Think the police will change?

[cannon_fodder]

These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...).  But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123

A cop interrogated a teenager for over an hour without a parent or attorney, then lied about it on the stand.  The kid recorded it on his Ipod.  The cop is now facing jail for perjury.

So do you think the police will learn and start playing by the rules, or just learn that they need to ensure they are not being recorded before breaking them?

Standard disclaimer: lots of respect for cops, tough job, deal with lots of scum, most follow the important rules (I do think most speed and turn on their lights to run reds).  But there is a large number and growing evidence to suggest the rules are suggestions and "getting the job done" is more important.

[TeeDub]

Will they quit tasing people for no good reason?

http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1

[BASleuth]

Have always found it interesting the Department of Justice (FBI) will neither record or video any statement or confession.  Have always wondered WHY!

[Rico]

This thread appears to be about the minority (of Police) rather than the majority....

Suppose there is any reason for that.?


I imagine every profession has it's fair share of weasels.....  
[}:)]

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub


Will they quit tasing people for no good reason?

http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1

You are asking for it. I am buying a taser and coming to your house. TeeDub will be remembered as Tasered Well.

[Conan71]

Should The Police change?  I heard other than their first show that their latest tour was great!

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

This thread appears to be about the minority (of Police) rather than the majority....

Suppose there is any reason for that.?


I imagine every profession has it's fair share of weasels.....  
[}:)]

How about we have a contest...  Cops who come up with the sneakiest way to ticket motorists win a new police cruiser.

Bonus: This nationwide program funded by your gas tax money.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/21/2106.asp

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...).  But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123

As society is being empowered by emerging technologies such as camera phones and YouTube, you might be inclined to think this story will eventually have a happy ending.

The Rodney King video may have confirmed what a lot of people already suspected, but for many it was such an affront to their beliefs that they refused to accept it.  When the LAPD countered with "you arent seeing what you're seeing" there was a signifigant segment of the population so wanting to hear something in line with their beliefs that they eagerly shut out the evidence in favor of the LAPD's reassuring smokescreen.
According to an FOP memo obtained by KOTV, the local reaction to the videotaping was to advise officers observing a taped arrest to halt the arrest long enough to "secure" the camera, then resume the arrest.  That was 1991.

More recently, a Utah trooper was cleared by his department in a Taser assault, based on the trooper's claim that a man stopped for speeding had tried to flee and put his hand in his pocket, despite unmistakable photographic evidence to the contrary.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=865_1196542044
The case did little to reform a copycat Austin trooper, who probably set a new speed record for  Tasering a suspected speeder.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1196962512

People accept only what their prejudices allow, so it seems the lack of universal shock and disgust of videotaped abuses hasnt caused any great leaps in department-level police reform in the time between King and now.  We simply have more tools to uproot those bad apples but not to keep them from being quietly rehired or anonymously settling in somewhere else.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...).  But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123

As society is being empowered by emerging technologies such as camera phones and YouTube, you might be inclined to think this story will eventually have a happy ending.

The Rodney King video may have confirmed what a lot of people already suspected, but for many it was such an affront to their beliefs that they refused to accept it.  When the LAPD countered with "you arent seeing what you're seeing" there was a signifigant segment of the population so wanting to hear something in line with their beliefs that they eagerly shut out the evidence in favor of the LAPD's reassuring smokescreen.
According to an FOP memo obtained by KOTV, the local reaction to the videotaping was to advise officers observing a taped arrest to halt the arrest long enough to "secure" the camera, then resume the arrest.  That was 1991.

More recently, a Utah trooper was cleared by his department in a Taser assault, based on the trooper's claim that a man stopped for speeding had tried to flee and put his hand in his pocket, despite unmistakable photographic evidence to the contrary.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=865_1196542044
The case did little to reform a copycat Austin trooper, who probably set a new speed record for  Tasering a suspected speeder.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1196962512

People accept only what their prejudices allow, so it seems the lack of universal shock and disgust of videotaped abuses hasnt caused any great leaps in department-level police reform in the time between King and now.  We simply have more tools to uproot those bad apples but not to keep them from being quietly rehired or anonymously settling in somewhere else.

MH2010 hereabout previously affirmed that police desire CELL PHONE JAMMERS, like the kind used by our armed forces in Iraq to jam IED transmitters.

Reason being:  The Ubiquitous Cell Phone camera becomes an impartial 3rd party to police abuse of the citizenry.  And, they don't want any impartial witnesses.  

None living, that is.

Oh, did I mention that AP news today reported that the U.S. now has the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the WORLD?  We've finally surpassed Russia for the highest incarceration rate:  IN THE WORLD.

In the world.

Home of the Brave.  

Maybe.

Land of the Free.  

NOT.

