Pixiq

Where is Johnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny? No more shield for shit cops!

This is absolutely incredible! The plight of photographers has made it all the way to Congress? I honestly thought I would never see the day.

I’d like to recommend that it be called, “Carlos’s Bill.”

Seriously, I wonder where we would be without this website. The three or so years of cases compiled on this site alone could hold enough sway to get the bill passed. Happy Days!
Rob recently posted..La Mesa Police

I just wanted to say: It’s about time.

CARLOS KEEPS FAILING TO ADDRESS MY REAL ISSUES-AS INTELLIGENCE THINK-TANK, THERE ARE ISSUES FAR BEYOND A FEW CONTRACTS AND PHOTOGRAPHY AND FREE SPEECH OR ACTIVITIES!THE GROUPS THAT EXIST UNDER THE STREET SECURITY GRADE GUARDS-HAVE BEEN RUN AS A SHIELD FOR OUTSOURCING AGENCIES WHO HAVE MARGINAL CONTRACTS AND CLIENTS.I CAN ASSURE YOU THESE AGENCIES VIOLATED, AND MAY STILL VIOLATE NATIONAL PROTOCOL BY SEEKING LIAISONS; WITH LESS-THEN-HONEST ROGUE OPERATIVES ACTING AS BUFFERS TO SHADY PROFITEERS IN EVERY STRIPE AND ILK, OF "SHADOW-LAND"-AS WELL AS OUTRIGHT PILFERING OF CONTRACTS FOR DISHONEST GAIN. THE SECURITY GUARDS-THOSE THAT CARLOS ENCOUNTERED, ARE PART OF THE FRONT-UNTRAINED OFFICE MANAGEMENT TAKEN FROM THE INNER-OFFICE PAYROLLS, AND THROWN INTO STREET SERVICE ON BIGGER CONTRACTS. THEIR ABILITY TO BE FLEXIBLE AND DEAL WITH SITUATIONAL DECISIONS-IS CURIOUSLY ABSENT. BOTH RECRUITED MANPOWER GUARDS, AND THEIR SUPERVISORS HAVE LITTLE TRAINING, AND NO COMPANY BACKING IF ANY SITUATION ARISES. THE INNER-OFFICE MANAGERS ARE IN THE PROFITEERING, AND SOMETIMES-RACKETEERING CIRCLES-AND THAT MEANS A TOTAL LACK OF REAL SECURITY SERVICE. BEYOND THE HIRING-AND FIRING,;- WHICH SLIDES THE SHIELD OF DECEPTION , SO THAT NO OUTSIDE RECRUITS "GET WISE TO" THE INNER COLLUSION OF MANIPULATION! THESE INSIDE ELEMENTS MAY DECIDE TO ENGAGE IN DRUG RESOURCES FOR PROFITEERING ( IN SOUTHWEST BOARDER STATES, OR GEORGIA, OR FLORIDA...)AND THEREBY DEEPEN THE CORRUPTION-BECAUSE IN A RECESSION, THE NEED-FOR-GREED FACTOR IS NEVER-EVER MET BY THE SUPERFICIAL VOLUME OF CONTRACTS OR GRAFT-KICKBACKS ALONE! THESE ARE WICKEDLY DECEPTIVE AND GREEDY MIDDLE-MANAGERS IN THESE OFFICES-MANY HAVING BEEN THERE FOR YEARS-SCRATCHING EACH OTHER'S BACKS AND OFFERING THE GUARDS NOTHING-NO TRAINING, NO RAISES ,AND NO BACKING. SO-IF A BILL BY ONE CONGRESSMAN REPRESENTS SOME MARGINAL VICTORY TO PHOTOGRAPHY RIGHTS-THERE IS A HELL-OF-A LONG WAY TO GO IN UNCOVERING AND CLEANING UP THE MANAGEMENTS AND QUALITY SERVICES IN THE SECURITY INDUSTRY-HOPEFULLY BEFORE AN ENEMY "CLEANS AMERICA'S CLOCK" FOR GOOD!!WE VOICE THIS CONCERN TO ACTIVATE THE MENTAL AWARENESS OF OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES-TO INVESTIGATE AND PASS REFORM REGULATIONS AND OVERSIGHT STANDARDS-TO LEGITIMIZE A REAL PROFESSION IN WHICH JOBS ATTRACT EDUCATED AND WORTHY AGENTS TO SERVE THE CAUSE.

