Man records police arresting his friend; gets arrested himself

[webby189]

Who will guard the guards?

I think that filming a public arrest is perfectly within a citizens rights.

Police officers are not the people we see on TV or in the movies who are unrealistically moral or evil incarnate. They are real people in a position of power.

Many humans in this position will abuse that power, and I am not just refering to police officers.

Holding them accountable is not a bad thing, and even the thought that some one maybe filming with their cell phone will keep the officers in check.

Our society as a whole needs to evolve with the changing times. The written word has long been our main form of communication but in an increasingly digital era, streaming video is almost par for the course.

The safeguards culturally and legally imposed need to keep up with these changes.


For example:

If Roger Ebert sees the new Twilight and says "That movie was really far from good"

Then when it comes out on blueray/dvd, the producers quote him on the cover as say "That movie was really good". Ebert would have legal recourse to one have his quote removed and possibly some kind of civil damages.

To parallel Demon Heroes example.

I video tape a man approaching cops and speaking with them, then the man attacks the cops, followed by the cops arresting him forcfully.

Then I edit it down to man approaches cops, cops arrest him forcfully and blast it all over the internet.

What will my liability be. Will it help the man in a suit against the police? Will it help the man in his criminal case?

These are unanswered questions at this point in the US, and they need to be answer because technology is not slowing down and waiting for us.

[Revoltion]

As far as I'm concerned, the police have no on duty privacy rights. As long as they are acting in the interest of the people, they should be liable for all actions. As long as the video isn't edited to change the situation into a favorable one for their point, I see no reason to not allow it.

As for the people they interact with, if they are being accused of a crime, I don't believe that they deserve privacy. They've done something to warrant the authorities involvement, and since they're acting in the public's interest, I believe the public should be able to know. For people who are innocent bystanders, they should have the option of not consenting to being video taped.

[Boleslav]

I'm personally of the opinion that people who are functioning on behalf of the taxpayers, while receiving a salary from the taxpayers, using tools paid for by the taxpayers, and supposedly in the interests of justice should have no fear of oversight. If they want to avoid people using selective clips that take things out of context, why not film it themselves?

I totally agree with this. I think the cameras should be rolling at all times. In my taxpayer-paid job, a person could record a random section of class on a cell phone and it could make me look hilarious, or smart, or lazy, or stupid, or grouchy - whatever aspect they wanted to capture. That would create a inaccurate overall impression of my job performance (for good or bad) because the sample of time observed is so small.

Public sector workers need the protection that video oversight would provide. Aside from anything else, viewing video footage of oneself at work leads to great self-reflections and subsequent improvements.

[abracax]

To parallel Demon Heroes example.

I video tape a man approaching cops and speaking with them, then the man attacks the cops, followed by the cops arresting him forcfully.

Then I edit it down to man approaches cops, cops arrest him forcfully and blast it all over the internet.

What will my liability be. Will it help the man in a suit against the police? Will it help the man in his criminal case?

These are unanswered questions at this point in the US, and they need to be answer because technology is not slowing down and waiting for us.

The Rodney King case was exactly that, the video everyone got to see was the police using excessive force. No one got to see him almost running down a woman with a baby, or causing accidents that injured other drivers and even a police officer. All everyone saw was the end result. Now I am not saying the officers were justified in the amount of force they used, but it is understandable how they got to the point they did.

Too often videos are used to vilify authority figures without showing the full story. These videos have been used in court cases, again without the full story to try and prosecute. I do believe that police officers should be able to do their job without constant eyes on them. They have far more oversight than most people would like to believe and when an officer goes too far without being caught on video, they still get busted. There are many cases where an officer shot an unarmed person, or used excessive force and was not filmed yet received the punishment deserved and even jail time.

Oversight does work if we allow it too and as long as citizens keep on top of their politicians to make sure it keeps working. Everyone in every position has the ability to abuse their position, not everyone does though.

[jannge]

You mean the Rodney King who said, and I will use every word:

"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get along? Can we stop making it, making it horrible for the older people and the kids?...It's just not right. It's not right. It's not, it's not going to change anything. We'll, we'll get our justice....Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we're all stuck here for a while. Let's try to work it out. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to beat it. Let's try to work it out."

