotional stress your family goes through seeing you dragged off in handcuffs or simply not coming home when you should is really not measurable. And woe be to the single parent in this situation..
Aside from family obligations, there are the business ones. How important are you at your job? Are you the type of employee who can be covered for for a day or two? Will your employers react well to your excuse the next day? Never mind that if you're a sole proprietor of a struggling business, the whole thing could be pretty much destroyed by nobody opening the door for a day.
Basically, no matter how innocent you are, being arrested can screw with your life and any others involved in it on a major scale.
Re:Arrested is a penalty (Score:4, Interesting)
Arrested == bad enough (Score:2)
Having cops intimidate and arrest people would be enough to scare most from doing whatever they were doing. Do you think people would be willing to get arrested every time they see the police doing something? I don't think so, most would just turn away and "forget" about ever seeing anything.
The biggest problem is... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The biggest problem is... (Score:2)
Re:The biggest problem is... (Score:2)
That said, I don't think there are any American citizens locked up there. But it is hard to come up with a good reason why a government that felt it could lock up non-citizens in that manner and hide it would not lock up citizens that way if it felt it could get away with it.
That Montana law *is* scary! (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you guys read that? You should:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/45/7/45-7-302.ht
"It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, provided that the peace officer was acting under the peace officer's official authority."
What???
So, if the police are acting illegally by not having a warrant to search my house and asking to search it anyway, I'm obstructing and this law makes it legal?
Ohhh - but they were acting under official authority. That's so comforting.
Re:That Montana law *is* scary! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you simply do not consent this isn't obstruction. If they acted improperly the evidence should be disallowed if it is actually found to be an illegal search. And they may be reprimanded for their behaviour.
Re:That Montana law *is* scary! (Score:2)
Re:That Montana law *is* scary! (Score:2)
No warrant, no search. This is one of those "The State knows best" deals, and I disagree on principle.
I always thought we're supposed to give the individual the benefit of the doubt in the US, implicitly assuming that the state does not know best unless there is proof otherwise (peer-reviewed, obtained transparently and with appellate recourse) otherwise.
Preventing "s
Re:That Montana law *is* scary! (Score:3, Insightful)
Different example: what if a uniformed officer uses their uniform and po
Get a Recording - Call 911 (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, if the person called 911, there would be a recording where you could hear them being dragged off the porch and hear the gate being opened and closed. Proof that the person was not on public property as claimed. If someone is attempting a warrantless search, you can have it on record that you aren't giving them permission to enter the premesis, and have a recording of any threats that they make to you to force their way in.
Another benefit is the recording is now stored off-site. With a video camera, regular camera or phone if they take it, you lost your evidence. If you can get that data off-site, they can't take it from you without a lot more work. (Maybe the 911 tape disappears, but without the FBI or NSA, AT&T isn't going to delete the record of the phone call to 911.)
Now, I don't think that all cops are bad. In fact, I have nothing bad to say about any of my experiences with law enforcement. However, I am white and live in a low crime area - the last "major" arrest in my town was over 10 years ago. So my experience may be different than yours.
Perhaps the best advice I can give is to think about the best thing to do if you were ever in these situations. Everyone does it for RPG games, just think about real life in those same terms.
FBI wants to search my house?
My wife calls 911 and tells them armed men are trying to get past me to enter the house without my permission. Didn't lie. Just didn't mention that they are federal agents. I'm sure the Sheriff will show up pretty fast with a call like that. Now, I have an officer that will hopefully be on my side in the matter. If not, I have pissed them off, but am no worse off. I also have a record that I didn't give them permission to enter. Then my wife can start calling the neighbors to come over and call the TV station, and I have made a big enough scene to (hopefully) be protected. I don't know if that is the best thing I can do, but at least I have thought about it enough to have a plan. In this case? Immediately send the photo to everyone in your address book. They can get the phone, but not the data. (It may cost you $0.50 or something, but probably worth it.)
Re:Get a Recording - Call 911 (Score:2)
Heck if the police came to your door you could do the same thing. With the way some security guards dress they might not actually be police, even though they in many cases try to create that impression.
This is nothing new. They are trained to do this. (Score:5, Informative)
A month later, at another house, police arrived, again for a noise violation. One of the officers promptly recognized me and called me "the marijuana man", and proceeded to pat me down. He stayed over my clothes, keeping the search legal this time, however he kept yelling at me to spread my legs farther apart until you would have sworn I was an olympic gymnast. Furthermore, I was lucky. I can't even fit on one hand the number of friends I have had arrested for saying something to the police when someone else was being arrested. Things were so bad here at one point that the student government had to launch a campaign against the police, informing students of their rights and accepting police complaint reports that they would then file for you. Thankfully we also have free legal advice available to all students and are currently forming an official position called Office of the Student Advocate.