ASIDE FROM TRANSIT RAIL SECURITY GUARDS IN MIAMI-WHICH I KNOW THESE FACES AND HAVE OPERATIVES AS RECRUITS AND IN THE OUTSOURCING AGENCY'S OFFICE;;-WE UNCOVERED NOT ONLY CORRUPT COPS---BUT POLICE CHIEFS (IN THE PAST),AND A GENERAL MORAL TURPITUDE THAT VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST. IT USED TO OPERATE WITH COMPLICITY, PROTECTING AGENCIES LIKE WACKENHUT-WHO HAD FOLKS IN LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT, IN LOCK-STEP , TO DISSUADE PROBLEMATIC IRRITANTS FROM ZEROING IN ON THE COMPANY NAME AND REPUTATION. THAT WAS WHEN THE ECONOMY ALLOWED THEM EXTRA SLUSH FUNDS FROM FAT CORRUPTION---A LITTLE MOB OF CONSPIRATORS!NOW THAT THE ECONOMY HAS DRIED UP THE "MONEY OF ARROGANCE" AVAILABLE, AND MEDIA SCRUTINY KEEPS A "CARLOS EYE" ( "THE GAD-FLY PREROGATIVE")ON THE ANTICS AND PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF IGNORANCE AND LACK OF FLEXIBLE RESPONSE-WE UP THE STAKES IN DEMANDING BETTER QUALITY SERVICES IN SECURITY-AND HENCE, WE GIVE MUSCLE TO APPROACHING CLIENTS AND DEMANDING GOOD TRAINING SKILLS AND CORRESPONDING PAY FOR GUARDS!

THIS ISSUE OF QUALITY AND FLEXIBLE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS GREATLY HAMPERED BY THE ECONOMIC SITUATION. FOLKS ARE UNEMPLOYED, AND AGENCIES-BELIEVE IT OR NOT-HAVE REAL PROBLEMS FINDING EXPERIENCED ,EDUCATED, AND EVEN-TEMPERED INDIVIDUALS TO FILL THE PUBLIC SECURITY NEEDS. THE AGENCIES PLAY A QUOTA/NUMBERS GAME TO HONOR CONTRACTS, AND SELDOM RELY ON SENDING QUALITY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY VETTED-SO UPON FAILURE TO MEET CLIENT STANDARDS-THEY PUT THE SAME NON-QUALITY ( DIFFERENT FACE,SAME PROBLEM )BACK IN THE CONTRACT,AND NO ONE BENEFITS FROM THE SHIFT AND HASSLE! THESE SHIFTS IN PERSONNEL WASTE TIME AND A LOT OF MONEY-AND IT SHOULD CEASE AND DESIST.UNTIL TRAINING AND SKILLS ARE IMPROVED, AND CORRESPONDING WAGES GO UP-THE CLIENT IS WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME EXPECTING A BETTER QUALITY DUTY GUARD FOR HIS POST. HIS ATTITUDE REPRESENTS A GREAT DEAL OF THE SECURITY FAILURE EQUATION!

THIS ISSUE OF QUALITY AND FLEXIBLE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS GREATLY HAMPERED BY THE ECONOMIC SITUATION. FOLKS ARE UNEMPLOYED, AND AGENCIES-BELIEVE IT OR NOT-HAVE REAL PROBLEMS FINDING EXPERIENCED ,EDUCATED, AND EVEN-TEMPERED INDIVIDUALS TO FILL THE PUBLIC SECURITY NEEDS. THE AGENCIES PLAY A QUOTA/NUMBERS GAME TO HONOR CONTRACTS, AND SELDOM RELY ON SENDING QUALITY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY VETTED-SO UPON FAILURE TO MEET CLIENT STANDARDS-THEY PUT THE SAME NON-QUALITY ( DIFFERENT FACE,SAME PROBLEM )BACK IN THE CONTRACT,AND NO ONE BENEFITS FROM THE SHIFT AND HASSLE! THESE SHIFTS IN PERSONNEL WASTE TIME AND A LOT OF MONEY-AND IT SHOULD CEASE AND DESIST.UNTIL TRAINING AND SKILLS ARE IMPROVED, AND CORRESPONDING WAGES GO UP-THE CLIENT IS WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME EXPECTING A BETTER QUALITY DUTY GUARD FOR HIS POST. HIS ATTITUDE REPRESENTS A GREAT DEAL OF THE SECURITY FAILURE EQUATION!

