Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cop Seeks Wiretapping Charges For Woman Who Videotaped Beating

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the you've-got-to-be-kidding-me dept.

Crime 662

An anonymous reader writes "A police officer who was disciplined for his role in the beating of a Massachusetts man (many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness) is looking to bring criminal wiretapping charges against the woman who caught much of the incident on video. The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating. He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed."

cancel ×

662 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This guy is just blowing smoke. (5, Informative)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101226)

The full video being available in the second link, but it looks it's being taken on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy.

On another note, the individual referred to in the summary (identified in the stub-of-an-article as Michael Sedergren), was not the guy who beat Jones senseless, but in my personal opinion, he's just as dirty, and should have been fired, too.

FTFA:

“They’re really just trying to intimidate and silence her, but whether she’s charged or not (the tape) can still be used in court,” said attorney Shawn P. Allyn, who represents Jones in a civil rights lawsuit against the police in U.S. District Court.

Case and point. Guy is a complete dirtbag.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101302)

There's no such phrase as "case and point". What you're thinking of is "case in point", and providing a direct quote from an article covering the case already under consideration isn't, in fact, a case in point. It's just a quote.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (0)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101332)

I thought "case and point" is what you do when you can buy beer and your friends cant, ie buy a case of beer and then point and laugh at them.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (5, Funny)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101496)

For all intensive purposes, in this literally doggy-dog world, it just begs the question: does this go hand-and-hand with the way that language is undermind?

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (3, Funny)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101554)

Yeah, but it's a mute point.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (0)

kmdrtako (1971832) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101626)

irregardless of the outcome

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (-1, Offtopic)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101734)

The idiom is "Moot point", not mute point.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101672)

Moreover, it's even more important then advance warning, expresso coffee and excaping on a nucular sub!

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (0, Troll)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101702)

The idiom is "Dog eat dog", not doggy dog.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (-1, Troll)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101730)

There's no such phrase as "case and point". What you're thinking of is "case in point", and providing a direct quote from an article covering the case already under consideration isn't, in fact, a case in point. It's just a quote.

*Beepbeebeeebeebeeepbeeepbeeepb*

Oops, sorry guys, I forgot to set my virgin-dar to vibrate.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (5, Insightful)

kwiqsilver (585008) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101402)

but in my personal opinion, he's just as dirty, and should have been fired, too.

Fired? Cops don't get fired for beating and killing peons like you and me. They get a paid vacation...I mean disciplinary leave.
Cops aren't there to protect us from criminals (and as courts have repeatedly said, they're under no obligation to do so). They're there to protect the government class from its greatest foe: us, and to ensure that the other tax feeders can continue to suck us dry without fear that we'll resist. Once you understand the premise, it makes more sense.
William Grigg [lewrockwell.com] writes frequently about the constant abuse of power (and physical abuse of innocents) by the cops.

Massachusetts laws are fucked up (5, Informative)

_xeno_ (155264) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101470)

He'll win, easily.

It's illegal to record audio of people without their express permission in Massachusetts [citmedialaw.org] . Period. Doesn't matter where.

About the only exception is if it's blatantly obvious that you're being recorded, which has been taken to mean "news team" - in other words, an absolutely gigantic, impossible-to-miss camera, or a large microphone, like TV reporters carry with the station logo on it.

Otherwise, it's "wire tapping."

Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!

Incidentally, as far as I know, you're allowed to take video of people in public places. Just not the audio.

Re:Massachusetts laws are fucked up (1)

Normal Dan (1053064) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101632)

Can the government record you without permission?

Re:Massachusetts laws are fucked up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101732)

I spoke to a lawyer about this and my understanding (though I am not a lawyer myself) is that consent doesn't mean what you'd expect. Or, at least, what I'd expect. You don't actually need permission to record someone, you just can't do it secretly (key word). I guess if you tell them and they say something, the law seems to take it as consent. I'm not sure if consent meant something differently at one time, but I'd expect consent would mean I could tell you to not record me and you'd have to stop, but that doesn't appear to be the case, which is why TV reporters can get away with it.

