Pixiq

FIRST!
HAHA

So, using this same logic perhaps we should taser the next police officer we see under the assumption that they “Might” be carrying a “Suitcase Nuke” weapon. It seems about as likely and makes about as much sense. It is the same logic that allows LEO’s to arrest/detain/harass people because they are taking pictures and “Might” be terrorists. When are we going to hold the law enforcement to some kind of common sense? I can justify about any behavior based on what “Might have been”, i.e. I hit him because he might have been planning on hitting me first. I robbed that bank because the bank might have been planning on taking it out of my account without my permission.

I hope someone instructed her on how to restore the videos. That would be awesome slap on the face of the cops who think they can do whatever they please.

“Snopes”

I’m sure these “cell phone guns” are about as common as “camera guns”. Cops are just such high value targets for assassination that everyone is going out and getting a “camera” or “cell phone” gun just in case they encounter an officer the next time out of the house. I had a discussion with a Secret Service Inspector about camera guns and that’s not even the big thing they are looking for with high value targets, think President not a traffic cop. They are concerned about bombs in cameras. It takes them all of a second to be sure it’s not a camera bomb or gun. Just see if it works as a camera. Same thing with a cell phone see if it’s working as a camera or cell phone. No need to go any further and delete the videos. Oh if your intent is to cover your arse you need to delete the videos and the photos.

After all the camera is the “new” gun.

http://qik.com

Can’t delete it if it’s already on the web

As pointed out in the comments over in he Agitator…

“‘Not knowing what the item in her hand was and having prior knowledge of all types of hidden weapons, including a cell-phone gun, I asked her several times to place it in her pocket and to keep her hands free,’ Burke wrote.”

So he thinks she might be pointing a weapon at him but tells her to put the suspected weapon in her pocket?

Bullshit.

Sgt. Jonathan Burke of the Delaware County Sheriff’s Department is a lying idiot.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

I have seen guns disguised as many things.
Writing pens and pencils.
Cigarette lighters and packages.
Cigarettes.
Pipes.
Cigars.
Just about any thing you can name.
I guess we will have to walk around nude.

Roger is right. TBH we (police) constantly get intel warnings about multiple items disguised as a gun. We also get warnings about real guns painted to resemble a toy gun. There are so many ways to hide one, we’d have to seize everything to be 100% safe.

I have to admit that it sounds like the officer is simply using the cell phone/gun link to backwards justify seizing the camera. . Pretty weak imo.

But Roger, some of these idiots would still find a way to jerk a person around, even if that person was nekkid………then lie about it.

You’re right, too JL. Weak.

I hope this never comes to my neck of the woods. I was photographing police throughout a protest for some hotel workers trying to form a union. Including the area of time where they arrested several of them for obstructing a sidewalk.
Matt Stone recently posted..Parking Forum August 3- 6pm at 401 East Michigan Street

I actually agree with you here JL. I used to work for the TSA when it was first formed, before idiots took over, and we were constantly being challenged to find possible threats in everyday items.

I have to ask though, why are cops so afraid of the camera if they aren’t doing anything wrong in the first place? Seems to me they only harrassed the woman and arrested her because they were doing something shady to begin with.

undelete

Rance,

Cops don’t like cameras because it is very common for video to be edited to show the police in the worst possible light. Video of an officer striking someone will be shown over and over but the events leading up to the strike is often left out. Also, many people are uninformed about what force is necessary during a struggle and get upset about it even if the officer is 100% right. Finally. a video only shows one thing from one angle. It makes people thing they are seeing the same thing as an officer but doesn’t account for things going on around the camera.

This doesn’t excuse cops when they act improperly towards photographers. I’m just trying answer your question about cops attitudes towards them.

Johnny Law: Do the dash cams not count? The audio is bad, chances are you can’t really see what is going on anyhow on the camera, and it is a static angle. And it also can be edited, to show the suspect in the worst possible light.

Editing is called tampering with evidence and will get you in a very great deal of trouble.

“could have been holding a cell-phone gun”
“they are not going to twist the law in their favor”

C’mon, at least give plausibility a chance. These excuses are beyond believable.

I think cops don’t like cameras because even when unedited may show the police in the worst possible light – the light of truth.

@genewich

“Johnny Law: Do the dash cams not count? The audio is bad, chances are you can’t really see what is going on anyhow on the camera, and it is a static angle. And it also can be edited, to show the suspect in the worst possible light.”

