×

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!

Man Claims Cell Phone Taken By DC Police For Taking Photos

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the safest-city-in-the-world dept.

Censorship 318

First time accepted submitter hawkinspeter writes "Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment, a 26-year-old local man had his phone taken as he was trying to record a violent arrest. They eventually gave back his phone, but without the memory card which also contained photos of his daughter along with the record of the alleged police brutality."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

318 comments

Happy Friday from the Golden Girls! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790781)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790867)

I think you meant "confidant".

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791003)

I think you meant "I'm a complete dumbass."

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791035)

For cultural reasons the lyrics were tweaked in the good ol' USSR.

Re:Happy Friday from the Golden Girls! (0)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791427)

I think you meant "confidant".

This recurring post is annoying yet amusing - because there is always *someone* who simply can't abide the fact that it's wrong [xkcd.com], and simply *must* correct it. Looks like that's you, this time.

Chief? (4, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790791)

Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment

Chiefs don't make laws.

Re:Chief? (5, Informative)

Spritzer (950539) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790861)

True. The article is poorly worded. However, Chiefs do set policy within their department.

Re:Chief? (5, Interesting)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791205)

By making it official policy, it opens up lawsuits that can break the usual qualified immunity that cops get.

Re:Chief? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790897)

Chiefs don't make laws.

Chiefs make poilcy, and that's administrative law. Nice try, though.

Re:Chief? (2)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791583)

Wrong. A policy infraction can result in disciplinary action (termination, leave without pay, etc.). A law can result in legal action (fines, jail, etc.). A policy cannot itself result in legal action, unless the policy reinforces existing law.

There's a policy at my job (in government) that disallows wearing shorts or sandals in the office. I cant be fined or arrested if I fail to comply.

Re:Chief? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790957)

It also was already illegal... she just clarified it with policy.

Re:Chief? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791143)

The executive is responsible for making about 100 times as many laws as the legislature in the UK - and that's just the Statutory Instruments. Various public departments usually have a wide remit for creating procedures relevant to them which then have force of law.

The caveat is that all this secondary legislation is only valid because of a delegation of responsibility expressed in primary legislation. If the secondary legislation exceeds the scope provided by the primary, it is invalid. Also - and increasingly what with EU integration, so this may not apply so much in the US - the secondary legislation must achieve the aims of the primary in a proportionate manner. At the very least, it must in England not be Wednesbury unreasonable. It will also fall foul of the ECHR if it restricts freedoms more than necessary. But the executive and the legislature hate the idea of individual rights and, while the judiciary have in recent history been much more protective of individual rights, they prefer to form their own case law rather than being dictated.

tl;dr it's all a crap shoot.

Re:Chief? (5, Informative)

Jahf (21968) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791259)

And in this case the chief didn't make law.

The chief clarified to her officers what the law already is. Seizure of recording equipment without the recorder actually causing some form of disturbance (the officer being disturbed) does not stand up in court. Officers tend to know this, too, but are used to being able to bully their way through the issue.

The policy from the chief was not a new thing in the sense of the law. It was a new thing in the sense of the policy acknowledging it.

Re:Chief? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791397)

By illegal they meant against police department policy. That means instead of going to jail, anyone breaking the rules will get a slap on the wrist or a verbal warning or like 1 day suspension.

Dropbox (5, Informative)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790793)

I installed dropbox onto my cell phone, and now every time I take a photo with my cell, it gets automatically uploaded.

I can't think of a better way to handle such abuses.

Re:Dropbox (4, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790879)

Thats very neat and an idea that so many people may not have thought of.
Set up some blog or guide or webpage for that so others can learn how to use their phones web features.

Re:Dropbox (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791225)

On most modern Android devices, its supported out of the box. You need only turn the feature on. Dropbox not required.

Re:Dropbox (2, Informative)

schlachter (862210) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790885)

iCloud does the same.

Re:Dropbox (4, Informative)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790905)

That was my first thought, however iCloud waits for a wifi connection before uploading.

Re:Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791039)

3G Unrestrictor fixes that, among other things.

Re:Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791557)

Dropbox for iPhone will automatically upload photos as well, with or without wifi.

Re:Dropbox (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790893)

So when they grab your phone they also get to trawl your dropbox?
You'd be better off choosing an upload site out of the country with contribute only access from the phone.

Re:Dropbox (3, Interesting)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790921)

Well, it would probably be a good idea to offload anything in your dropbox to a safe location, AND change your password.

There are plenty of options, but Dropbox is the most ubiquitous one.

Re:Dropbox (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791173)

Do you think these dim bulbs would even think of Dropbox and instant-upload features?

Sounds like the police observer handbook needs to be updated. Everyone that wants to document possible police action should now do this.

Re:Dropbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790941)

dropbox has been hacked and made blunders more than once.

Re:Dropbox (5, Informative)

unk98 (1525843) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790971)

Dropbox does allow you to set a separate password to open the app on the phone. Might help a bit.

