Any cops on RF?

[Father Heathen]

In my home town a vocal racist who beat his wife, harassed people and liked to pick fights was able to become a cop because his daddy was a cop. I used to work with his wife, and he would show up and cause trouble with her, with the Mexicans who also worked there, etc. and the funny thing about it is that the business hardly tried to do anything about it.

 

[Valjean]

Dosn't the police academy in your jurisdiction do psychological screening, FH?

 

[Father Heathen]

Dosn't the police academy in your jurisdiction do psychological screening, FH?

Apparently not. It's a small rural community. It's a tragic, unfunny episode of Dukes of Hazzard.

It all happened nearly 10 years ago at my first job fresh out of high school, and I really haven't seen or heard much of the guy for years, but it did change the way I looked at cops.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I disagree. Personally, the message I want to send to good cops is "I appreciate the fact you have to deal with awful people and situations on my behalf." I think the message that videotaping any cop you come across sends is "I mistrust you." I don't think these messages are compatible with each other.

And "cop watch" would only be a service to the cop if he or she had some reasonable expectation that the videotape evidence would ever show up in his or her own defense. I don't think that's a reasonable thing for the cop to expect from someone who mistrusts and dislikes police to the point of videotaping their actions.

I understand that cops do an enormous service and I truly appreciate all the right things they do for society. Nevertheless, it does not harm anyone, except the guilty, to have a full, unbiased documentation, video or otherwise of any legal proceedings to include the incarceration. Look at it as an extension of a stenographer.

 

[Father Heathen]

I understand that cops do an enormous service and I truly appreciate all the right things they do for society. Nevertheless, it does not harm anyone, except the guilty, to have a full, unbiased documentation, video or otherwise of any legal proceedings to include the incarceration. Look at it as an extension of a stenographer.

Yeah. Sweeping police corruption and misconduct under the rug does a huge disservice to the public. It needs to be exposed and documented. Those who enforce the law should not be above the law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand that cops do an enormous service and I truly appreciate all the right things they do for society. Nevertheless, it does not harm anyone, except the guilty, to have a full, unbiased documentation, video or otherwise of any legal proceedings to include the incarceration. Look at it as an extension of a stenographer.

Except that the stenographer likely has a bias against you to begin with, and will likely keep the transcript to themselves unless it shows something that can be construed as you doing wrong, potentially with mitigating aspects of the context of the events removed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

it does not harm anyone, except the guilty, to have a full, unbiased documentation, video or otherwise of any legal proceedings to include the incarceration. Look at it as an extension of a stenographer.

It strikes me that this is just as much an argument for London-style police closed-circuit cameras as it is for videotaping of police by citizens... except that the latter has no transparency or oversight.

 

[.lava]

In my home town a vocal racist who beat his wife, harassed people and liked to pick fights was able to become a cop because his daddy was a cop. I used to work with his wife, and he would show up and cause trouble with her, with the Mexicans who also worked there, etc. and the funny thing about it is that the business hardly tried to do anything about it.

that is just unfair! and very depressing




.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Except that the stenographer likely has a bias against you to begin with, and will likely keep the transcript to themselves unless it shows something that can be construed as you doing wrong, potentially with mitigating aspects of the context of the events removed.

That is presumptuous. You make it sound like copwatch is trying to prevent justice. If a cop is harmed or violated while being video taped, then copwatch legally must provide all video of that event or they are obstructing justice and in contempt of court.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is presumptuous. You make it sound like copwatch is trying to prevent justice.

No, but I think that unless there's a valid reason present, these sorts of activities are somewhat hypocritical: people who want to receive treatment based on their merits and not based on prejudices or presumptions turn right around and base their behaviour toward police on prejudices and presumptions rather than the cops' merits.

Also, there's the Golden Rule: would you want to be videotaped while you're working without good reason?

If a cop is harmed or violated while being video taped, then copwatch legally must provide all video of that event or they are obstructing justice and in contempt of court.

Which is all fine and good...
... if the police know that the incident was taped
... if they know who taped it
... if the camera actually caught the incident, and wasn't pointed somewhere else looking for assaults by cops rather than assaults on cops

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Also, there's the Golden Rule: would you want to be videotaped while you're working without good reason?