Re:Massachusetts laws are fucked up (0)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101634)

If that's the case then I certainly hope this one goes all the way to the Supreme Court. I should hope that even the Jersey Shore/Fox News watching, lulled to sleep American people are outraged if the Supreme Court declares its illegal to videotape a cop.

Re:Massachusetts laws are fucked up (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101654)

Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!

Well, not with that attitude. Unjust laws usually look like they'll never change up until they do. Acting like we're stuck with them forever is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Massachusetts laws are fucked up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101714)

A Law that allows one side of society but disallows another, both law-biding is tyrannical and unconscienable and ultimately unconstitutional, but who is paying attention to that document these days? A lot of laws are unconstitutional and are in the books just waiting to be proven one way or the other by the high courts, and are putting lots of people behind bars.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101566)

THIS is just retarded the woman has the constitution on her side (since the beating took place in a public area) she is protected by the 1st amendment to have recorded and published it. The officer should be summarily dismissed from duty (FIRED).

now for the legaleze : First Amendment
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101676)

While I agree that your interpretation of the 1st amendment is right and all, it really says that congress shall make no law abridging free speech. This is a state, not the US congress. Also, many courts - in an attempt to water down the 1st amendment - have ruled that speech means just that; plain old talking. It often doesn't include these digital things like blogs, video, etc. as they are not "speech" (talking). It's bullshit, but that what keeps coming out of courts.

An Appropriate Facebook Screen Name... (4, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101576)

This idiot cop's name is Jeffrey Asher, and his Facebook page is here:

http://www.facebook.com/jeffyjewjagoff [facebook.com] - NO KIDDING!

Such an appropriate "screen name"...

Re:This guy is just blowing smoke. (2)

sustik (90111) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101682)

"...on a public street, where police officers should have no expectation of privacy."

I am sure you did not mean it that way, but it sounds as if the beating happens at the precinct in
an interrogation room then the officer has expectation of privacy. Quite the opposite.
All police actions should be filmed to protect the rights of ALL parties involved.

I wonder when we'll have enough? (1)

Scutter (18425) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101234)

Seems like no matter how many injustices we hear like this, we never to anything to put a stop to it. He'll be back on the job and busting heads again in no time. And we'll let him.

Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (5, Insightful)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101386)

Mostly because of the following appeal to emotion type argument:

"The police face dangerous people every day, and need to be able to respond to percieved threats accordingly. Enforcing more strict controls over police escallation of violence places our public servants (The people who protect us from violent offenders) at risk. You dont want to be responsible for letting criminals run loose because you prevented the police from reacting, do you?"

This argument bears a superficial resemblence to the "Support our TRUUPES!" argument:

"Our men and women in uniform fight to protect our freedoms from dangerous terrorists overseas. If you dont support our men and women in the armed forces, you are selling out our country, and are complicit in the terrorist's cause."

Both provide "Enforcement" agencies with Carte Blanc to do pretty much watever they feel like, because if you disagree with the tactics or reasons for their activities, "You are a criminal/terrorist sympathizer."

No self-respecting politician with any hope of being re-elected will act on either agency in any fashion besides a stern wrist slapping, because of the danger of violating the de-facto taboo that these appeals to emotion invoke, regardless of how desperately these entities actually need such corrective action. (This is why the GITMO prisoner torture was downplayed, and why "Wiretapping" charges keep getting lodged against citizens reporting and recording instances of police wrongdoing.)

Additionally, the egregious activities of these agencies work hand-in-hand with power hungry parent entities (City, State, and Federal governments), because slowly escellating violence against both foriegn and domestic entities desensitizes the public, and allows for greater abuses of power at higher levels without causing moral panic or alarm.

Without some form of mass moral outrage against these practices, and I mean *RIGHT NOW*, there will be no going back and this country will continue to fast-track toward a police-state.

Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101512)

Obama was crucified for merely making the offhand statement that the police acted stupidly in arresting a man in his own home on suspicion of being a burglar. What do you think would happen to anyone who actually tried to push for real change? There's no hope for turning back at this point.

Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (3, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101526)

What they don't realize is that they reap what they sow. The police live under the assumptions that there are two kinds of people: Cops and criminals. The only gray area is for family of cops and other government employees. But if the cop doesn't know you, then you are a criminal, and they will treat you the same as someone they just saw beat someone to death. Because they treat everyone with a complete lack of respect, they earn the same treatment from everyone else, and that leads to their job being more dangerous. If they were nice to everyone at all times, then they'd earn some respect and their job would be easier and safer. But that's hard. It's mentally easier to separate everything to an "us vs them" battle. And so, that's what we get. That doesn't serve us as well as a "protect and serve" force, but no one cares enough to try to change it.

Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101674)

Interrogation room
Cop: *pushes a blank piece of paper to the man sitting in the chair
Innocent Person: "What's this? You want me to write a confession?"
Cop: "No, those are your rights."

Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101462)

Question becomes how a society rises against when the police are given complete freedom, lie for each other, and abuse the system. It's like a sheep pointing out a wolf in sheep's clothing to a ravenous pack of wolves. Doesn't matter if the sheep is right, it's also dinner.

Re:I wonder when we'll have enough? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101704)

One cop involved, sounds like the one who was hitting him with a flashlight, was fired. [masslive.com] The other two had disciplinary action taken against them, suspension without pay. They would be extraordinarily dumb, even for cops [infowars.com] , to try it again.

Needless to say, that doesn't make up for it, it's still an injustice, and shouldn't have happened in the first place, they need to stop hiring the scum of the earth to uphold the law, but don't let rampant cynicism get the best of you.

I am still fuzzy (5, Insightful)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101240)

on how wiretapping is the same as recording video.

Re:I am still fuzzy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101312)

lol that's a good question

Re:I am still fuzzy (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101362)

Yeah, seriously. Doesn't wiretapping usually involve, you know, a wire being tapped? Recording video is wiretapping in the same way that copyright infringement falls under the mandate of the DHS.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Just sayin'.

Re:I am still fuzzy (1)

c.derby (574103) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101648)

it's a broad interpretation of a law written to make it illegal to record conversations without the consent of all parties being recorded.

Re:I am still fuzzy (1)

SecurityGuy (217807) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101670)

Unfortunately, it's because laws often define the words used in them. Literally define them. Usually those definitions are pretty much what you expect, but that's how you get a law called the so-and-so wiretapping act where the definition of wiretapping could include videotaping someone without consent.

Don't construe this response to be support of this obvious abuse of power. It's clearly exactly that.

Re:I am still fuzzy (1)

andymadigan (792996) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101692)

I believe the rule is that if you're recording audio anywhere without permission it's "wiretapping". Recording just video doesn't quite have the same problem, or at least it didn't.

After all, bugging someone's house isn't much different from wiretapping.

my thoughts (2)

Morphine007 (207082) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101246)

He does not appear to deny anything that happened in the video, but he apparently thinks it shouldn't have been filmed.

Too bad... fuck 'em.

Re:my thoughts (2)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101434)

but, If the tables were turned and some one video taped a gang beating up a cop.......
the videographer in question would be considered heroic, lauded by the police and generally there would be no mention of wiretapping and many statements made about how this state (county,country, etc.) needs more civic minded people like this......

just saying

Re:my thoughts (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101718)

I don't know about that. I think there would be comments about "Coward! Why did you not use your camera to beat the evildoers off of the blue knight!?!"

I Wish Darwin Applied To Employment (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101262)

This guy tells me we need a Darwin Award category.

"Idiots Who Lose Their Job Because of Supreme Incompetence".

Re:I Wish Darwin Applied To Employment (1)

Roogna (9643) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101278)

If only he'd lost his job, but apparently according to the summary anyway, he only lost it for 45 days...
Which I suppose would provide the Darwin Award category to the citizens who are supposed to be protected by Police, not beat by them, of "There is no justice."

Re:I Wish Darwin Applied To Employment (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101354)

RTFA. The cop who registered the complaint wasn't the one who did the beating. That guy was fired. He did, however, stand by and watch it happen. He should've lost his job for it, but he wasn't the guy busting heads.

45 day suspension? (1, Troll)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101272)

If a civilian beat someone up that badly, he'd be facing a few years in prison.

Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.

Re:45 day suspension? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101336)

If a civilian beat someone up that badly, he'd be facing a few years in prison.

Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.

How about we just have the law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian?