Anyways, here is the point:
Police officers operate this way on purpose. This is how they are trained! It is not really good cop bad cop thing as much as you would believe. The police's job is not really to uphold the law. That is the court's job. The police are there to investigate crime and catch "bad guys". If the 4th ammendment gets in their way, oh well, let the courts decide that. They are trained to lie, decieve, and push the boundaries, usually in search of a verbal confession. Most cops don't even know the law, they are just there to do what they were trained to due. Read Breaking Rank, by Norm Stamper, former Seattle police chief, to learn about how the police system fosters violence, racism, and homophobia as a matter of practice. Finally, if you don't know how to deal with police and refuse a warrantless search, please please please watch Busted. There is a YouTube link already in the slashback. Finally, if you are afraid to talk to police officers in such a situation, keep something like the NORML Freedom Card [norml.org] in your wallet. Simply invoke your right to remain silent, and hand the card to the officer. Its simple yet very effective.
the 2nd american revolution (Score:2, Interesting)
1) police will face 2x the punishment a citizen does for every crime. police get 0 tolerence for bending the rules. they enforce the law by example as much as anything else.
2) the basic unit of society is the citizen. goverment exists to serve that citizen. goverment has no rights to tell a citizen what to do with his / her body. you can take what you want, you can kill yourself, sell yourself, whatever. so long as you do not infringe on anoth
I hope he has a good lawyer... (Score:2)
A rich black girl friend of mine got arrested for DWB in a nice neighborhood. The police department appologized in a letter, which the family handed to their lawyer. The department settled for a cool $250K. Not bad for a few hours in lockup.
Re:I hope he has a good lawyer... (Score:4, Informative)
Driving while Black.
I worked as a database admin in a fairly well-to-do district. I and just about everybody else on our team never had any problems with cops there, but the operations manager would get pulled over on average about once every three months. As an amazing coincidence, he was also the only black guy on our team.
At least he never got arrested.
Re:I hope he has a good lawyer... (Score:3, Funny)
What the hell? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What the hell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the following facts:
Nearly half the populat
philly cops (Score:2)
ive met small town cops who were actually helpful, reasonable human beings; but i guess the danger of working in the big city makes them crazy.
really, large cities in general seem like a sort of
Max Headroom (Score:3, Insightful)
An strong argument for Brin's Transparent Society (Score:3, Insightful)
Several years ago in an excellent book "The Transparent Society:How Technology Will Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom [amazon.com], David Brin [davidbrin.com] argued convincingly, that "privacy is gone, get over it!", and that in trying to hang onto it, we put our freedom at risk. For we would put ourselves in the position that those in authority/power would be able to hide their actions and those of us who aren't would be on the short end of the stick.
In the society envisioned by Brin, this street would have been covered by cameras, the homeowners would be able to dump their feeds into the grid for observation by others, and all of the officers and their vehicles would have cameras. And all of us would be free to examine the feed in real-time or pull materials out of the archive. In fact, the "surveillance" Brin envisions would provide the kind of check that articles such as this do.
I will be honest, I would be more than willing to live in Brin's world - with the checks it would give us on those in authority - and the privacy zones it would grant us (need to read the book to get the full details).
Idea: Police Photography Day (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, a big problem seems to be that officers (and many citizens) simply don't realize that citizens taking photos of them in public places (or from their own property) is completely legal. Organizing a day like this could help raise awareness about that.
my experience with the Police -Please Read (Score:5, Interesting)
At 1 am on the morning of September, 2005, I was awoke by a persistent knock on the door. I opened the door to find three officers asking me about a smell in the building, and asked me to enter the apartment. I told them I did not smell anything, and refused to allow them entry into the apartment. The main officer continued to ask me about the smell, and if he could come in, and I refused by telling him "no you may not come in". At some point in the conversation my fiancé came into the room and the officer ask if she was ok.
He again asked me if he could come in which I said no one final time and attempted to close the door. At that point the office had his foot inside the door jam to prevent the door from closing. I again attempted to close the door by leaning on the door. The officer pushed the door back throwing me back while stating that I had committed battery against an officer by hitting him with the door and proceeded to hit me about the right side of my face, while attempting to cuff me. I struggled with him only mildly trying to understand why I was being charged, and never threw a punch or was violent in any way against the police. He continued to hit me after being thrown to the ground and being completely cuffed.
I was then taken out to the second floor stairs were the officer hit me multiple more times on the right side of my face. I was completely hand cuffed at that point and was not able to resist. I screamed out multiple times "stop hitting me, stop hitting me".
The officer then grabbed me by my cuffs and lead me to the car were I was placed in the back seat. The officer returned a few minuets later with my marijuana pipe asking me if this was why I did not let him in. He then stated "I can't wait to get you to the station and kick your ass." In front of the transporting officer in this case. The transporting officer had no other involvement in this incident he pulled up on the scene as I was being taken out, and was polite and professional in his duties. I was seen in Ward D at the local hospital and released without medical aid to the county jail.