GUYS-IF I HAD BEEN A UNIFIED GUARD ON THE METRO-RAIL CONTRACT-I WOULD HAVE LEFT CARLOS ALONE AND LET HIM FILM ANY DAMNED THING HE WANTED--THERE ARE NO SECRET OR SACRED POINTS TO BE MADE AT THAT LOCATION! THE JOB IS UNDEFINED AND THE TRAINING MARGINAL----WHY RISK THE JOB IN HARD TIMES? THAT IS WHY I SIT UNEMPLOYED, AND A DIE-HARD DECLARED OPPONENT OF THESE AGENCIES! I DON'T LIKE THEM, DON'T TRUST THEM-AND MY QUALITY BELIEFS WILL NOT CREDIT TOWARDS THEIR VIABILITY TO PROVIDE LEGITIMATE SECURITY-EVER! WE WANT THEM OUT OF THE BUSINESS, AND LEGITIMATE, GOOD GUARDS. PERMANENTLY INSTALLED IN STABLE JOBS.

I don’t care what they call it, to me it always will be Carlos’s Bill.

Who would have thought there were still functioning brain cells in Washington.

Great news. But now we need to contact our Representatives to urge them to support this measure (or thank them for signing on if they already have). Contact your Senators to urge introduction of a similar measure in the Senate.

Unfortunately, this bill will NOT protect anybody. It’s a resolution expressing the sense of congress, and nothing more. It will, however, do well in court when defending oneself against erroneous wiretapping charges, and it will get to the ears of those who are wrongfully using these wiretapping laws to arrest law abiding citizens. It may even prompt some states to further define their wiretap laws to specifically allow the audio and video recording of police.

But it will NOT stop these arrests from continuing.
Jake Stichler recently posted..How to go Bankrupt – Anatomy of a Local Case

I’m waiting for the police unions to whine profusely register their displeasure with this resolution.

Then I’ll have a good laugh.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

We shale see.

Fuck and Yeah! It’s about time. People shouldn’t have to fear arrest for policing the police. If they weren’t doing anything wrong, they wouldn’t need to be afraid of the cameras to begin with.

Ok, my last post “This is great!” was just me doing my happy dance. Now, the real work begins.
Step 1. Go to http://www.house.gov (you will need your zip code and the four-digit extension that can be found on the junk mail you throw out daily.) Send an email to your representative in support of House Concurrent Resolution 298. Use your own words, doing so makes Step 2 more fun.

Step 2. While you are on the House’s site, note the phone number and address of your local, friendly congressperson. Give them a call this week, restate your position from Step 1 and add give an example from your own experience where you have failed to photograph, or chose to photograph surreptitiously, or were otherwise precluded from photography, or photographed only after having given the act a second thought because of police intimidation.

Step 3. If your printer is working, if you still own a typewriter or, if you handwriting is still legible, purchase an envelop and a stamp. Use the arguments you developed in Step 1 and Step two, but offer to meet with congressional staff in the home district office to discuss the matter. Write, sign, seal and mail.

Step 4. If you have not received a response in 7 days, call back (Step 2, redux).

A concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, but it is a magnificent first pass.

I’m amazed that a corrupt, thieving bastard like Ed Towns introduced this.

I would like to see what’s in the bill before I start doing backflips, as Towns is no stranger to burying evidence.

Nevermind the last line of my above comment. If there is no more text to RES. 298, it looks like a good bill. I wonder if this will be a mandated resolution for all 50 States? I hope it passes.

I don’t know if I like this or not.
I

While a Resolution doesn’t have the standing or enforcement of a statute (actual law), or implementing regulation; it goes a long way to showing legislative intent.

Legislative intent is a useful lawful defense even where a statute is applied to prosecute someone. This is because while a statute at large may give the technicalities behind a law, the legislative intent gives the rational for the law and who it really was meant for.

I have used legislative intent in proceedings using the session laws, showing that the revised code (actual codified state statutes) weren’t intended to be applied as they were.

(sorry for the double post)
I don’t know if I like this or not.
I see this as more law there is no kneed for and may even say to some that “it was ok but now its not”.

I can barely wait to hear Johnny Bootlicker change his tune from…

“If you don’t like if we act like thugs, get the law changed!”

to…

“I’ve got my panties in big bunches over this proposed law change!”

Jake is right. This is not a law, it’s just a resolution which is empty. They pass them all the time celebrating apple pie and motherhood.

What could be done is a law that says no federal money will be provided to any state which makes it illegal under state or local law for people to film cops. Furthermore, if any local or state authority tries to arrest or prosecute someone for filming cops, all federal funding automatically ceases to the entire state as a whole.