I wish I was video taped all the time. Maybe I would get more raises for doing a good job!!!! See, I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE!!!!!!!!!!!:shout

The fact that cops are taking issue with this is highly suspect.

 

[gnomon]

The public has no expectation to privacy.

That means whatever activity you engage in the "public arena" from protesting, walking your dog, loitering, selling hot dogs, sidewalk shopping and even enforcing the law grants no protection based on privacy.

But that's really not the issue. The issue is that the police are accountable to the public and that should not be forgotten. Individuals video taping activities by the police do so out of protection of their own rights. And they do so based on a well established precedent of corrupt officers getting away with breaking the law. Imagine if Kathryn Johnston had home surveillance showing the actions by the police rather than the public relying on a near miracle where an informant refused to lie to cover up for the police. I also recall a woman who secretly turned on a tape recorder when police showed up her to home to interrogate her husband. They sent her away but thankfully the audiotape substantiated the physical evidence on the husband and resulted in a few bad cops being fired. One of them jailed if I recall correctly.

Private business owners already hold the right to videotape employees on the job except in those certain areas such as changing stations and restrooms. They do so legitimately to protect their business, the clients as well as the employees. Dashboard cameras exist on cruisers to aid the cops. Why can't a private citizen hold the right to exercise the same protection.

Yes, there are definitely some police activities which require discretion. But are we really worried about a rash of videos outing undercover cops posing as hookers. The most worrisome would be those undercover officers being exposed who deal with gang units and drug dealers. But these should still not withhold a right from the public to use those tools available to them for their own protection. Thankfully some courts are recognizing this and striking down arrests based solely on an individual videotaping a police officer in public.

Transparency and oversight. These do not exist on a practical level. New York City claimed to institute an citizen's review board with increased oversight following the criminal activities of some of the NYPD. It failed. Because it was not accountable to the people.
The Failure of Civilian Oversight (Gotham Gazette, October 9, 2007)

Videotaping police may not be a step in building better police/community relations but that is the fault of the PD's in their respective localities. When areas such as Tulia and Hearne, Texas experience what they did why bother trying to build a better relationship with law enforcement without first trying to establish better protections against abuse.

The police are accountable to the community. If the state fails to enact measures to protect the individuals in our society than the individuals must exercise those tools available to protect themselves.

The greatest problem is the interpretation of video evidence. That will exist but is no excuse to countermand it's practice. It is still far more reliable in many cases as opposed to eyewitness testimony. It is better to have some physical evidence than just two competing versions of a story. As in all things, a well educated public would serve to do better. So when a video such as the one above showing the arrest of Amy Goodman in which we can only see a couple of seconds where a police officer is pushing her away and giving her an order not to move past the line of police until another officer gives the command to arrest her. We see basically nothing prior. There is no grounds to measure any grievance wrongdoing by the officers. Yet, given the comments on the video you would think they are jackbooted thugs. So there will exist a mentality that refuses to critically examine the evidence. But that is still no reason to remove from the public a valid tool of protection against police misconduct.

I also see no reason why the majority of police officers would not welcome this.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I also see no reason why the majority of police officers would not welcome this.

Bravo and frubals. :clap

 

[stacey bo bacey]

Police officers are human beings. They are humans routinely put into situations that will not have a textbook guideline to follow. I've encountered police on more than a dozen occasions. I was arrested on four of those. In every instance, except one, I found the officers to not only be reasonable but usually friendly.

Ok, noted. But from now on when I refer to "bad" cops I will be talking about the ones who have notoriously abused their power in certain cities like Berkeley or Cincinnati (again, I really recommend watching the documentary Copwatch) and where I live and work, which is DC and its metro VA area.

I live in Northern Virginia and haven't come across a friendly officer. Do I know all of them? No. But I have ran into way more than I have ever wanted to through traffic stops, walking on the street, being at 7-11 (they like to congregate there for some reason), jail, and the numerous court dates I've had to attend at which I hear a multitude of other people's cases before mine and learn how our cops here in Northern VA like to treat civilians.