[:O]

[MH2010]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

These used to be a rarity - recordings proving a citizen's side of the story over a cops (see Rodney King, I know I know...).  But they are just becoming common place now:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071207/D8TCC55G0.html?123

As society is being empowered by emerging technologies such as camera phones and YouTube, you might be inclined to think this story will eventually have a happy ending.

The Rodney King video may have confirmed what a lot of people already suspected, but for many it was such an affront to their beliefs that they refused to accept it.  When the LAPD countered with "you arent seeing what you're seeing" there was a signifigant segment of the population so wanting to hear something in line with their beliefs that they eagerly shut out the evidence in favor of the LAPD's reassuring smokescreen.
According to an FOP memo obtained by KOTV, the local reaction to the videotaping was to advise officers observing a taped arrest to halt the arrest long enough to "secure" the camera, then resume the arrest.  That was 1991.

More recently, a Utah trooper was cleared by his department in a Taser assault, based on the trooper's claim that a man stopped for speeding had tried to flee and put his hand in his pocket, despite unmistakable photographic evidence to the contrary.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=865_1196542044
The case did little to reform a copycat Austin trooper, who probably set a new speed record for  Tasering a suspected speeder.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=81b_1196962512

People accept only what their prejudices allow, so it seems the lack of universal shock and disgust of videotaped abuses hasnt caused any great leaps in department-level police reform in the time between King and now.  We simply have more tools to uproot those bad apples but not to keep them from being quietly rehired or anonymously settling in somewhere else.

MH2010 hereabout previously affirmed that police desire CELL PHONE JAMMERS, like the kind used by our armed forces in Iraq to jam IED transmitters.

Reason being:  The Ubiquitous Cell Phone camera becomes an impartial 3rd party to police abuse of the citizenry.  And, they don't want any impartial witnesses.  

None living, that is.

Oh, did I mention that AP news today reported that the U.S. now has the HIGHEST incarceration rate in the WORLD?  We've finally surpassed Russia for the highest incarceration rate:  IN THE WORLD.

In the world.

Home of the Brave.  

Maybe.

Land of the Free.  

NOT.

[:O]

I don't think I just "affirmed" that. I believe I spoke about the officer safety issue of someone calling someone on the phone during the traffic stop.  There have been numerous instances where a person that was stopped called a third party in an effort to defeat the traffic stop.  Many times by shooting at the police.  It happened here in Tulsa in 2001 or 2002.  It happened in the area of  5100 North Frankfort Avenue. Officers had a car stopped. An individual in the car got on a cell phone and called his buddies.  Someone ( I can't remember his name of hand.) then walked up the creek bed and shot at officers on the traffic stop.  

I also listed the cell phone gun when you stated there was nothing dangerous about a "cell phone".

Since people like to group all police together, let me speak for "all of us". "The police" like cameras that have both audio and video and that show what the officer sees and hears. The dashboard cameras in patrol cars are okay but you can't see what the officer sees when they get out of the car or if the incident is happening somewhere other than in front of the vehicle. The audio helps but this set up is far from perfect.  There are cameras available now that are placed on the officer but they are expensive. The city of Tulsa won't purchase simple in car cameras w/ audio so I don't see them buying the smaller "officer cameras".

In almost all cases, video and Audio is used as great evidence in court and to counter false complaints on officers. The most recent high profile case, is the OHP officer that recently got found innocent of a complaint because of the audio (The video was only of the vehicle he had stopped in front of him. The lady that complained was off camera.) of his traffic stop with the lady from Louisiana.  

I know that if someone made a false complaint on me and I had video and audio proof that they purposefully lied, I would sue them in civil court.  

[tim huntzinger]

Can officers supply their own equipment? Would they need to declare that the citizen is being recorded versus accusations of wire-tapping?

Also, jammers would be great to defeat ambushes, but would not prevent the device from acquiring video/audio for storage.

CF, you posted this in 'politics,' do you see some political solution to this?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

Can officers supply their own equipment? Would they need to declare that the citizen is being recorded versus accusations of wire-tapping?

Also, jammers would be great to defeat ambushes, but would not prevent the device from acquiring video/audio for storage.

CF, you posted this in 'politics,' do you see some political solution to this?

Sure, the cell phone could capture the event "off-line", presuming the device has sufficient memory for the length of the encounter.

Problem is:  If the police become aware that there is an independent video record of the event, that cell phone or video recorder will be confiscated as "evidence".  Even if taken by a passenger or a bystander.

And, most assuredly, if incriminating of the behavior of the police, the record will be:  Erased.

All police interviews with the public should be mandatory videotaped.  

Videotaping or streaming video would eliminate a lot of false complaints against the police, and it would also massively change police behavior in their interactions with the public, with suspects, and with prisoners.

