Taping the Police

Curious to hear what Orgahs think of this. Several states and municipalities have been passing laws to the effect that taping police in public is a crime. I think this is maybe the worst idea ever. Being a police officer is a privilege, a public trust. You are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens, a right almost no other citizen has (all I can think of offhand is correctional officers). Why on earth should it be a crime to be videotaped in public when doing the public's duty?

Here's a reference. And another. Is there anyone who can defend these laws? Anybody who thinks it's a great idea?

So does that mean an end to the venerable tradition of silly car chase shows with frequently bad drivers (on both sides) in often worse cars? Will we have to go back to British youth pelting plod in Astra's?

Utterly wrong. Police are public servants. When on duty they are in the public domain.

In the UK there have been episodes of "The person fell down, and we tried to help them" became - after video footage was released - "Oh, an officer hit the person in the head as he happened to be walking past, did nothing to help and stopped passers by and an ambulance getting to the person".

Anyone who has malign intent will get the footage using a zoomed lens. My camera was not that expensive and has 16x with effective shake reduction. If you're serious about this, you'd get one with 20-30x zoom and a decent tripod.

The police don't want people providing contemporary footage of what they do as it makes their actions harder to justify. If there are uniformed officers that can't deal with the reality they are in the public eye - change jobs!


~:smoking:

Not that I'm going to but it can be defended, they could be personally recognised on the tape which could get their family into trouble. Also, imagine someone you love getting pulled out of a wrecked car becomming a youtube hit.

Niehter fo Frags concerns trumps my civil liberties.

There are very few documented caes of retaliation against police officers. What's more, is that their names are public records in the criminal cases that are public records and can be obtained for free from most county/coity clerks

Also, I believe a district court already rulds that such no-tape ordinances are unconstitutional. I believe the ruling was somewhere around September

hoho not my concerns, but I can imagine how it can make their job more difficult as a cop on duty is not a private person. he is there as the police

... Well not really. I imagine someone taking the camera up close can be an impediment if there's actual, you know, first aid to be done. But taping a few police officers having lunch? Total waste, yes, but that's the sort of thing that lands you a spot in the police abuse thread in the USA apparently.

One of the eastern districts I think. I was surprised the 9th circuit court didn't beat them to it.

Biggest concerns I've ever heard were over eager recorders getting in the way and putting themselves in danger (and there are already multiple laws that can deal with that issue) and the "creative editing" that goes into a lot of the recordings before being put on youtube.

Currently in my neck of the woods my understanding is that police have the same rights as far as being recorded as any other citizen, which means it's only illegal if they're recording sound. I expect that to change at some point. Even still, the safe assumption is to always expect to be recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Also, I believe a district court already rulds that such no-tape ordinances are unconstitutional. I believe the ruling was somewhere around September

---

@TA I'm not agreeing with myself, they should suck it up imho, just trying to look from their perspective. When I think of it them not being a private person there is not that rediculous. And nobody tapes a street where nothing happens, so they would be taped all the time. If I worked for the police I could feel intruded personally. But I don't

I would suggest that if you cannot tolerate public scrutiny while doing your job, you are not really suited for being a cop. Go do something else with your life.

Who is this addressed to? It seems pretty hostile considering so far everyone seems to pretty much agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I would suggest that if you cannot tolerate public scrutiny while doing your job, you are not really suited for being a cop. Go do something else with your life.

---

Not being able to video record police officers is absurd. Anyone with malicious intent will surreptitiously do it and a squared away police force should welcome it.

I would really like to see a big picture analysis of this. States like Maryland are adamantly against it and they have some of the most abusive and unprofessional police and government practices in the country. I'm inclined to think states that ban taping have similar characteristics.

If they aren't doing anything wrong. what do they have to hide? ~;)

I'd like to see what percentage of police are actually against it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I'd like to see what percentage of police are actually against it...

---

I suspect the majority are against it for various reasons. Why would they be for it?

If only I could get someone to tape me when I worked at a drive thru in college. I might have been able to trick myself into thinking it meant I was doing something interesting. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

If they aren't doing anything wrong. what do they have to hide? ~;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zim

Who is this addressed to? It seems pretty hostile considering so far everyone seems to pretty much agree with you.

---

Didn't mean it to sound hostile, just a general thought for Fragony's hypothetical officer-who-wants-his-privacy.

Some jobs involve public scrutiny. Working at checkout for a retailer means you are looked at, talked to and interacted with by many people. If you don't like that, it's the wrong job for you. Likewise, being a model means being examined and judged on a daily basis by strangers. Don't like it? Don't be a model.

To my mind, this applies to the police. You (usually) put on an identifying uniform, go out in public and are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens. It's a unique job with pressures, dangers and privileges unlike any other. If a policeman were to say, as in Frags' hypothetical, that he does not like public scrutiny, then he should find a different line of work. Lots of people want to be a cop. No need to gum up the gears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not that I'm going to but it can be defended, they could be personally recognised on the tape which could get their family into trouble. Also, imagine someone you love getting pulled out of a wrecked car becomming a youtube hit.

---

In the Netherlands, in cases where privacy is concerned there's made a strict distinction between taping or recording something on one hand and publishing or showing it on the other hand. To me, it seems the same reasoning should be applied here - recording what a policeman should be allowed, or at least under most circumstances.

Maybe the reasons you've outlined could justify that a person can't make the material available for everyone to see, under certain circumstances. A simple ban on recording them while on the job is wrong - and I suspect that privacy wasn't the reason for those states to ban it, anyway.

[quote=Lemur]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Didn't mean it to sound hostile, just a general thought for Fragony's hypothetical officer-who-wants-his-privacy.