Re:45 day suspension? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101364)

the issue is not the law, its whoever enforces it, though saying cops should die is way over there on the other side of the spectrum, for every bad one how many thousands of decent ones are there?

Re:45 day suspension? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101460)

uuhmmm, 0.001?

Re:45 day suspension? (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101666)

the issue is not the law, its whoever enforces it, though saying cops should die is way over there on the other side of the spectrum, for every bad one how many thousands of decent ones are there?

On the close order of zero. Almost any cop will cover up, by acts of commission or omission, overtly bad acts by other cops. That makes them bad cops too.

Cops should be held to a HIGHER standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101426)

If a civilian beat someone up that badly, he'd be facing a few years in prison.

Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.

How about we just have the law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian?

No. Cops are supposed to be held to a higher standard because they are cops - they're the professionals. If they don't like it, they can get another job.

They like to point out how they're highly trained for the job. If that's so, then they should be treated as such and if they can't live up to it or want to act above the law, then they should be punished severely for violating that station.

Up next, why lawyers should be crucified if they lie in court.

Law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian (5, Insightful)

jeko (179919) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101504)

The Law should not be applied equally to cop and civilian. Penalties should be HARSHER when the authorities break the law, and the benefit of the doubt should not apply, because law enforcement officers are charged with avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. This idea is usually expressed as "the color of authority" [wikipedia.org] , and it is an essential and traditional safeguard of Liberty.

Yes, the rules are absolutely different when you carry the awesome power to kill in a split second. They are, and they should be.

Cops shouldn't solicit charitable donations from businesses, because it looks like protection money. Military officers may not sleep with their subordinates, because it looks like "command rape." The FBI shouldn't be assembling dossiers on political activists, because it looks like oppression.

These used to be commonly accepted ideas before we gutted public education and Fox News began blaring propaganda 24/7.

   

Re:45 day suspension? (4, Insightful)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101546)

Cops have the ability to ruin your life legally and as part of their job. When they're corrupt, they can do much, much worse than you or I can, and they need to be treated as such. The more power someone has given to them by the state, the harsher we need to be on them if they're found to be in violation.

Re:45 day suspension? (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101642)

If a civilian beat someone up that badly, he'd be facing a few years in prison.

Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.

How about we just have the law apply equally to everybody, cop and civilian?

IMHO, law enforcement should be held to a higher standard than everyone else. A bad cop screws up the system for everybody - cops and civilians alike.

Re:45 day suspension? (2)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101614)

Cops should die. Painfully, slowly and messily.

s/Cops/Bad Cops/

There _are_ good cops. They almost never make it into the news because that's just not the way news works, but they do exist.

Public street? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101284)

Public street, well, she might not be able to release the audio depending on the state law. My state you can't. Video/stills, yes.

If I weren't afraid of what would emerge from it, I'd say we need a national standard at this point with all these new technologies. We have portions of the country ruling a GPS device on a car, that required the cop/officer to come onto your private property without a warrent to stick on is legal. Then we have cops claiming video footage, which you can practically get on everything from a camera to your toaster, should be illegal in the public area. If it is wire tapping for this cop, then it is wire tapping for all.

I loathe this double standard.

Re:Public street? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101638)

Public street, well, she might not be able to release the audio depending on the state law. My state you can't. Video/stills, yes.

Technically the crime was committed when she recorded it, not when she released it. (She is in MA, one of the two party consent states like mine).

I hear the penalty for drunken driving there is (0)

drainbramage (588291) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101296)

Re-election to the senate.

Re:I hear the penalty for drunken driving there is (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101476)

No, you have to drive the car off a bridge, leave a woman behind in the car, then walk back to your house and go to bed first.

THEN you qualify.

Unbelievable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101298)

I hope that this pig will be made to pay that woman heavy (heavy!) damages for all sorts of things, as a warning to other public servants who think they can get away with abusing their power. What a rotten piece of shiat.

Re:Unbelievable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101392)

This isn't Fark, you can say "shit" here because we're not a bunch of highschooler faggots who think LOL DREW CURTIS LIKES BEER XDDDDD jokes are funny.

Re:Unbelievable (1)

kwiqsilver (585008) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101448)

I hope that this pig will be made to pay that woman heavy (heavy!) damages for all sorts of things, as a warning to other public servants who think they can get away with abusing their power. What a rotten piece of shiat.