You are right. The same things can happen with dashcams and a defense attorney will routinely try to do just that. There is some difference though when you have some guy with Copwatch or some other group actively trying to catch video to make the police look bad. It happens guys. Get on YouTube.

If they’re not doing anything wrong, cops should have no problem being filmed. The only reason cops don’t like it is because most of them are corrupt.

For once, I agree with JL. I understand why police don’t like being photographed, I really do understand that. I also get the rationale JL puts forward, it is very easy to edit a video to favor one side or the other.

And I also, obviously, agree with him that it is no excuse to actively attempt to stop people filming or photographing. No one has an expectation of privacy in public, police has even less of such an expectation, as they are public servants. It is quite simply nessesary to monitor the activities of government, local as well as federal, the activities of police should never become a grey zone where there’s no documentation. I’m not saying all situations should be documented, but I am saying that when they are, it must not be discouraged.

That said, I truely wish people tried to tell the truth when they edit videos. It might look like one strengthens ones position by only showing one side, but that’s bullshit. You weaken it. Heavily.

Gee Sydney, it must be nice to live in such a simple black and white world.

And people accuse me of being biased.

@JL

“Cops don’t like cameras because it is very common for video to be edited to show the police in the worst possible light. Video of an officer striking someone will be shown over and over but the events leading up to the strike is often left out.”

Come on now Johnny Law… You know as well as I do, that excuse is played out and over used. I say again, if the officer is doing his/her job properly, and not outside the law, they have nothing to fear.

@Sydney Carton, you hit the nail on the head man.

I am not a cop hater at all. I think cops that do their jobs well, and uphold the constitutional and god given rights of the people, should be commended for it. Cops that try to cover up their wrongdoings by deleting evidence, and those that make utterly fascist statements like “Good, Bad, I’m the guy with the gun”, have absolutely no business on the force.
Rance recently posted..Wendig0-RRT- I am a bit ashamed photo http-bitly-d1p27t

This is the reason I think that all cops should wear video cameras that run at all times and are filed at shift end with raw footage available to every body. This would go a very long way to keeping every body honest. And as most complaints against cops are false, cops would be one of the most benefited.

@Rance

Rance you asked me what cops had against being put on video and I told you. Sorry if you don’t agree but that is the perception that most officers have. I’ve watched plenty of videos on the internet that claim to show some shocking piece of police brutality and dug deeper to find out the real facts (and additional video) that were left out by the photographer.

We’re not talking about deleting evidence and at no point did I try to defend that. I’m not sure why my simple answer to your question makes you want to imply that I am a fascist and that I shouldn’t be on the force. I thought we were having a discussion here but I guess you just want a flame war.

As for “Good, Bad, I’m the guy with the gun”, it’s a quote from Army of Darkness. You should watch it and relax a little. It’s hardly a fascist call to arms.

Although one should realize that the quote is an example of [the main character] Ash being a (mostly) well-meaning (but still self-centered) dope.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

LOL Nice one

@ Johnny Law

“I’ve watched plenty of videos on the internet that claim to show some shocking piece of police brutality and dug deeper to find out the real facts (and additional video) that were left out by the photographer.”

Can you please provide plenty of links to the plenty of videos you’re talking about?

Would really love see them.

Discarted,

So I suppose you don’t think that videos are edited to make the police look bad? Are you really going to argue that?

One example would be the famous Rodney King video. People saw repeats of the officers striking King but the full video which included King charging full speed at the officers and actively fighting was never shown until the trial. That is why they were found not guilty in the state trial.

There is this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K60mtLSwwM8&feature=related) in which the guy showing UK police use force to arrest a drunk guy. The narrator has a lot to say about the force used but he doesn’t show any of the events leading up to the arrest. He doesn’t show any of the video of the guy fighting with the officer. If you want to show it, show the whole thing. Show what caused the officers to have to tase him or use 4 to get him under control.

Or this compilation of police use of force (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02b4OfJXMXY&feature=related) with absolutely no background on the incidents themselves. For example the incident at 0:30 seconds doesn’t show the violent struggle the police had with this guy. It waits until he is on his back and the police gain the upper hand.

These types of videos are bullshit because they are edited to make show you a small piece of the pie. That is why cops hate it when folks videotape that stuff.

There are tons more out there but I am not gonna comb through the internet for you. Look up some police videos and see if you can determine what led up to that one moment in time the photographer is showing you.