That’d really have an effect.

Much as I might still think he’s a jackbooted thug, Johnny has always been pretty consistent that he doesn’t have a problem with cops being recorded.

It’s a good addition to something that should already be well understood within the confines of the 1st amendment.

When a photographer is detained can we put out a “Carlos Alert”?

I don’t know if I like (1)’s “when balance with the needs of law enforcement, police privacy, and citizen privacy;” part. But I definitely like (3).

Then I decided to research what a congressional resolution is and then was saddened to discover that all it is is this man’s expressed opinion(s) or criticism. This has no effect on the law. As far as I know. And if I’m not mistaken, laws are meant to prohibit so what’s wanted would be a revision of the current wiretapping law. But then again, I’ve just started researching legal matters.

But hey, one lawmaker agrees with you so far. That’s a positive thing!

Really though, do you think outright bashing of other commenters is really going to help viewers take you seriously? While you may say whatever you feel like, you may also practice restraint.

While I’m pro-law you betcha I’m going to consult with the ACLU in regards to the RCW.
figMiNT recently posted..Response cached until Sun 18 @ 6:43 GMT (Refreshes in 23.24 Hours)

Thank you Congressman Towns !

It is about time someone starts to look out for the safety of the Citizens of our country ! Video taping in public should always be legal, for everyone’s safety !

Shame on those who want to deny our rights and freedoms !

Good, because we HAVE to be able to keep the overzealous cops in check!

Lou
http://www.real-anonymity.net.tc

I agree with the general intent of this law. However, it has a serious problem. The problem is it does the opposite of what it claims due to subtle wording problems.

“members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties, as long as they do not physically or otherwise interfere with the officers’ discharge of their duties, or violate any other State or Federal law, intended to protect the safety of police officers, in the process of the recording.”

This should read “members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties” and stop at that point. It’s already illegal to physically or in some otherways interfere with police doing their business. This new law will prohibit the videotaping or observing of police if the police feel that doing so in ANY WAY “interferes” with them. And guess what. You video taping does interfere with them in some ways, such as if they are bothered by it. These ways are not currently criminalized, but this bill prohibits videotaping if police feel it interferes in ANY way, which was not previously a legal justification to prohibit videotaping.

It’s unfortunate that police many times act in such a way that folks need to take video to protect themselves, but this is the digital age, everyone now has a phone that can at least take images if not video recordings, and so the cops will be FORCED to generally clean up their act, and that’s a good thing.

It’s a start. but needs refinement to be clear that it is a right in all cases. Also needs clear and certain punishment for violations. Other wise it will be ignored.

The first amendment protects freedom of the press; no police officer has the legal authority to arrest someone who may be gathering information for a media outlet. These arrests will not stop if congress says so; it will only stop if the officers making the frivolous arrests are fired and their corrupted departments disbanded. I trust privately armed citizens more than I’ll ever trust a uniformed thug any day of the week.

Have any defense attorneys thought of using this idea in the opposite direction? In other words, disallowing police videos, especially dashboard camera videos of a crime as unlawful wiretapping. Cops need to have a warrant to be able to wiretap anything. If taking a picture of a cop is illegal wiretapping, a cop using a dashboard camera without judicial approval is also breaking the law.

I got into an argument with a friend about this the other day. He said the actions of a few bad cops were tarring the reputations of the many good one. I maintained that there weren’t any good cops, because good ones would come down on their abusive colleagues, and there wouldn’t be any bad cops, if that were true. This thread demonstrates that idea well.

Resolutions do not have legal effect. This is a resolution. Therefore, it don’t mean shit in real life.

This is just more talk and grandstanding designed to put a politician’s name and picture on your screen, and associate those things with happy thoughts. And it’s working based on the ignorance the majority of these posts display regarding how LAWS are passed in the federal legislature.

Read up on the federal legislative process before you get excited or if you’re having trouble sleeping. Either way this yak-yak is meaningless.

The way the crooked Congress operates in this nation of cheaters and the cheated, I’d expect the final “resolution” to actually reverse 180 degrees and not only continue to protect the crooked and criminal police but also add the Congress themselves to the list of those immune to video evidence of crimes committed. (and of course Jews will be immune, but you knew that)

Michael is right, there really aren’t any good cops. Cops are just thugs in uniforms. Any decent person who joins the police quickly leaves or becomes another thug. But most decent people would not want to be cops because who wants to be (rightfully) considered a scumbag by most people?