Probably not. Even if she (or the guy he beat so badly it should count as attempted murder) wins any money, he, and the police brass who let it happen and covered it up, won't be out a penny. We the tax payers will end up covering the costs. And the cop will get a six figure annual pension after working for 25 years.

More details (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101322)

Re:More details (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101436)

Yes he was fired. But the question is was he just rehired under a different division? Like that cop who ate the weed brownies and called 911 on him and his wife.

Asshole cops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101324)

I would like to see this piece-of-sh1t cop get severely beaten, see how he likes it. And coppers wonder why they can't get cooperation from civilians...it's pretty bad when you fear pigs more than you fear criminals -- oh, wait, there's no difference, pigs *are* criminals. Sorry...

Lee Harvey Sphincterwhistle

Re:Asshole cops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101560)

Dido. I don't live in a very voilent or criminal effected part of the world but i have only ever been asulted by a police officer. I only fear the police; Its not like i'm an international sex trafficer either, the most i've broken the law is speeding or having some pot.

Yeah good luck with that (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101330)

You're in a public street, idiot.

Re:Yeah good luck with that (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101596)

You're in a public street, idiot.

Does the name Rodney King ring a bell? Videotaping of police has been happening for *decades* now. At this point in time police officers should assume that they are being recorded at any given time. After all if they aren't doing anything wrong they don't have anything to hide right?

How is that douchebag still wearing a badge? (2)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101338)

What has happened to law enforcement in this country that too many of them have started acting like there's no such thing as accountability?

Charging someone for videotaping police never stands up in court, so it's just another example that we're not dealing with the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Pick me for that jury, or just let one person like me on there and this case is over.

Two Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101372)

Police Union

Just let one person like me on there... (1)

jeko (179919) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101658)

Sadly, hung juries [wikipedia.org] are no longer permitted these days. Directed verdicts [wikipedia.org] seem to be the order of the day, and if the judge finds out you're the lone holdout, you'll just be removed and replaced with someone more malleable. If you try to do anything about it, like talking to the media, you'll find yourself charged with contempt of court. [wikipedia.org]

Our judiciary is far too corrupt for mere juries to fix...

fair is fair (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101342)

The officer received a 45-day suspension for the beating

What do you think would happen to me if I beat a police officer enough to cause "many broken bones in his face and permanent partial blindness"?

Re:fair is fair (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101382)

if they were dumb you would be dead, if they brought you in for justice they would drop the book on you from a skyscraper

Re:fair is fair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101398)

Well, if there were other cops watching, my guess is they'd pull out their guns and give you a 45-day suspension on life - at which point you're allowed to live again, if you can.

Re:fair is fair (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101516)

They'd drag you into a holding cell, wait for an inevitable "technical issue" with the cameras monitoring the room and then beat the shit out of you, until you were either dead or wished you were. Fuck the pigs, every time one of them gets shot in the line of duty I light up a joint and laugh my ass off.

It Depends. (4, Insightful)

jeko (179919) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101694)

How much money do you have? If it's billions, then your security detail defended you against a lone rogue officer who violated department policy, and the City offers it's apologies and takes this matter very, very seriously.

If all you did was study hard, work hard and then follow the rules after you served your Country honorably, then criminal lowlifes like you will not be tolerated or coddled...

 

National Record The Police in Public Day (2)

physicsdot (530505) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101360)

I don't know the etiquette for reposting ideas [slashdot.org] , but we need a "National Record the Police in Public Day". If nothing else, this would force the issue to be dealt with. Anyone interested should contact this guy. [slashdot.org]

Ppl are doing this wrong. (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101378)

If you film somebody being beaten, then wait until after the trial and the cop(s) has/have testified. THEN release it ANONYMOUSLY to the press. Quit telling police who to go after. Here in America we have the corrupt neo-cons/tea*, the corrupt DAs and the corrupt police that support these kinds of actions. Most importantly, that gets not just the beating but the lying under oath that the perp AND the supporting police will do.

