Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police

[metta]

Facing 16 Years In Prison For Videotaping Police

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/27/0212232/Facing-16-Years-In-Prison-For-Videotaping-Police

 

[boxerdudeuk]

disgusting. the police use car mounted cameras routinely to capture an objective observation of events to protect themselves. it seems they don't want citizens afforded the same right. what the fuck is wrong with the US these days?

 

[Knucklehead]

He should lose his license for 16 years for riding around like that,but I don't see how he should do a minute in jail.

We live in a surveillance state.We are constantly being monitored on city streets.Cops routinely videotape traffic stops.Why should they be afraid if civilians are recording them..

Also, it wasn't like the motorist was shadowing the officer on another ,unrelated incident.Not that that should be illegal either.He had it on for several minutes before the cop stopped him.

 

[Knucklehead]

what the fuck is wrong with the US these days?

Militarized law enforcement..

 

[TickTockMan]

what the fuck is wrong with the US these days?

Almost everything.

 

[BearBoi]

Major gangs routinely scour newspapers and networking sites to find pictures of police to add to watch lists.

A few years ago in Canada, a group of young cadets took a candid picture of some of their classmates at the Police Academy. The picture ended up on MySpace, and a couple years later one of the officers in the background of the picture was identified and killed while working undercover.

You don't know why or for whom these people are taking pictures or video of officers on duty. The officers have families and personal lives to protect, too.

The difference between a police cruiser using videotape to prove civilian wrongdoing (such as filming drunk drivers) and private citizens filming/photographing officers on duty is that the police tapes don't get put on the internet so that anybody can track the people down.

This case has nothing to do with 'vigilance.' Let's be honest for a minute: if the officer had actually done something wrong, the tape could have been submitted to the citizen’s action committee and the internal affairs office to investigate. Instead, the shutter-bug put in on YouTube, probably hoping for a cheap shot at getting some ratings.

 

[bankside]

Major gangs routinely scour newspapers and networking sites to find pictures of police to add to watch lists.

A few years ago in Canada, a group of young cadets took a candid picture of some of their classmates at the Police Academy. The picture ended up on MySpace, and a couple years later one of the officers in the background of the picture was identified and killed while working undercover.

You don't know why or for whom these people are taking pictures or video of officers on duty. The officers have families and personal lives to protect, too.

The difference between a police cruiser using videotape to prove civilian wrongdoing (such as filming drunk drivers) and private citizens filming/photographing officers on duty is that the police tapes don't get put on the internet so that anybody can track the people down.

This case has nothing to do with 'vigilance.' Let's be honest for a minute: if the officer had actually done something wrong, the tape could have been submitted to the citizen’s action committee and the internal affairs office to investigate. Instead, the shutter-bug put in on YouTube, probably hoping for a cheap shot at getting some ratings.

And yet videotape was instrumental in this incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dziekański_Taser_incident
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html

The fact that the videotape exists was instrumental in unravelling the web of lies spun by the unethical police officers to defend their unreasonable actions. Civilians use videotape to prove police wrongdoing as well, and a citizen should be able to videotape (without obstructing) the actions of any officer.

By the way, police tapes do get put on the internet, and in news footage, and when it is done officially it is now often obscured to prevent public vigilantism and/or public vigilantism combined with misidentification of the subject.

All in all a proposed jail sentence is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with wiretapping, and I would actually recommend that this person be extended refugee protection in another country because of how wrong it is for him to be persecuted like this.

 

[BearBoi]

Yeah but.... 16 years in jail?

I agree that 16 years sounds excessive, but we (the general public) are rarely made privy to all the details of an ongoing case. For all we know they may have discovered that the man in question has ties to gangs, or that releasing the tape in the way he did was otherwise malicious with the hope/intent of bringing harm to the officer and his family. We just don't know enough to really say, IMO.

Plus, the media loves to sensationalize everything. They probably looked at the absolute maximum somebody could face and used that number in the headlines. If the case is really as benign as it seems, he probably won't get any major sentence, if any.

And yet videotape was instrumental in this incident:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dziekański_Taser_incident
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/11/14/bc-taservideo.html

And in this case the videotape was first given to the police and then it was released via the Media: not put on YouTube.

The fact that the videotape exists was instrumental in unravelling the web of lies spun by the unethical police officers to defend their unreasonable actions. Civilians use videotape to prove police wrongdoing as well, and a citizen should be able to videotape (without obstructing) the actions of any officer.