I was seen and treated for my eye and a concussion in the jail by nurses station within the jail the next morning after vomiting twice in the holding cell over night, and complaining of pain. I was given pain relief and given a call back and was told to see some one outside when I got out. I was released on bail the next day.
I returned to the Emergency room twice and was diagnosed and treated for an Ocular Floor Fracture on the right side of my face. I still suffer from numbness on the right side of my face under and around my eye. I had a follow up appointment a few months later to determine if I need surgery to correct orbital sink or any other complications that can occur due to my ocular floor fracture.
I am not known here by many, but the few that do can attest that I am a college grad, and navy war vet. I have not been in a fight since high school and am not violent by anymeans. I never resisted hit or otherwise attempted to hurt the officer in question.
I was charged with two felonys and two misdomenors neither deserved, & foolishly listened to my lawyers advice & took the states offer of a PTI which nullified any possibility of a civil suit. I live in a small beach town, and see the officer on a weekly basis, and fear him returning to my house so can not file a IAS investigation.
By carefull everyone because they are NOT there to protect you despite what it says on the patrol car.
DP
I am a cop. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have never done anything on duty or while as an off duty representative of the state that I wouldn't want photographed, recorded, or otherwise witnessed. I am proud to protect and serve, not to bully and harass. In fact, there are times that things have happened when I wish I had a camera or tape recorder to back me up on what I had to say. I've arrested people who try to bang their faces against the side of my patrol car in order to cause bleeding and claim that I beat them up. Fortunately, I had a civilian witness in the case to back me up on what I said.
While some cops lie, remember that criminals lie too. There are cops who do bad things who should be soundly punished, but there are people who will go out of their way to ruin a cop because they don't like them, and they should be punished as well.
Maybe it's because I'm a small town cop, but with the exception of the "bad" part of town I feel like a welcome presence everywhere I go. If I can't hold my head up high and know that people see me as a friend and protector, not a tyrant, I couldn't do my job.
Media conspiracy (Score:2)
Slashdot is just as susceptible to the same fearmongering that other media outlets are accused (and guilty) of.
This is a somewhat left wing, technology astute, but politically naive group. So a lot of the articles are about the bad political machine that they don't understand and how technology is the solution.
Similarly the politicians are scared of this bad technology machine they don't understand and they think politics/legislation is th
Re:Media conspiracy (Score:4, Informative)
I honestly think some cops are bad, but most (like most people) just want to do a good job, make the world better or at least not any worse and go home to their happy and safe little home. If you really were a sadistic bastard who just wanted to mess with the world, there are easier and more lucrative ways to do it than going into law enforcement.
Do you know any cops? I do. My brother used to be a cop and I got to know quite a few of them both through him and by just talking to them. Almost every cop and even security guard I've ever talked to has had issues with anger and control. When within ten minutes of meeting someone they express to you how they wish they had a good excuse to shoot someone or how they became a cop because they could not get into the military and really just wanted to learn to be a better killer you start to have a very different view of cops. Most of them are people who grew up too slowly and did not realize that all the action shows on TV were just revenge fantasies and not life goals. A whole lot of them have sadistic tendencies and/or a strong desire to assert dominance over everyone they can. Every cop I've ever asked has a "funny" story about how they broke the law and did things normal people can't because they can get away with it. Most cops abuse their power.
You say that most cops just want to do a good job, but in the opinions of many of the cops I've talked to "doing a good job" might mean driving those "niggers" out of town or making sure those weird guys are properly frightened so they know it is not alright to be different from the NASCAR watching majority.
I get along just fine with cops for the most part. I never get tickets and know enough about martial arts and guns and have enough good stories about the military and crimes so that they generally consider me one of the "good guys." I'm also something of a social chameleon and am almost universally accepted in any clique. I don't, however, have an illusions about the fact that for the most part cops are bigger criminals than the average person, they abuse their authority, and they are violent and prone to use violence unnecessarily. They also always want to be in control and are more likely to respond with violence or by arresting someone with no legal justification than they are willing to cede that control. For example, from stories I've heard from cops, most are likely to arrest anyone who points out that they are wrong and that the act they are claiming is illegal (like photographing them) is legal. It is a challenge to them and the fact that what they are doing is illegal is only a technicality to them. Most cops feel anyone doing anything that is not what they direct is in the wrong, because most don't ever admit that they could be wrong.
I find your view of the police to be very naive.
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:2, Insightful)
As technological advances ramp up faster and faster, and this endless amount of information begins to become available to most any people (especially government), why is it alarmism to be worried? I was not stating we live in Orwell's world, or anywhere close to it...
