I'm against the generalization and the baiting of the police force just for the sake of being an ass, thinking that you are on a righteous crusade when what you are actually doing is debilitating the agency that is there to help.
So you are generalising that everyone who films police officers in action are baiting and purposefully trying to get the cops to be aggressive towards them?
I'm against the generalization and the baiting of the police force just for the sake of being an ass, thinking that you are on a righteous crusade when what you are actually doing is debilitating the agency that is there to help.
So you are generalising that everyone who films police officers in action are baiting and purposefully trying to get the cops to be aggressive towards them?
Please point me to where I did this?
Sorry, I misread your initial comment earlier in this thread.
I would agree that many videos that have been passed around are used to demonize law enforcement where it's not quite appropriate. The "Don't Taze Me Bro" video captures this perfectly. The video sparked outrage at what was allegedly "police brutality," but the actions of the police were actually quite warranted, and no brutality was evident. There are other examples of this sort of phenomenon that wind up engendering a lot of unwarranted bad will towards cops and their methods.
That is not to say that cops don't abuse their power. Of course they do, and those cops deserve to be publicly shamed. However, the public outrage problem is a tricky one. Cops have to restrain people in order to maintain order. We want them to do that. Yet, when we see video of them doing that, there is a backlash against their supposed "brutality."
I suppose the best way to handle that is to sue the people who publish the video for defamation of character or some similar thing. If a cop is just doing their job, and you're a douchebag and decide to make a big deal out of it, you get sued. If the cop is being a douchebag, they deserve all the backlash they get.
I suppose the best way to handle that is to sue the people who publish the video for defamation of character or some similar thing. If a cop is just doing their job, and you're a douchebag and decide to make a big deal out of it, you get sued. If the cop is being a douchebag, they deserve all the backlash they get.
But is it really defamation to publicize a true record of actual events, even without commentary? The video is an actual video of real, verifiable events, and truth is (and should be) 100% defense against defamation, libel, and slander.
Yes, thats the ticket, thin out an already underpowered agency so that the good cops get even more stress and clashes by people for not "being there" while NO ONE wants to be a cop but complain none the less, so they may also break and be moved to another department, because we all know people need less cops on the streets and more on a desk.
I'd rather have no cop than a cop who abuses his power or harms innocent people for no good reason. My rationale is simple: if a police officer attacks me unjustly, I have ZERO recourse. Even defending myself on the most basic level is a crime, and I am fucked. A criminal, on the other hand, is just a fellow citizen, and I am much freer to exercise discretion in my response and, if endangered, defend myself against immediate harm. I can't defend myself against a police officer at all during the emergent situation. If I'm lucky, video evidence can exonerate me post facto, but any harm I've suffered in the interim is basically beyond my control.
If we can't get good cops at our current pay levels, we must raise the pay and the standards. If that costs too much than society will bear, then society has said "I don't want competent law enforcement," and you have to choose if you wish to continue to be a member of said society.
That said, the vast majority of encounters I have ever had with police officers throughout my life have been unpleasant at best, outright hostile at worst. I assume that I will have to fend for myself in any emergent situation long before a police officer will be able or willing to assist me, and I rely primarily upon verifiable record of my behavior (video, audio, etc...).
I'm against the generalization and the baiting of the police force just for the sake of being an ass, thinking that you are on a righteous crusade when what you are actually doing is debilitating the agency that is there to help. It's the kind of people that likes to point and blame, but never step up and either do what they preach or at least offer realistic solutions to the problem.
I'm vary dubious of how often this is the case. Most times I see a story like this, the video evidence and testimony point straight away at innocent photography and police malfeasance. Do you have a specific example of a situation where the person filming was actually directly disruptive to the officers or the scene?
But is it really defamation to publicize a true record of actual events, even without commentary?
Without commentary is fine, but I can also see it as grounds for a suit. You would have to be able to prove that the intent behind the video was to defame the officers in question, though. In the specific case of "Don't Taze Me, Bro," I believe there were comments from the authors of the video that reflected their intent. In other cases, though, it would be difficult.