Let's be honest for a minute: if the officer had actually done something wrong, the tape could have been submitted to the citizen’s action committee and the internal affairs office to investigate. Instead, the shutter-bug put in on YouTube, probably hoping for a cheap shot at getting some ratings.

By the way, police tapes do get put on the internet, and in news footage, and when it is done officially it is now often obscured to prevent public vigilantism and/or public vigilantism combined with misidentification of the subject.

The police and News media take pains not to release footage which would result in liability, especially of the sort you describe.

Anti-authority anarchists and criminal organizations/gangs don’t care who gets hurt; the officer, their family, it is all fair game and equally targeted.

I can’t imagine you are equating the two.

All in all a proposed jail sentence is ridiculous. This has nothing to do with wiretapping, and I would actually recommend that this person be extended refugee protection in another country because of how wrong it is for him to be persecuted like this.

You could officially sponsor him to Canada as a political refugee. Here is the information you will need to start the process: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/sponsor/sah.asp

 

[Fucker29]

MAJOR BULLSHIT!!!

That is all.

 

[bankside]

bearboi the police will have to release some fairly compelling information to show that they are in the right here....if they have it, that is...

 

[Corny]

um bearboi why not make it illegal then just to publicize this material.

it shouldn't be illegal to video tape or photograph a police officer in action.

you have NO other way to prove your innocence (or their guilt) otherwise. often even when there are other witnesses around.

 

[zoltanspawn]

As though the motorcyclist even had time to turn his camera off...

 

[BearBoi]

bearboi the police will have to release some fairly compelling information to show that they are in the right here....if they have it, that is...

I don’t know the laws of the State this happened in. I was more concerned about posting videos of on-duty officers online, as highlighted by my example. I also questioned the motivations of the individual who’d choose to use YouTube over the proper and established channels for reporting such incidents.

um bearboi why not make it illegal then just to publicize this material.

it shouldn't be illegal to video tape or photograph a police officer in action.

you have NO other way to prove your innocence (or their guilt) otherwise. often even when there are other witnesses around.

I never said that should be illegal; I only gave a reason as to why it is reckless and dangerous to flippantly release photos and footage of officers on duty, and why some may have good reason to take issue with it.

I did mention reasonable alternatives to using videotape to prove ones innocents or to prove an officers violation. These avenues are used by the public most of the time, thankfully. However, there are always individuals who either don’t care or maliciously release [often edited] footage on YouTube for a quick fame-grab.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

what new

Planet Earth sign up Keep away extreme super loony human cultures live here fa whiles now Da sign upgradeds 500 year ago ta super past 100 ta extreme

new one goin up

( enjoy ya livin coffins ) oh great cultures of world

cue anime your tv love you

-

da pine nut is a tasty thankyou

 

[MTLDude]

Law enforcement personnel are intoxicated with their "powers". They are like drug addicts who would do all they can to have their "fix"...

 

[BearBoi]

Law enforcement personnel are intoxicated with their "powers". They are like drug addicts who would do all they can to have their "fix"...

Ya, people who sign up to do a job that could get them killed at any moment, who leave their homes every day not knowing if they will see their families again, all to keep your sorry ass safe, are real assholes.

 

[Corny]

meanwhile in germany:

and in sweden:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_61s62WKVio&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[sabot3ur]

Ya, people who sign up to do a job that could get them killed at any moment, who leave their homes every day not knowing if they will see their families again, all to keep your sorry ass safe, are real assholes.

yeah, they usually are fucking assholes.

sorry, but signing up for a job with all that in the description doesn't mean you can be power hungry, violent, and use that as your argument for everything. but I've come to expect no less from any cop.

 

[Lord Booticus]

This is Horrifying! Why isn't this case getting more media
coverage?

They tried but then got arrested for filming interviews with police officers ¬_¬.

Yeah I heard about this law while reading Cracked, its seems a bti excessive, with the reason behind it not to protect the identity of police officers, but to protect them from controversy and disgrace. Since camera phones with video ability have come around youtube has had a large collection of "police brutality" videos that do not paint the police in a good light, so to combat this they seem to have inacted a law to protect them from being caught and called on their shit.

If a policemen finds you filming them then they should have the same right as everyone else to request them to stop filming them, if the cameraman pursists THEN it should become a problem. If people are taking pictures for a hit list I don't think this law will stop them, especially when they only notice the infraction when the videos been posted on youtube. Anyone serious about killing a police officer isn't going to be posting their hit list on youtube or facebook. Unless they're REALLY cocky.

 

[swerve]

It seems that our society has forgotten that the police are OUR employees a LOOOONG time ago...

What a DISGUSTING story...