Some jobs involve public scrutiny. Working at checkout for a retailer means you are looked at, talked to and interacted with by many people. If you don't like that, it's the wrong job for you. Likewise, being a model means being examined and judged on a daily basis by strangers. Don't like it? Don't be a model.

To my mind, this applies to the police. You (usually) put on an identifying uniform, go out in public and are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens. It's a unique job with pressures, dangers and privileges unlike any other. If a policeman were to say, as in Frags' hypothetical, that he does not like public scrutiny, then he should find a different line of work. Lots of people want to be a cop. No need to gum up the gears.

---

It doesn't take much to imagine a situation where it would be a legitimate concern. For example, suppose you catch cops, with their faces recognisable, on tape while they arrest some mafia boss or something like that.

My mistake. I had gotten a bit of an angry vibe from the post but on a second reading it was just straightforward. I think I've had trainers who have said much the same thing (in the same words).

To try to address Sasaki's question I have no idea what a country wide poll would come up for that, although I suspect some major variations by region or even department. Remember, the popo are not even remotely close to being unified group with anything like similar standards. Even their legal status and what constitutes a peace officer varies widely and encompasses $80,000 or more entry pay with high educational requirements and months upon months of academy training to minimum wage jobs in parts of the South.

That said, where I work while I suspect most people are at least a little nervous at the thought of being recorded, the general belief is that video tapes will save your job when spurious accusations are made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Didn't mean it to sound hostile, just a general thought for Fragony's hypothetical officer-who-wants-his-privacy.

Some jobs involve public scrutiny. Working at checkout for a retailer means you are looked at, talked to and interacted with by many people. If you don't like that, it's the wrong job for you. Likewise, being a model means being examined and judged on a daily basis by strangers. Don't like it? Don't be a model.

To my mind, this applies to the police. You (usually) put on an identifying uniform, go out in public and are authorized to use force on your fellow citizens. It's a unique job with pressures, dangers and privileges unlike any other. If a policeman were to say, as in Frags' hypothetical, that he does not like public scrutiny, then he should find a different line of work. Lots of people want to be a cop. No need to gum up the gears.

---

' It doesn't take much to imagine a situation where it would be a legitimate concern.'

aye

Would this law extend to cops in maybe particularly sensitive roles, such as counter-terrorism/plainclothes/etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I suspect the majority are against it for various reasons. Why would they be for it?

---

Because despite what the 'Police Abuse' thread screams at us, not all cops are terrible corrupt bullies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Because despite what the 'Police Abuse' thread screams at us, not all cops are terrible corrupt bullies.

---

And yet, the vast majority would rather support the sociopaths among them than cross the thin blue line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

And yet, the vast majority would rather support the sociopaths among them than cross the thin blue line.

---

This is not as detestable as it seems when you put it like that. These men are putting their life on the line every day together. Sure, there really isn't that much danger is suburban america, but a camaraderie grows between officers who experience the same danger, the same chaos together. No one knows what the next traffic stop will bring about.

This is not to excuse their defense of the abusers within the police force, but if we don't keep in mind the bond that police work forms between those who wear the badge, we are not getting the full picture. We might as well be asking a man to condemn his brother. The bonds are strong and they muddle with logic. Humans are flawed like that, and it is important not to attribute malice to actions that stem from such flaws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

This is not as detestable as it seems when you put it like that. These men are putting their life on the line every day together. Sure, there really isn't that much danger is suburban america, but a camaraderie grows between officers who experience the same danger, the same chaos together. No one knows what the next traffic stop will bring about.

This is not to excuse their defense of the abusers within the police force, but if we don't keep in mind the bond that police work forms between those who wear the badge, we are not getting the full picture. We might as well be asking a man to condemn his brother. The bonds are strong and they muddle with logic. Humans are flawed like that, and it is important not to attribute malice to actions that stem from such flaws.

---

Call me a cynic, but I wonder how much of this line of reasoning is true and how much of it is romanticism. And yes, humans are flawed like that, and it should be expected that every now and then there's the odd case of someone covering up for his collegue. I gather though that the outrage is largely because it appears to be systemic (though I admit, I rarely read the police abuse thread)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacob Applebaum

99 percent of the police make the rest of them look bad.

---

In the context of state surveillance/state terrorism (and censorship). At 55:49 into this talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX46Qv_b7F4

(Worth watching in its entirety.)

From: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...police-officer

Quote:

---

Aides to Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez opposed the legislation, saying the issue still needs to play out in the courts. The Illinois Fraternal Order of Police warned the bill could scare witnesses who fear their conversations at a crime scene would be monitored by organized crime.

Even so, Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy recently told the Tribune he supports letting people record the police and vice versa.

---

From:http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/forest...ouse-committee

Quote:

---

Patrick Coughlin, deputy chief of the narcotics bureau in the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, disagreed.

“Because of the Illinois eavesdropping statute, officers cannot record that conversation without a court order. This is not leveling the playing field,” Coughlin said. “This is giving more rights to private citizens to collect evidence of a crime than officers have.”

One concern of law enforcement groups is that the legislation would allow criminals and gang members to record the police’s interactions with potential witnesses and informants.

“It may have a chilling effect on victims coming forward if they know that a person that’s not a member to that conversation can come up and record whatever they say to the police,” Coughlin said.

In the past five years, only 10 people have been convicted of recording police officers without their consent in Cook County, and only two of the incidents occurred in public places, he said.

---

CR

Hmm, that's a reasonable point about the witnesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Hmm, that's a reasonable point about the witnesses.

---

No it's not. Take the person inside, around the corner, inside the car, or wherever. We're not talking about stalking cops on patrol but recording actions during an incident.