That said, the vast majority of encounters I have ever had with police officers throughout my life have been unpleasant at best, outright hostile at worst.
Really? How many encounters have you had with cops? I generally find that if you're polite and cooperative, they're polite and respectful in return.
This is purely anecdotal, but I'm sort of with MrRoboto. I generally find of the people I know who repeatedly have trouble with the police, there's usually a good reason for it. We have a friend who refers to cops as "pigs," and talks about how many times the Albany PD has thrown him around and brutalized him. This is also the same individual who got really really drunk at a party and literally almost killed someone by bashing their head against a toilet. I find that the people who are in trouble with the law are usually shit-starters in some capacity.
I suppose the best way to handle that is to sue the people who publish the video for defamation of character or some similar thing. If a cop is just doing their job, and you're a douchebag and decide to make a big deal out of it, you get sued. If the cop is being a douchebag, they deserve all the backlash they get.
But is it really defamation to publicize a true record of actual events, even without commentary? The video is an actual video of real, verifiable events, and truth is (and should be) 100% defense against defamation, libel, and slander.
As long as the entire video is made available without edit or comment then there is no defamation of character. When the video is edited or only a small portion is available, that is when force can look unjustified.
Really? How many encounters have you had with cops? I generally find that if you're polite and cooperative, they're polite and respectful in return.
A few dozen. Granted, I was violating laws in many of these encounters, sometimes evading and escaping law enforcement. But most of the encounters? Police intruding into my personal business due to my keeping of a late hour outside, demanding ID when I've committed no crime, or demanding to search my bag when entering the subway (I've declined each time and taken an alternate route).
My perspective is definitely skewed by the fact that I've had almost zero solicited encounters with the police, and I've never really been in a situation where they would have been helpful soon enough to warrant calling them.
My perspective is definitely skewed by the fact that I've had almost zerosolicitedencounters with the police, and I've never really been in a situation where they would have been helpful soon enough to warrant calling them.
Yeah, and this:
Granted, I was violating laws in many of these encounters, sometimes evading and escaping law enforcement.
leads me to conclude, as I've done with my other friend, that you're something of a shit-starter. :P Of course, I already knew that.
I've had two unsolicited run-ins with the police. In one instance, I was speeding and got caught. That's a legitimate ticket. The guy wasn't particularly rude; he asked me if I knew what the speed limit was and where I was going in such a hurry. That was the extent of the exchange. The other involved me accidentally wandering into the middle of a police investigation at 2 AM, and the only thing that resulted was them asking me to move along.
If you don't start shit, you probably won't have a problem with the cops. Speaking out isn't really starting shit, but refusing to leave once you've been asked to leave - politely and repeatedly - is grounds for police intervention.
At least you can admit that your perspective is skewed. Also, NYC has such a large department that your going to have more chances for negative encounters simply by the numbers of people and individuals involved. I can say that I've never had a negative encounter with the police, even when being written a ticket. I think the public would be well served if all officers carried a small camera that was available for review by an independent civilian oversight body.
Considering NYC, all your best officers are either going to be in specialized units or leave for departments that actually pay a good wage.
but refusing to leave once you've been asked to leave - politely and repeatedly - is grounds for police intervention.
But if you're across the street, out of the way, and filming the police interacting with someone else, how is this wrong? Why should the police have any power to stop you? They shouldn't even have the right to ask you to leave unless you're in danger or the emergent situation involves the vantage from which you're filming.
The problem is that the offices don't just ask people to leave, they demand to see and destroy what they've filmed. What purpose could this possibly serve the public good?
They don't have any right to tell you to stop, and in at least 3 states you have the expressed legal right to film. It doesn't serve any public good. In my field we download out black boxes (flight data) and it protects us from unjustified complaints by showing what we actually did. I for one welcome it and don't mind at all.
I suppose the best way to handle that is to sue the people who publish the video for defamation of character or some similar thing. If a cop is just doing their job, and you're a douchebag and decide to make a big deal out of it, you get sued. If the cop is being a douchebag, they deserve all the backlash they get.