“Michael is right, there really aren’t any good cops. Cops are just thugs in uniforms.”

Where do you people come from?

ok i don’t understand why does there need to be a bill? does the first amendment not fall under this? amazing

Johnny, we’re your neighbors. We’re the ones you try an intimidate. We’re the ones you are too socially inept to get along with and feel that you must control.

“Where do you people come from?”

Reality.

I used to buy into the good cop/few bad apples lie. But then I grew up after seeing a few things. Now I’ll burn in hell with my back broken before I help a cop. It’s just too dangerous to even get involved with them.

It seems like the comment thread of this post has gotten a little off topic. It’s not about cops being inherently good with a little bit of bad or vice versa. It’s about a step in the right direction from the powers that be.

Whether we are talking about a resolution or a law is irrelevant. Laws don’t prevent anything, they just spell out what the consequence for you will be if you break one. There are laws that prohibit murder, rape, tax evasion, assault and jaywalking yet those things still happen everyday.

What is important here is that the FIRST step has been taken in order to CREATE a law that will meter out a consequence for a cop if he or she tries to charge a citizen with a crime for photographing them in public while they are doing their job. A law or resolution that says it’s OK to photograph cops in public may not stop a cop from hassling us, but it WILL give us (photographers) legal legs to stand on if it does indeed happen.

Right now, we don’t have that, and Anthony Graber is the poster child for that argument. If a cop arrests, hassles, detains or beats a citizen up for photography in a public space where there is no expectation of privacy, all we can do now is hope the incident gets reported on Carlos’s site and gathers steam for public support. This resolution will enable us to take on the cops AFTER THE FACT, without having to randomly look for support on the internet.
Rob recently posted..San Diego Trolley Guards Prohibit Photography

I get the whole Freedom of the Press argument, but what about victims and suspects right to privacy? Did anyone get Oscar Grant’s permission to show his final moments on Youtube? I have watched on the news and on shows like COPS faces being blurred out to keep the identity of the person(s) involved private.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.73.030

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, wire communications or conversations (a) of an emergency nature, such as the reporting of a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster, or (b) which convey threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or (c) which occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, or (d) which relate to communications by a hostage holder or barricaded person as defined in RCW 70.85.100, whether or not conversation ensues, may be recorded with the consent of one party to the conversation.

If I’m not mistaken–and if I am please add your sensible input–if you are in a conversation where “convey(ed) threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands” are present then you may record that conversation as a one-party consent.

Damn, the law can be quite complex. I read a book by a terribly poor author, “Out of the Ashes” and the main thing I liked about the new society after a fallout was that the law was able to fit on one wall and was written in plain english that even a five-year old could understand it. Okay, a little digressive there. Heh-heh. Digressive. I amuse myself.

An employee of any regularly published newspaper, magazine, wire service, radio station, or television station acting in the course of bona fide news gathering duties on a full-time or contractual or part-time basis, shall be deemed to have consent to record and divulge communications or conversations otherwise prohibited by this chapter if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers. Withdrawal of the consent after the communication has been made shall not prohibit any such employee of a newspaper, magazine, wire service, or radio or television station from divulging the communication or conversation.

Is my interpretation that divulge would include publishing a video, say on a news program or a website like Youtube? If so, then so long as you are getting the expressed consent of the speakers (including victims, suspects, LEOs, etc.) or they are aware that you are recording them in subsection–or is it section–(4).

I know that in Seattle they currently have fifty officers testing a prototype mini camera so that all duties of the LEO are recorded.

Personally, I feel that LEOs should expect and support any recording whether it has sound and/or audio during a public discharge of his/her duties, so long as it’s in a lawful manner.

If I have to have a conversation with an officer, I am definitely going to be recording.
figMiNT recently posted..Response cached until Mon 19 @ 0:47 GMT (Refreshes in 23.28 Hours)

This is just a “sense of Congress” resolution — it’s not ever going to be a law, even if it passes. Holding a Congressional resolution in your hand isn’t going to do a thing to protect you from abusive police.

“Michael is right, there really aren’t any good cops. Cops are just thugs in uniforms.”

Where do these people come from? Most likely another galaxie.

There are plenty of good cops out there but let’s face it, they are in a minority.

“Where do these people come from? Most likely another galaxie.”

Hey Rusty, these people come from the real world, where people understand that giving humans like cops power will invariably give them the opportunity and incentive to abuse it. They also come from a place where people can spell the word ‘galaxy.’