But yes, I am aware of the good cops out there and of the importance of their job. :yes:

The best way to help alleviate the issue of corruption in law enforcement in my opinion is doing away with many of the laws that allow such corruption to exist. Also actually paying law enforcement officers decent salaries would help. Do away with quotas. Many things.

I agree.

A recent event which involved a police shooting during a "wrong door" drug raid highlights some of the problems in discussing these issues. The police followed the information they were given. They were given the wrong information. The raid was a night raid which caused the homeowner to believe he was being attacked by criminals. The homeowner opened fire and the police returned fire. Thankfully nobody was hurt. The local bigwigs, in a P.R. blunder, awarded the police. In discussions over the event one can usually see many complaints issued against the individual police officers. That's wrong. The real issue is the legislative and judiciary members who allow such law enforcement tactics.

See, I haven't even delved into thinking about that area yet. I was thinking more along the lines of I hate it when I'm pulled over and the cop is always a smart@$$ or when I hear their account in court of pulling someone over and how that led to an arrest because of the lies they told to confuse and pressure the person into forgoing their rights. Like pressuring them to incriminate themselves by claiming they smell an odor or your eyes are all bloodshot. (Smell is probable cause in some states but it is not in most. Your eyes can be bloodshot or glazed because of your age, astigmatism, allergies, you were crying, etc...)

I do admit if I had heard about this raid, the first persons I would look to for accountability would be the cops. (Bad Stacey!) But what you said is exactly right. We cannot blame the officers because they were given wrong information. By further examining any sticky situation, we will sometimes see it is not at all what it appears to be. I need to get over that initial urge to blame the cops.

scream oppression every time a cop scratches their nose.

Blech I know that wasn't directed at me but for the record I never want to be viewed as one of those.

It doesn't help that the history of anarchist groups trashing private and public property to no end sets a reasonable precedent for the local government and police to be wary.

Yes, true.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

If someone has a legitimate, specific concern regarding the police, I can maybe see a need for something like this, but to just do something like that for no good reason seems to me to be a pretty crappy way to behave toward people who do a difficult job to help make their communities better places.

I totally disagree. People who copwatch (if someone, anyone would just watch the documentary) are not out to interfere with police duty nor accuse them of any wrongdoing. No one knows which cops are corrupt and which are not, just like cops don't know which civilians are good and which ones are up to no good. We have the right to simply observe their activity. If they are doing what they love and protecting the people while upholding their rights, this should be no problem and they should feel no pressure or anger when a video camera is pointed at them. They know we have the right to observe them as they are public servants. (And no, I wouldn't feel pressure or get mad if someone taped me doing my job because I do it without breaking the law and I have nothing to hide. So, the most I would think is that the person taping is a little weird, but oh well, carry on! I will show you my awesome wrapping skills! ) Andrea Prichett says in Copwatch that the nights when nothing happens is a good thing. But the ones who get scarily defensive and angry and cover or hit the lense to the video camera....why? If you're doing nothing wrong, why?

So just as certain things like jail and fines and cops themselves are deterrents for crime for civilians, monitoring our public servants acts in the same way.

I know you said you wanted to specifically address bad cops in this thread, but not all cops are bad cops. Most cops aren't bad cops.

Yes. Thank you. I'm aware.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

If the cops aren't doing anything wrong, then cop watch is actually a service for the cop. I say, video tape all cop activity if we can.

Sorry, I'm reading these in order and didn't see this until I just posted a lengthy response to Penguin.

I agree with you 110%.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

I disagree. Personally, the message I want to send to good cops is "I appreciate the fact you have to deal with awful people and situations on my behalf." I think the message that videotaping any cop you come across sends is "I mistrust you." I don't think these messages are compatible with each other.

They don't trust us. Why do you think they're always so nosy?

I naturally distrust authority. It's just instinct to me.

And the good cops should be happy you are videotaping. If they are sincere about their job and what they stand for they will appreciate the effort to uncover any unlawfulness occurring by corrupt cops who bring shame to the badge.

I don't think that's a reasonable thing for the cop to expect from someone who mistrusts and dislikes police to the point of videotaping their actions.