Cowards! Cops are scared of devices known only to exist in eastern Europe and have killed nobody. Nearly everyone carries a cell phone so now they consider them a threat to their lives? They only fire one shot, not accurately, and against a man wearing a vest who can pump dozens of rounds into you in seconds.

What I’ve said before, three times the number of cops killed on the job commit suicide each year. (NIJ stats) Nothing is done to curtail that, but they go to extremes to protect them against fantasy weapons. Just another excuse for the cowboys to use their cattle prods on us cattle.

So because it might be edited, the cops should arrest anyone with a camera? Wow, I didn’t realize 1st amendment rights were illegal, guess I need to move back to the United States…OH WAIT! I’M ALREADY HERE! You’re completely missing the point, let them video you, if it’s false, or edited, prove it in court (innocent until proven guilty and all that inconvenient stuff), but the gathering of evidence SHOULD NOT be frowned upon in any way by the police; in many cases, it helps their case, but those videos don’t get uploaded to YouTube.

Johnny Law

This is the very reason why I think cops should have personal full time video/ audio recorders on at all times. Car cameras are not enough, as the action is often out of view. I feel that they would be everybody’s friend.

Clark,

I am rereading my comments and I can’t find anywhere where I said that the police should arrest anyone with a camera. Could you please point it out to me?

As I said before, the majority of complaints against cops are false, they would tend to be in the cops favor. As for showing up bad cops, this is also good, we need to weed out the bad cops, they only tarnish all.

“When are we going to hold the law enforcement to some kind of common sense?”

It would be nice, but it’s hard to know how we can do much about it–seems like nothing works.

“I can justify about any behavior based on what “Might have been””

Just like the “intent to distribute” laws for drugs.
Angelo recently posted..eBay Kingston 16GB SDHC Cards

@JohhnyLaw

Having read the specs on the Barrett .5o cal I suggest y’all stay a mile and a half away from all “civilians” just to be on the safe side.

Oh, for fucks sake. I disagree as much with JL as most people usually, but this time he is actually talking sense. And he even said repeatedly he don’t support the cops arresting this woman, so perhaps we can stop putting words in his mouth?

Right is right, ffs.

Great article on Time.com about videotaping the police:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html

Thanks for the heads up, Rob M!

http://bit.ly/dns906

Making police look bad in videos using editing tricks is not a crime. Arresting someone because you have a fear of him doing that IS a crime. you can think of the camera men and women as jerks if you’d like, but we live in a country where people are free to be jerks if they want. Police officers should just consider it part of their job. Violating the rights of people (even jerks) is not tolerable when we give police officers so much freedom in their jobs. You have a gun, baton, stun gun, taser, pepper spray, and back up. We have a camera.

@ Johnny Law

That’s two links, which does not amount to plenty of videos. Just what I expected.

I have three videos of my own showing police misconduct that aren’t edited and you cops are complaining they were edited to make the police look bad. My non-edited videos don’t make the cops look bad, it’s the cops themselves that take care of that.

“One example would be the famous Rodney King video. People saw repeats of the officers striking King but the full video which included King charging full speed at the officers and actively fighting was never shown until the trial. That is why they were found not guilty in the state trial.”

Are you really going to claim that the cops were found not guilty because of that one variable among hundreds that played a role in that court case.

And I l find ironic, but expected, how you selectively edited the King story to make the bad cops look good even though there was a federal trial and two of the cops were found guilty. Way to edit/ignore that historical fact of the King incident in an attempt to prove your point.

Finally, just because those cops were found not guilty in the state trial, does not mean it was the right decision, or they really weren’t guilty of committing a crime.

Have you ever heard of William Kunstler? Here’s a quote from him about the aura of legality within the justice systems, which sums up the decision in the King case:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8UNDhV2Uc

There was no legitimacy in the King decision, and that is why the city erupted after these cops were found not guilty for their horrible crimes.

@ Roger

“As I said before, the majority of complaints against cops are false, they would tend to be in the cops favor.”

How do you know this?

And isn’t it the cops investigating the cops when someone makes a complaint against an officer. Of course the cops are going to say the officer didn’t commit a criminal act the majority of the time. And without a camera there is no way to prove that cops break the law, lie, and behave inappropriately with the public on a daily basis. The majority of the complaints are “false” because there isn’t any video to prove that the complaint is true. Or the video was deleted by the cops.

Just look at the latest incident that occurred in Delaware. The cops are lying to save their asses and because they deleted the video it is now their word against a member of the public.

Because I was once a cop and an investigator, and have experience with these cases.