But is it really defamation to publicize a true record of actual events, even without commentary? The video is an actual video of real, verifiable events, and truth is (and should be) 100% defense against defamation, libel, and slander.
It can be defamation if the video is used to portray someone in a way that is not accurate. They do it on reality shows all the time; editing clips together to make someone look like a slut or an asshole. Take real video out of context, and it can be defamatory despite the fact that everything that went into it actually happened.
The other issue you have is that public officials and public figures are REALLY hard to actually defame, in a legal sense. If a police officer is considered a public official, then you have to prove both falsehood and actual malice (the person posting it KNEW it was false and intended the deception). That is way harder than a private defamation action.
To add to the testimonials; almost all of my encounters with the police have been pleasant. I've been pulled over a few times, but it was never for anything serious. I've been in 3 wrecks, all of which the cops taking the report were courteous and neutral, some even supportive. Even when I was arrested as a teen, the cops who were responsible treated us pretty well. Granted, I'm a chick... but I was respectful and didn't give them any shit once they got involved.
I HAVE seen cops be dicks, like giving speeding tickets for speeds that were clearly incorrect (10 or so mph over the speedometer reading). In that case, he was on the other side of the road, going to other way from us, when he passed us. We had pulled off to get gas and the guy stopped and waited for us to come back from the gas station, then pulled us over and gave us a ticket saying he'd clocked us going 15 over. Bullshit - we were going 5 over and he was driving the opposite direction. When the fuck would he have clocked us? Red sports car on a country road with no witnesses, so he just assumed he would get away with it, I am sure. We drove 3 hours back to that stupid-ass little county to plead not guilty and get it dropped to 5 over. Ass. But that is not the majority of my experiences with police.
But if you're across the street, out of the way, and filming the police interacting with someone else, how is this wrong? Why should the police have any power to stop you? They shouldn't even have the right to ask you to leave unless you're in danger or the emergent situation involves the vantage from which you're filming.
The problem is that the offices don't just ask people to leave, they demand to see and destroy what they've filmed. What purpose could this possibly serve the public good?
I agree with you on the filming, so long as what you're doing is simply documenting. However, the precedent still exists for assholes causing problems while filming. It makes cops leery.
If you're across the street filming, well outside of the crime scene, it shouldn't be an issue. If they ask you to leave and you get belligerent, that's on you. If you get right up in the officer's face and get intrusive with your filming, you've also crossed a line.
But as long as you're just filming, that's fine. These anti-filming laws are bullshit. What we should have are laws that clearly define the difference between passively recording and actively intruding. That, and when an officer asks you to stop filming, you stop. Remember, there's a suspect there too, not just an officer. If you put that up online, you may be unfairly calling attention to the suspect.
That, and when an officer asks you to stop filming, you stop. Remember, there's a suspect there too, not just an officer. If you put that up online, you may be unfairly calling attention to the suspect.
Doesn't matter in my opinion. I don't believe anyone should have a right to privacy from recording in public places, even if this means creepy dude hangs out at the playground with his camera. The cop shouldn't be able to ask you to stop filming: at best he should inform you what you may not legally be allowed to do with said video.
So if someone takes unauthorized video of you talking to some cops, puts it online without commentary, and your employer decides to fire you as a result, that's OK? That's a touch of hyperbole, but that's the gist of what I'm getting at. Documentation is fine, so long as you put the whole thing out there and your intent is not to defame.
Not filming a police investigation may be completely warranted because of control of evidence. That's critically important in legal proceedings. The other scenario, as I said, is when you're getting up in the cops' business with your video. In those cases, I'm fine with them telling you to stop. Demanding what you've already recorded and destroying it is unacceptable, but "Move along, citizen," is a pretty reasonable request.
Legally they have the right to tell you to stop in certain states, until we as the people make enough of a clamour to get our politicians to pass a law guaranteeing our rights to film on duty police officers. Since inhibiting an investigation is already a separate crime the cases of people interfering while filming are illegal for reasons other than the filming.
So if someone takes unauthorized video of you talking to some cops, puts it online without commentary, and your employer decides to fire you as a result, that's OK?