To priortize their deployment, we should start with a MANDATORY video record of EVERY NO-KNOCK SEARCH WARRANT executed by the police.

Any judge that signs a No-Knock Search Warrant without the proviso in the Warrant that every second of the search be videotaped is signing a potential Death Warrant for the suspect.

There is a literal hill of dead bodies from the beginnings of Nixon's "War-on-Drugs" through this a.m. due to No-Knock searches.  

The police knocked a residential door down in the middle of the night, and sleep-dazed resident armed himself to confront the intruder (The Police), and was promptly shot to pieces by an adrenaline-pumped policeman. Sometimes, even at the WRONG house.

Or, what was ultimately found in the subsequent search while the suspect is left to bleed out, cuffed on the floor, that the police found a misdemeanor level of contraband.

No Knock Search Warrants are DEATH WARRANTS.  Sometimes even for the police, but normally for the resident.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

This thread appears to be about the minority (of Police) rather than the majority....

Suppose there is any reason for that.?


I imagine every profession has it's fair share of weasels.....  
[}:)]

Sure there is a reason. The police are a bunch of jackbooted Nazi scum...The police do nothing but run around, indiscriminately beating and killing innocent people who are just minding their own business. Heck, just yesterday I was walking in my neighborhood when seven squad cars appeared from nowhere. The police jumped from their cars, encircled me, and just started shooting at me. Since this sort of thing happens all the time here, I just ducked the bullets, paid the required bribe, and went home.

[patric]

quote:I also listed the cell phone gun when you stated there was nothing dangerous about a "cell phone".

The "cell phone gun" was a European proof-of-concept design for a video, and no working models have been seen in the U.S.

quote:The most recent high profile case, is the OHP officer that recently got found innocent of a complaint because of the audio (The video was only of the vehicle he had stopped in front of him. The lady that complained was off camera.) of his traffic stop with the lady from Louisiana.

The edited videos the OHP submitted didnt prove anything, and their refusal to make the original unedited video public casts more suspicion on their credibility.

Dashcam video should be public record by default.  Tampering with it should be a crime.

quote:Problem is:  If the police become aware that there is an independent video record of the event, that cell phone or video recorder will be confiscated as "evidence".  Even if taken by a passenger or a bystander. [/quote]


When TPD killed a bipolar man during a standoff Oct. 29, officers demanded reporters at the scene turn over their tapes or be arrested.  The media resisted what they knew was an unlawful order and used their cell phones to contact their managers and legal council.  Is there a reason the average citizen shouldnt also be able to do something similar when faced with what they believe to be an abuse of authority?

[MH2010]

The "cell phone gun" was a European proof-of-concept design for a video, and no working models have been seen in the U.S.

-I know I don't want to be the first policeman killed in the USA by it. Besides that was just one quick example.   There are other devices that cause harm that look like cell phones.


The edited videos the OHP submitted didnt prove anything, and their refusal to make the original unedited video public casts more suspicion on their credibility.

-Sorry, I should say it proved it to everyone but the black helicopter people.  I wonder if the black helicopter people still watch reruns of the X-files because they think it brings "the truth" to light?

Dashcam video should be public record by default.  Tampering with it should be a crime.

- Talk to your state senator or representative. There will be alot of resistance to this.  Some people would not want their videos made public record.  What about them?

Problem is:  If the police become aware that there is an independent video record of the event, that cell phone or video recorder will be confiscated as "evidence".  Even if taken by a passenger or a bystander.

- Here is one experience I had with someone videotaping a car stop. Some guy came out and videotaped a car stop I had on E. pine street. I didn't care that he did it and allowed it to continue.  However, if something would have happened (person arrested for a criminal offense, possession of CDS, firearm, Kidnapping if he had someone tied up in the car, he resisted arrest ect.) then that video would have been evidence of the event and I would probably have seized it. If I didn't seize the tape, I could just imagine the fun a defense attorney would have.."Officer, you mean you knew there was a videotape of this incident and you failed to retreive it? Why did you not retreive this footage?  Do you have something to hide? What happened on this tape that you don't want the jury (or judge) to know?" ect. It would go on for hours.


When TPD killed a bipolar man during a standoff Oct. 29, officers demanded reporters at the scene turn over their tapes or be arrested.  The media resisted what they knew was an unlawful order and used their cell phones to contact their managers and legal council.  Is there a reason the average citizen shouldnt also be able to do something similar when faced with what they believe to be an abuse of authority.

- And that is why fox23 was airing the footage minutes after it happened.  The complete story was that officers needed the original unedited footage for evidence. The footage was later subpoenaed from the stations that did not make it available. This footage was needed because just like you have previously shown, if the "orginal" unedited footage was not available defense attorneys and police conspiracy wingnuts would say the footage was altered or that it "casts more suspicion on their credibility".