[FoxyBunny]

I think he was referring to the Rodney King who had a police officer behind him, trying to pull him over, and decided to run for it. I think he means the Rodney King who led police on a high speed chase that lasted well over an hour and crossed multiple counties. I think he means the Rodney King who treated myself and my partner, as we listened to the scanner, to the sounds of police officers screaming (yes, SCREAMING) into their radios that "This maniac just turned off the freeway into a residential neighborhood...He's going well over 100mph....OMG there are kids out on the street....he's going to kill someone! He just ran that person off the road!....he just missed a woman and her baby stroller....we gotta stop this guy!" I think he refers to the Rodney King who spent quite a bit of time during that chase ticking off almost every law enforcement officer in the state of California that day. I think he means the Rodney King who couldn't have been all that surprised that when they finally caught him they were overloaded on adrenaline, anger, and testosterone. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't just kill him.

I am not advocating or apologizing for what the officers did. They were wrong, and they should have gotten severe sentences and been removed from the force. I am glad someone videotaped that beating and brought it to light. I just also think that full disclosure would have provided a better picture for everyone. Had they also played the recordings of the radio conversations during the chase, the public would have been able to judge accurately what happened. I know that as I listened to the chase, I got so worked up that had I been an officer in a car that finally caught him, I may well have beaten him myself.

[Amandajg]

In Texas most if not all police cruisers are fit with video equipment already. I do not see the difference in a bystander video taping an arrest when the police are already doing the same.

The ability to video tape and allow juries to see if the accused was resisting arrest or if the officer overstepped his bounds I believe outweighs the officers right to privacy, especially when he is being paid by our tax dollars at work.

[DeSalvionjr]

In Texas most if not all police cruisers are fit with video equipment already.

Not every police car necessarily is equipped, and if they are they don't cover all angles. Then there are police who are on foot too.


now for some relevant links

http://carlosmiller.com/2010/07/16/b...ideotape-cops/

http://lifehacker.com/5593080/why-ph...put-up-with-it

http://gizmodo.com/5553765/are-cameras-the-new-guns

http://gizmodo.com/5571246/man-arres...-into-his-home

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...lick=pm_latest

[AllDayXL]

It should be allowed. Having worked as a lead analyst for cities hosting major events with strong protests occurring as a result it is critical that freedoms not be infringed upon. It not only holds officers accountable it often illuminates actions of the arrested person just as much, the BIGGEST factor that makes this such a lightning rod is altering of the video or out of context film. Just as deleting video is bad on the police end (seizing could be justified at times), i have seen NUMEROUS attempts from protest groups to frame a video around the reaction to a situation. Example, arrested person A punches police officer B and the reaction is Police officer B agressive reacts to subdue and in doing so strikes the person A for a short period(say 3-4 punches while subduing). Now if you see the whole event most would think the reaction wasn't outrageous, but if the video was edited to show just the reaction it would cause civil unrest in certain circumstances. Often times it isnt a delibrate edit it may just by that by the time a friend was recording they caught a reaction as well. So in most cases involving this i always look to see if the whole situation was captured or just part. In todays society jumping to conclusions is common place with instant media and often goes uncorrected. Both sides have a responsibility to maintain order and regretfully both sides have members who do not do the right thing. But overall 99 percent of the time it is somewhere in the middle or there is a misunderstanding somewhere along the line.

[japanpimp]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/10...arrest-friend/



We all know of the sometimes explosive results of police actions being recorded and made public. Everything from the Kent State University riots in 1970 (where police massacred protesting students) to the Rodney King beating have altered public perceptions of law enforcement and in many cases forced changes in the laws.

How do you feel about this? Do police officers have an expectation of privacy when performing their work (and receiving a salary from taxpayer money)? Do the people they interact with? Would this have been different if it had not been the guy's friend with a cellphone but a news crew with a camera?

If the police felt that the actions of the filmer were interfering with their job and making the situation more difficult, then I say an arrest is OK. BUT, and this is a big but... police and law enforcement should not have a right to erase the video. Taking the camera/phone/video recorder? Ok. But erasing the info? Not OK. The device should have been held until a judge and lawyers made a decision about wheter or not it is OK to delete the info on it. Once a device gets into the hands of law enforcement it becomes state property. And if you tamper with it then that is against the law. It would be like police confiscating drugs but then burning the drugs or flushing them down the toilet at the police station. The drugs are evidence AND state property and police have no right to destroy anything.