True I support copwatching and I generally mistrust and dislike cops, but not everyone who watches them can be accused of the same.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

Except that the stenographer likely has a bias against you to begin with, and will likely keep the transcript to themselves unless it shows something that can be construed as you doing wrong, potentially with mitigating aspects of the context of the events removed.

Fine, fine. We can promise to showcase the good cops as well so they can get a cookie from the chief.

 

[stacey bo bacey]

No, but I think that unless there's a valid reason present, these sorts of activities are somewhat hypocritical: people who want to receive treatment based on their merits and not based on prejudices or presumptions turn right around and base their behaviour toward police on prejudices and presumptions rather than the cops' merits.

Yes, but we aren't public servants who took an oath to uphold the law. We have a right to know what they are up to. They are serving us.

Also, there's the Golden Rule: would you want to be videotaped while you're working without good reason?

Responded to this in another post, but I would not care one bit. I've got nothing to hide and I'm good at my job.

Which is all fine and good...
... if the police know that the incident was taped
... if they know who taped it
... if the camera actually caught the incident, and wasn't pointed somewhere else looking for assaults by cops rather than assaults on cops

The law states that only one party has to be aware of taping going on. (I believe that might vary state to state or locally, though).

 

[stacey bo bacey]

The public has no expectation to privacy.

That means whatever activity you engage in the "public arena" from protesting, walking your dog, loitering, selling hot dogs, sidewalk shopping and even enforcing the law grants no protection based on privacy.

But that's really not the issue. The issue is that the police are accountable to the public and that should not be forgotten. Individuals video taping activities by the police do so out of protection of their own rights. And they do so based on a well established precedent of corrupt officers getting away with breaking the law. Imagine if Kathryn Johnston had home surveillance showing the actions by the police rather than the public relying on a near miracle where an informant refused to lie to cover up for the police. I also recall a woman who secretly turned on a tape recorder when police showed up her to home to interrogate her husband. They sent her away but thankfully the audiotape substantiated the physical evidence on the husband and resulted in a few bad cops being fired. One of them jailed if I recall correctly.

Private business owners already hold the right to videotape employees on the job except in those certain areas such as changing stations and restrooms. They do so legitimately to protect their business, the clients as well as the employees. Dashboard cameras exist on cruisers to aid the cops. Why can't a private citizen hold the right to exercise the same protection.

Yes, there are definitely some police activities which require discretion. But are we really worried about a rash of videos outing undercover cops posing as hookers. The most worrisome would be those undercover officers being exposed who deal with gang units and drug dealers. But these should still not withhold a right from the public to use those tools available to them for their own protection. Thankfully some courts are recognizing this and striking down arrests based solely on an individual videotaping a police officer in public.

Transparency and oversight. These do not exist on a practical level. New York City claimed to institute an citizen's review board with increased oversight following the criminal activities of some of the NYPD. It failed. Because it was not accountable to the people.
The Failure of Civilian Oversight (Gotham Gazette, October 9, 2007)

Videotaping police may not be a step in building better police/community relations but that is the fault of the PD's in their respective localities. When areas such as Tulia and Hearne, Texas experience what they did why bother trying to build a better relationship with law enforcement without first trying to establish better protections against abuse.

The police are accountable to the community. If the state fails to enact measures to protect the individuals in our society than the individuals must exercise those tools available to protect themselves.

The greatest problem is the interpretation of video evidence. That will exist but is no excuse to countermand it's practice. It is still far more reliable in many cases as opposed to eyewitness testimony. It is better to have some physical evidence than just two competing versions of a story. As in all things, a well educated public would serve to do better. So when a video such as the one above showing the arrest of Amy Goodman in which we can only see a couple of seconds where a police officer is pushing her away and giving her an order not to move past the line of police until another officer gives the command to arrest her. We see basically nothing prior. There is no grounds to measure any grievance wrongdoing by the officers. Yet, given the comments on the video you would think they are jackbooted thugs. So there will exist a mentality that refuses to critically examine the evidence. But that is still no reason to remove from the public a valid tool of protection against police misconduct.

I also see no reason why the majority of police officers would not welcome this.

And a jolly good frubal to you, sir!