It is time to take back our nation from these bastards. Out them, but do not give them a target. BTW, assume that the corrupt DA and police union disallow those films. That is ok. The victim can still sue the cop CIVILLY and get the bastards pensions. Do a few of those and watch how quickly cops change their attitude.

Why wait? (1)

subreality (157447) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101604)

Why only release it after the trial? By all means stay anonymous, but for the sake of the victim, at least supply a copy to their attorney.

Re:Why wait? (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101696)

NO. Big mistake.
Let the courts convict the man, but follow the case CLOSELY.
It is not just that a cop commits a crime. It is all the ones around that person who will lie FOR THEM that is just as much, if not worse. I have little doubt that when given a chance, many cops will lie to protect their friend. WIth this approach, you take down all of these cops. The victim will be righted, and more importantly, will be to sue these cops, and the municipality that did this for lying.

Look, our problem today is that we are turning into a corrupt nation. We did not use to be. We really were one of the good guys. But for the last 30 years, we have become a corrupt nation. Our cops are no better than Nixon, reagan, Clinton, and W, who are all criminal (reagan multiple times over). Any cop that lies on the stand is just as bad as the one that is thumping somebody. So, if you allow 4 cops top lie to support their buddy, then all 5 will be gone. At the least, that can be used in future trials against them to show that they are corrupted cops. Pretty much destroys those ppl.

Re:Ppl are doing this wrong. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101710)

Here in America we have the corrupt neo-cons/tea*

This took place in Massachusetts - are you sure you want to try and throw a "conservatives are evil" slant on this?

Forget the cop... it is his superiors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101384)

Until accountability goes up the chain, police brutality will not stop.

Until a police chief gets fired for his subordinates terrorizing, beating and shooting people, nothing will change.

This is a systematic issue and not one to be addressed by outrage to individual police officers.

The local police chief or sheriff or whoever has an interest to keep their job AND a real influence in many police officers' training and behavior is at the root of the issue.

If they share the responsibility with true accountability, things will change overnight.

Re:Forget the cop... it is his superiors (1)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101492)

Good thought,but also what about the other three cops who stood by and watched their colleague beat the crap out of someone ?
are they not , by their inaction, aiding and abetting the carriage of an offence ?
so why do they get to walk away scot free ?

Pot Kettle Black (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101404)

"One of four police officers disciplined for the incident on Nov. 27, 2009, Michael Sedergren, has filed an application for a criminal complaint against videographer Tyrisha Greene. Sedergren, who was suspended for 45 days, claims it was illegal for Greene to videotape him without his consent."

I've seen the "Cops" TV program. Do the police get the suspects consent to film them?

Re:Pot Kettle Black (1)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101490)

Yes, every time. But the cops, while doing their jobs, shouldn't have any expectation of privacy.

Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101424)

I thought we were done with the Nazis. Guess not.
Cops who think they have an expectation of privacy while on service obviously have illegal things to hide. Officers respectful of the law do not fear being scrutinized. Moreover, good officers would understand that they work for we, the people, and they should have no objection to being observed and filmed.

Police abuse of authority is one of the most heinous crimes. If tolerated, we're paving the road towards tyranny. Not that the USA isn't a tyranny already though.

This law was supposedly to "protect your privacy". (1, Troll)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101438)

Think about that next time you demand more "privacy" laws.

Re:This law was supposedly to "protect your privac (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101482)

It's more an issue of lazy lawmakers than intent. When you don't clearly evaluate the repercussions of a new law, you end up with crap like 18 year-olds with 10 year prison sentences for having sex with 15 year-olds.

But, that's a sign of the times and not that "politicians are stupid." Bad guys frequently have their rights and due process violated because people don't think bad guys deserve the same justice as the good guys.

Re:This law was supposedly to "protect your privac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101690)

The privacy that you have on a public street while carrying out the duties (poorly) of your tax-payer paid job as a public SERVANT?