You have a right to record. The cops shouldn't be able to stop you. Now, if you publish this against some other law, you've committed a separate crime. The police should not be able to stop you from simply recording, as it is itself not a crime.
As for publication of recorded material, I publish pictures of strangers in my Flickr and Twitter pretty regularly. I don't personally think there should ever be a problem with publishing anything you yourself record openly in a public place, even if the subjects don't consent, so long as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If I'm allowed to see it, and I'm allowed to describe it, I should be allowed to show the record of what I actually saw. This runs counter to some laws in certain circumstances, but that's a separate issue.
The issue here is cops asking you to stop or destroying your film. They should have no right to do so solely to prevent me from committing some other act (like publishing the film) later.
e.g.:
I film a guy walking down the sidewalk. Fair game. I film a guy through the slit of a public restroom's stall door. Not fair game: we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall, even a public one.
And you don't believe that recording an active police investigation or questioning of a suspect is a different situation?
EDIT: I agree with you about most recordings of cops. However, having a blanket statement saying "We can always record everything cops do" ignores a lot of possible complications that can arise because of the presence of uncontrolled evidence pursuant to an investigation.
Agreed, publishing video from an ongoing investigation is one thing, as was seen recently during the Lakewood Washington police killings where the local news crew ended up filming the police raid on a suspect location (giving the suspect ample warning and a chance to leave). Live TV has had this ramification numerous times, where the suspects inside a barricaded home have been able to see the movements of the officers outside.
This isn't even close to the issue at hand. The police should not have the ability to prevent you from filming (without interfering) their on-duty actions any more than they can prevent you from filming jets taking off, or trains running, traffic at intersections, etc etc etc.
No one wins if they are granted the power to do so, even the police will lose in the end from the lack of trust it engenders.
And you don't believe that recording an active police investigation or questioning of a suspect is a different situation?
To what end? If your filming something that then interferes with the investigation or tips off a criminal or something like that then you have committed a different crime and that is what you should be arrested and punished for. The act of filming on-duty police conduct should not be illegal.
You're recording evidence involved with an official police investigation, but you're not authorized to do so. That's the issue. I'm not saying it should be illegal - if you accidentally wander into an active investigation, you've committed no crime - but in such a situation, the police are within their full authority to ask you to stop, and if you refuse, they are in their full authority to make you stop.
The act of filming on-duty police conduct should not be illegal.
And it's not until they ask you to stop and you refuse to comply.
To what end? If your filming something that then interferes with the investigation or tips off a criminal or something like that then you have committed a different crime and that is what you should be arrested and punished for. The act of filming on-duty police conduct should not be illegal.
You're recording evidence involved with an official police investigation, but you're not authorized to do so. That's the issue. I'm not saying it should be illegal - if you accidentally wander into an active investigation, you've committed no crime - but in such a situation, the police are within their full authority to ask you to stop, and if you refuse, they are in their full authority tomakeyou stop.
No they are not. There is no authorization required to film an on going investigation. Do you think that TV news choppers need permission to film the scenes of crimes where ongoing investigations are going on?
Publishing that material may constitute a crime, or it may just be a really bad idea (that isn't illegal). Filming the actions in and of itself is not a crime (in most states) and shouldn't be a crime in any state. (With the caveat that you can legally be where your at ie, not in a home you had to break into or behind crime scene tape).
I like cops, at one time I wanted to do that full time. If you offered me a police pilot job I'd take it tomorrow, I may end up applying for a reserve cop position someday. None of that makes me think its ok to prevent non-interfering filming of my activities when on duty.
If I was working full time as an officer I would welcome a camera to record my activities, it is my assertions that it will protect me rather than hinder my ability to do my job lawfully. The Troy NY PD would agree. The only reason for a police force to oppose filming is to cover up patterns of bad or illegal behavior.
I'd like to add that once upon a time I worked as a guard at a Federal Building that got credible bomb threats against it. We had video surveillance of known terrorist suspects filming the buildings in Seattle at the time. Even then we were not allowed to prevent filming. We could ask people why they were filming, we could ask them not to film, but if they didn't stop there was nothing we could do to them, nor were they breaking any law. While I might not like that from a security standpoint, I like it as an American.