Give me a break discarted. The cops got found not guilty in the Rodney King trial and the city burned. The federal government caved in to racial pressure and put them on trial again. After half of LA burned down do you really think they got a fair and impartial jury the second time? Jurors from the first trial said in interviews afterwards that they had never seen the full video before and were surprised at King’s actions.

There are tons of videos on the net that have been edited to make the police look bad or were taken out of context. I have even seen video guidelines on one COPWATCH site that directs its members to ignore any unlawful acts by the civilians and to only focus on use of force by the police. You can put your fingers in your ears and go “lalalala” all you want but that is the reality.

Still, JL, I fail to see that several police officers hitting someone laying on the ground with batons is what you could call appropriate force.

Is it? And if so, what’s the rationalisation for that?

I’ve got no problem with police using reasonable force, I know of situations were anything but a riot baton to the head was ineffective, and I know of situations where the use of violence has been exagerated at best, at worst intentional assault.

And of course, there are situations where violence aren’t used by either party. As a photojournalist, I’ve seen it first hand. As have you, I know, but please keep in mind that while I’m not a cop, I’ve seen my fair share.

In your professional opinion, was it okay for the officers to hit a man that was on the ground repeatedly with their batons? Would you have done it?

Here’s what I think happened. I don’t know, but I think. Rodney King was a proper sod, and very violent. In the video most of ut know, he is on the ground, and I can’t say he looks like much of a threat. Could it be, just could it be that the cops just lost it? Could it just be that they overreacted?

I don’t think they gave a rats about his skin color. I do think they were very angry, though. Perhaps with good reason. Explains it. Doesn’t excuse it.

Johnny law -
Please save the BS. Citizens aren’t that naïve. You might be a good cop but you would be in the minority. Don’t try to justify to ever increasing corruption and abuse of power that cops have going these days.
It’s plain and simple. Power tripping cops do what they want, legal or not, and they don’t want anyone having evidence of such acts. This includes video or audio. Period!
Try these videos out-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7PC9cZEWCQ&NR=1 – for a traffic violation, maybe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNcDGqzAB30&feature=related Then they put him in jail for recording it – classic police scum tactics. What BS excuses!! Corruption and cover-up at its finest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyFXNcKjqdg – this is a classic and completely representative. Don’t try to say this is an edited video either. Cops are supposed to be trained to remain calm and answer a persons questions. Not fly into a screaming rage. The kid has a right to ask why he is being pulled over and what he did wrong. Cops see this as their authority being questioned. Part of the problem again. Unlike this guy cops actually follow through on these threats an ruin peoples lives. I have friends in law enforcement and have heard several horrible stories over a few beers. This cop should be in prison.

I was afraid this would turn into a mess about Rodney King. Yes I think the actions by the police were appropriate that night. King was hopped up on drugs and a taser was ineffective. King charged the officers and was actively fighting them.

Once he was on the ground he kept trying to get up. Why would they allow him to get up and continue the fight? The officers were repeatedly telling him to stay down but he wouldn’t listen

This is what I mean by video of police being taken out of context. All you see are officers batoning a guy on the ground. You don’t see everything that happened before and you can’t hear the police giving verbal commands.

Taken all together it is a reasonable application of force. It just looks ugly and people freak out about it.

He tries to get up in the beginning. They do continue using their batons when he is no longer trying to get up.

I agree he shouldn’t have been crawling away, but surely they could have used other means?

@ Johnny Law

It’s great how you have all the answers regarding the King trial and why the city was burned and we should just accept your opinion as fact (when it is not) because you’re a cop.

And apparently cops do lie, however, the video never does. Here’s another example of one cronies breaking the law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299832/Police-officer-caught-be...

Cops hitting a man 56 times is justified? Would it be justified if 4 guys did that to you because they thought you had a deadly cell phone gun, and thought their lives were in danger. To quote you, “Give me a break.”

The thin blue is only get thinner and thinner and cops like yourself are upset about that because you’re game is coming to end.

@JL:
Your interpretation of the events of 03MAR91 surrounding the arrest of Rodney Kings appears to contradict the LAPD Independent Commission report at least at page 7, ll. 2-5:

“Powell hit King several additional times with his baton. The videotape shows Briseno moving in to try to stop Powell from swinging, and Powell backing up. Koon reportedly yelled, ‘that’s enough.’”

I submit that the conclusion that excessive force was used was not out of context at all, but is well supported by the commission report.