Isn't it about time... (1)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101440)

I've heard so many stories like this lately. Isn't it about time that we pass a law that makes it unambiguously legal to record police officers in the course of their duty no matter what. It sounds like at least a step toward answering the age-old question Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Isn't it about time... (1)

neoshroom (324937) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101466)

Oops, wrong link. Correct link, Engage! [wikipedia.org]

Unenumerated Rights (5, Insightful)

ScooterComputer (10306) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101454)

I think it is time for another Amendment to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights discusses a great amount about the OUTPUT of citizens, but little regarding the INPUT...mostly because at the time of the founding it was impossible to -record- such things. The only means was to write about experiences, what someone heard, saw, smelled, tasted, or felt. However that equation has been altered greatly in the past 150 years, starting with photography. Yet the citizenry's right to secure backup of the human sensory system (or electronic record that corresponds to the human sensory system) has not been recognized accordingly.
Photographers are still fighting photo bans, and dealing with unconstitutional charges that result. And that is for the oldest form of "record keeping"! There are still outright bans on audio in many states, though video--due to its similarity to still photography--is in a somewhat legal limbo.

This is going to require an Amendment to fundamentally enumerate and incorporate the human right to record the environment. That should not extend to electrical interception (true wiretapping) or electronically-assisted interception (unidirectional microphones and telephoto lenses), but simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception. Although "photos can lie", human beings should not be hamstrung to the subjective judgement of character (he said, she said) when significantly more accurate measurements are available. If the citizen has a 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, they should certainly have a right to provide individualized proof of innocence!

Plrease for the love of F'ing God, Court System... (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101456)

...toss all cases like this to the curb with a thorough lecture of all parties who have the audacity to bring charges for this! This should have been denounced long ago as totally without merit and a gross abuse of the system.

Re:Plrease for the love of F'ing God, Court System (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101564)

Tossing out the case and giving a lecture will never make them stop. They'll just keep trying, and occasionally get lucky with an authoritarian judge. The right way to handle this is disbarment for any prosecutor who files such clearly retaliatory charges. Just watch how fast this bullshit stops after a few DAs find themselves on the streets.

Re:Plrease for the love of F'ing God, Court System (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101580)

The cop asking for the prosecution should be tossed in jail for 30 days for contempt of court. The DA should be fired and disbarred. The judge that didn't do either of those when the case was filed should be fired and disbarred.

What about Silent Video? (1)

quark101 (865412) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101508)

As the legal definition of a wiretap seems to hinge on covertly recording communications, I wonder how a silent video would fare. As the law seems to permit taking pictures in public places, and taking video without sound is essentially just taking a bunch of pictures very rapidly, it would be reasonable to assume that such a device doesn't fall under the definition of a wiretap.

This would, of course, side step the real issue, but it could be an interesting case nonetheless for bringing about a ruling one way or another.

Re:What about Silent Video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101600)

What if I'm filming two people communicating via sign language?

Re:What about Silent Video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101616)

As the legal definition of a wiretap seems to hinge on covertly recording communications, I wonder how a silent video would fare.

1) Cop beats silent-videotaper almost to death for resisting arrest while wiretapping.
2) Silent-videotaper files civil suit against police department, proving beyond any doubt that there was no audio recorded during the beating.
3) Judgement in favor of police: it's not reasonable to assume that a person with a video camera or cell phone has disabled the microphone. The cop therefore acted in good faith when attempting to beat the videotaper, and exercised great restraing in not beating the videotaper all the way to death.
4) A few months after losing the suit, the person taking the silent video is shot to death for making an aggressive movement, possibly for a weapon, during a routine traffic stop. (Due to a malfunction in the cruiser's built-in camera, video evidence is unavailable.)

Re:What about Silent Video? (1)

vajrabum (688509) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101716)

Link?

Re:What about Silent Video? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101684)

Yes, Silent Video do not fall under Wiretapping laws.

asshole cop is an asshole, film at 11 (1)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101574)

the key word there is not "cop", it's "asshole". the beating in the video is a clear case of police brutality. this suit is just a case of a stupid jerk being a stupid jerk. And in all likelihood it will not turn out well for him.

Criminal defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101620)

It is capturing a "news event" involving a "public official", thus he has no personal claim since he was employed during, or, acting within the scope of his duties.

to officer Krupke: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101628)

Fuck you, Pig.

fired? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37101636)

Why isn't this ass fired? He really should be now.

Organized crime (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 3 years ago | (#37101706)

The law states that its intention is to aid in reducing organized crime. In this case, the actions of the police fit the law's definition of organized crime very well!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>