If anything has become apparent in the last twenty years, its that change happens VERY fast now. People become more complacent every day, the government and its actions become more shrouded and from what it appears, less resp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:2)
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:2)
I actually believe this is some deranged form of hope. I think the realization that world is just really messed up is too much for many, and they cling to hope of simple explanation -i.e. "they are out to get me!" and other conspiracy theories - because this means there is a
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:2)
Maybe it happen while you were napping, but there have been some significant changes in the laws, in the US, in the last 6 years.
Two or more forces at work (Score:5, Informative)
Then there's the whole widespread phone tapping craze. This is something that could not have been done fifty years ago. Sure, US government resources were spent monitoring regular citizens, but it happened on a case-by-case basis, not wholesale.
We most likely do not live in an Orwellian society. But, y'know, I'd like to keep the government from obtaining the tools required for 1984 to come true. They are currently creating them in front of our very eyes. You may be a pollyanna, but there are some of us that are worried.
Honestly, we have the right to be worried. It's called "oversight of our government." As responsible citizens, it is our right and our duty to question everything the government does in our name.
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:2)
Well, all the politicians, police, etc...those in power, are all human, and subject to the frailties of character that all humans are...Love of money, greed, power hungry..
With that as consideration, I'd say a continuous healthy distrust of the government is a goo
Re:Does anybody else... (Score:4, Interesting)
What *really* scares me is that people genuinely, legitimately believe this, and believe that police and government are out to get them, and that they're all corrupt and only looking for ways to extend their power or line their pockets.
I'm the IT guy in a small city police department. Trust me on this police don't want to share data with anyone and what data the police collects you can pay $10 for copy of the report. Why don't police want to share data? Because they collect "intel" data and some of the people in there may have done nothing wrong. Take gangs. If a gang member is arrested, they like to try to link together gang members. Well, just because you are a gang member or linked to a gang member doesn't mean that you've done anything wrong. I've been amazed at how little the police can legally share with each other. There are both state and federal laws limiting the "intel" information. I think the rule of thumb is that you can generally share your data among your department, but you generally can't share intel information farther than that. If you wand some potentially scary stuff, look up N-DEx
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm? fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=908&issue_id=62 006 [policechiefmagazine.org] . NIBRS is about all the feds care about and it's all just crime stats.
There is a policeman that I work with. I tell him routinely, that I think that the feds should be the final resting place for every report that they write and everything should be stored by them. In car dash cameras should be attached to police reports and submitted up to the Feds and stored both to cover the individual policeman's butt, and incase anyone else in the nation wanted to compare video. I'd want that one automated though. Heck, there isn't even a "national" standard for finger prints. Each state has its own system and doesn't look outside of its system.
It's amazing how well the police do their jobs with the tools that they have.
The end total of the IT that I'd like to give to my cops would be a virtual police state. I really drooled over the traffic cameras that London could afford. We'd never be able to spend like that though. Heck, there was an article on
That device was something like $25-$30K. For my department to afford it, we'd need a grant to cover it. We could purchase something around $4-$5K, but not something for $25-30K. There are alot of neat police tools that I'd like our department to have access to, but each one is priced around $25-30K and we don't have that much to spend.
We looked last year and replacing our analog cameras and VCRs to the digital cameras with lowlight and storing them on 4 GB flash cards and wirelessly transmit. We were going to setup 5 cars with plans of upgrading our entire fleet of 25 units, but it was going to cost about $65K for the inital 5 cars and setting up the backbone system. The night vision on that system was sweet. I wish our department had it. One other nice feature was that it was always rec
Re:What's with the backslash lately? (Score:2)
Re:What's with the backslash lately? (Score:3, Insightful)
And just so you know, I'm here because comments to backslashes tend to be more interesting than the knee-jerk reactions from the previous day.
Re:You guys dont get it (Score:2)
That may well be, but there is a high standard that needs to be set when limiting the public's freedom of action, and it is fairly clear that this incident as presented did not live up to it. If the officer had explained his concern calmly there likely would not have beena problem - if the concern had been legitimate, he could have handled it better.
Re:You guys dont get it (Score:2)
If there's an undercover cop hanging out and chatting it up and being friendly with the police, then they've already jeopardized their own cover to anyone who happens to walk by.
Re:You guys dont get it (Score:2)
It was a drug bust. It's likely undercover cops were present to confirm/asssist arrest. Taking pictures of said drug busts could cost lives. Your 'precious rights to an afternoon sitting on the couch' stop the moment you put somebody's life in danger. Period.
Have you ever heard of the concept of a "nation of laws." It is not up to an arbitrary police officer to take it upon themselves to make up a new law and then try to enforce it. In a drug bust the cops usually arrest the undercover cops as well as th
Re:You guys dont get it (Score:3, Funny)
And a medal for being simultaniously the most inflamatory, uninformative, ignorant and unfunny post I've ever seen on slashdot in 5 years.
Re:You guys dont get it (Score:4, Insightful)