No they are not. There is no authorization required to film an on going investigation. Do you think that TV news choppers need permission to film the scenes of crimes where ongoing investigations are going on?
In fact, I am almost approved for a NYC press pass if I want to pay for it. With one, I would have almost unrestricted access to crime scenes, ongoing investigations, and everything. I'd even get a little ID to show to the police.
Controlled access to evidence, once again. It's critical with certain police investigations, for a variety of reasons, that some information not be made public, and that the police know who has what evidence.
You of all people should understand what controlling access to certain sensitive information is all about. If I let slip the right information during an outbreak investigation, I can ruin a company for no good reason. The same can be true of police investigations. That's why if they ask you to stop, you should comply. You're fine until then.
Well, I wouldn't say that citizens should be able to jump across crime scene tape, or interfere in any way, but the basic right to document should not be infringed.
Comments
That is not to say that cops don't abuse their power. Of course they do, and those cops deserve to be publicly shamed. However, the public outrage problem is a tricky one. Cops have to restrain people in order to maintain order. We want them to do that. Yet, when we see video of them doing that, there is a backlash against their supposed "brutality."
I suppose the best way to handle that is to sue the people who publish the video for defamation of character or some similar thing. If a cop is just doing their job, and you're a douchebag and decide to make a big deal out of it, you get sued. If the cop is being a douchebag, they deserve all the backlash they get.
If we can't get good cops at our current pay levels, we must raise the pay and the standards. If that costs too much than society will bear, then society has said "I don't want competent law enforcement," and you have to choose if you wish to continue to be a member of said society.
That said, the vast majority of encounters I have ever had with police officers throughout my life have been unpleasant at best, outright hostile at worst. I assume that I will have to fend for myself in any emergent situation long before a police officer will be able or willing to assist me, and I rely primarily upon verifiable record of my behavior (video, audio, etc...).
This is purely anecdotal, but I'm sort of with MrRoboto. I generally find of the people I know who repeatedly have trouble with the police, there's usually a good reason for it. We have a friend who refers to cops as "pigs," and talks about how many times the Albany PD has thrown him around and brutalized him. This is also the same individual who got really really drunk at a party and literally almost killed someone by bashing their head against a toilet. I find that the people who are in trouble with the law are usually shit-starters in some capacity.
My perspective is definitely skewed by the fact that I've had almost zero solicited encounters with the police, and I've never really been in a situation where they would have been helpful soon enough to warrant calling them.
I've had two unsolicited run-ins with the police. In one instance, I was speeding and got caught. That's a legitimate ticket. The guy wasn't particularly rude; he asked me if I knew what the speed limit was and where I was going in such a hurry. That was the extent of the exchange. The other involved me accidentally wandering into the middle of a police investigation at 2 AM, and the only thing that resulted was them asking me to move along.
If you don't start shit, you probably won't have a problem with the cops. Speaking out isn't really starting shit, but refusing to leave once you've been asked to leave - politely and repeatedly - is grounds for police intervention.
Considering NYC, all your best officers are either going to be in specialized units or leave for departments that actually pay a good wage.
The problem is that the offices don't just ask people to leave, they demand to see and destroy what they've filmed. What purpose could this possibly serve the public good?
The other issue you have is that public officials and public figures are REALLY hard to actually defame, in a legal sense. If a police officer is considered a public official, then you have to prove both falsehood and actual malice (the person posting it KNEW it was false and intended the deception). That is way harder than a private defamation action.
To add to the testimonials; almost all of my encounters with the police have been pleasant. I've been pulled over a few times, but it was never for anything serious. I've been in 3 wrecks, all of which the cops taking the report were courteous and neutral, some even supportive. Even when I was arrested as a teen, the cops who were responsible treated us pretty well. Granted, I'm a chick... but I was respectful and didn't give them any shit once they got involved.
I HAVE seen cops be dicks, like giving speeding tickets for speeds that were clearly incorrect (10 or so mph over the speedometer reading). In that case, he was on the other side of the road, going to other way from us, when he passed us. We had pulled off to get gas and the guy stopped and waited for us to come back from the gas station, then pulled us over and gave us a ticket saying he'd clocked us going 15 over. Bullshit - we were going 5 over and he was driving the opposite direction. When the fuck would he have clocked us? Red sports car on a country road with no witnesses, so he just assumed he would get away with it, I am sure. We drove 3 hours back to that stupid-ass little county to plead not guilty and get it dropped to 5 over. Ass. But that is not the majority of my experiences with police.
If you're across the street filming, well outside of the crime scene, it shouldn't be an issue. If they ask you to leave and you get belligerent, that's on you. If you get right up in the officer's face and get intrusive with your filming, you've also crossed a line.
But as long as you're just filming, that's fine. These anti-filming laws are bullshit. What we should have are laws that clearly define the difference between passively recording and actively intruding. That, and when an officer asks you to stop filming, you stop. Remember, there's a suspect there too, not just an officer. If you put that up online, you may be unfairly calling attention to the suspect.
Not filming a police investigation may be completely warranted because of control of evidence. That's critically important in legal proceedings. The other scenario, as I said, is when you're getting up in the cops' business with your video. In those cases, I'm fine with them telling you to stop. Demanding what you've already recorded and destroying it is unacceptable, but "Move along, citizen," is a pretty reasonable request.
As for publication of recorded material, I publish pictures of strangers in my Flickr and Twitter pretty regularly. I don't personally think there should ever be a problem with publishing anything you yourself record openly in a public place, even if the subjects don't consent, so long as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If I'm allowed to see it, and I'm allowed to describe it, I should be allowed to show the record of what I actually saw. This runs counter to some laws in certain circumstances, but that's a separate issue.
The issue here is cops asking you to stop or destroying your film. They should have no right to do so solely to prevent me from committing some other act (like publishing the film) later.
e.g.:
I film a guy walking down the sidewalk. Fair game.
I film a guy through the slit of a public restroom's stall door. Not fair game: we have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall, even a public one.
EDIT: I agree with you about most recordings of cops. However, having a blanket statement saying "We can always record everything cops do" ignores a lot of possible complications that can arise because of the presence of uncontrolled evidence pursuant to an investigation.
This isn't even close to the issue at hand. The police should not have the ability to prevent you from filming (without interfering) their on-duty actions any more than they can prevent you from filming jets taking off, or trains running, traffic at intersections, etc etc etc.
No one wins if they are granted the power to do so, even the police will lose in the end from the lack of trust it engenders.
Publishing that material may constitute a crime, or it may just be a really bad idea (that isn't illegal). Filming the actions in and of itself is not a crime (in most states) and shouldn't be a crime in any state. (With the caveat that you can legally be where your at ie, not in a home you had to break into or behind crime scene tape).
I like cops, at one time I wanted to do that full time. If you offered me a police pilot job I'd take it tomorrow, I may end up applying for a reserve cop position someday. None of that makes me think its ok to prevent non-interfering filming of my activities when on duty.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/newyork.civil.liberties.2.241767.html
If I was working full time as an officer I would welcome a camera to record my activities, it is my assertions that it will protect me rather than hinder my ability to do my job lawfully. The Troy NY PD would agree. The only reason for a police force to oppose filming is to cover up patterns of bad or illegal behavior.
I'd like to add that once upon a time I worked as a guard at a Federal Building that got credible bomb threats against it. We had video surveillance of known terrorist suspects filming the buildings in Seattle at the time. Even then we were not allowed to prevent filming. We could ask people why they were filming, we could ask them not to film, but if they didn't stop there was nothing we could do to them, nor were they breaking any law. While I might not like that from a security standpoint, I like it as an American.
If journalists can do this, why not citizens?
You of all people should understand what controlling access to certain sensitive information is all about. If I let slip the right information during an outbreak investigation, I can ruin a company for no good reason. The same can be true of police investigations. That's why if they ask you to stop, you should comply. You're fine until then.
The line is trickier when there's shit going down.