Re:Dropbox (1)

ravnous (301936) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791523)

Can't you just lock your phone before they grab it? One button and the phone is locked. They may be able to pull your SD card but they won't be able to access your accounts.

Re:Dropbox (1)

unk98 (1525843) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790947)

Unfortunately does not appear to be an option for the BlackBerry version of Dropbox.

Re:Dropbox (3, Funny)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791289)

I believe Google Drive can do this as well. I know for a fact that you can also do this with Google+, but I'm betting the 17 people actively using G+ already know this.

Re:Dropbox (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791299)

I installed dropbox onto my cell phone, and now every time I take a photo with my cell, it gets automatically uploaded.

I can't think of a better way to handle such abuses.

I can. It is really simple. Install Google+ and turn on Google Instant. The same thing you get with Dropbox, but it uploads to a private area on Google+. There are integrated editing tools crop, exposure, etc. right there on the G+ site too. The only thing Dropbox would do that might be more useful would be automatically syncing it back to your computer too. But all of the other features of Google Instant are better. I even use it for getting screenshots of messages from lab machines, etc. When I get back to my desk to document stuff the picture is already there on G+ and I can edit it, etc. and then directly use it.

Re:Dropbox (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791305)

better be fast with getting to your dropbox and copying it before they log in and delete it.

Re:Dropbox (2)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791555)

and then you can use the "previous versions" feature to undelete the pictures plus

"and then the officers in full knowledge of the contents deleted a remote backup of the pictures in question to cover up their obvious abuse of civil rights and grievous assault on this innocent citizen"

or a simple court order could have DropBox fishing in their backups for the files

Re:Dropbox (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791513)

Google Plus and Drive have similar options for people who use those.

The Google Plus option is nice because it uploads all the images to an album only visible to yourself, which you can then choose to share directly on Plus later.

Should have used an iPhone! (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790807)

Remove the memory card indeed!

Re:Should have used an iPhone! (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790903)

Then it would have been "accidentally" destroyed.

A smartphone that uploads all its photos to the web is the way to go for this kind of thing.

Re:Should have used an iPhone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790979)

And billed at actual non-contract replacement cost. Destruction of private property gets expensive.

Re:Should have used an iPhone! (2)

tooyoung (853621) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791449)

Should have used an iPhone!

Then it would have been "accidentally" destroyed. A smartphone that uploads all its photos to the web is the way to go for this kind of thing.

Maybe Apple should come up with a solution like that. They could call it iCloud.

And why should anyone be surprised? (3, Insightful)

na1led (1030470) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790809)

This isn't much news, it's what goes on everyday, despite what any says.

Re:And why should anyone be surprised? (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791433)

Doesn't make it right and this shit needs to be exposed. "any" is a dumb shit.

So Kick His Ass (5, Insightful)

Spritzer (950539) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790815)

In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me. Sure, it would be a stretch, but my point is the officer committed a forcible felony. Charge him.

Re:So Kick His Ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790937)

Maybe he didn't want to commit Suicide By Cop.

Re:So Kick His Ass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790981)

I don't believe that is true. You should verify that before you kill someone and end up destroying a handful of lives (including your own) over a cell phone.

Re:So Kick His Ass (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791057)

In the state of Georgia I have the right to use deadly force to protect my property from being forcibly taken from me. Sure, it would be a stretch, but my point is the officer committed a forcible felony. Charge him.

Don't ever resist an officer with force, because after whatever violence the cops do response you're pretty much guaranteed to lose in court. Resist as this guy did, gathering evidence and filing appropriate legal claims. That does in fact make a difference for somebody else, while beating up a cop doesn't help anybody.

See a cop interacting with a citizen, film it. If the cops harass you for filming, do your best to call attention to the encounter so that somebody else can film them going after you for filming them. And if the cops go after that guy, help ensure somebody else is filming them do that. Each time you do that, you're either eventually going to have physical evidence of what they're up to, or a steadily increasing pool of witnesses, both of which will help you win in court and actually change the policy and the practice.

Re:So Kick His Ass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791483)

If more cops had their asses kicked by the public, they'd learn their place. A lot more of them deserve a public asswhooping.

Re:So Kick His Ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791605)

Don't ever resist an officer with force

Baaa.... Get back over there with the rest of the herd.

Re:So Kick His Ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791131)

Go ahead and tell a judge that you had the right to kill someone over a cell phone. You might find yourself strapped to an execution table.

Re:So Kick His Ass (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791165)

Apparently you still think you live in some sort of egalitarian democracy where the rule of law is enforced. Newsflash. That ship has sailed.

Re:So Kick His Ass (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791307)

That would be justice, if our system were just enough to let it prevail.

Re:So Kick His Ass (5, Insightful)

PatDev (1344467) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791361)

If you live anywhere in the states you should be aware that, unless you are fabulously wealthy or powerful, there are not limits on what the police can do. There may be limits on what the police are legally allowed to do, but attempting to stop a cop from doing an illegal thing they want to do is going to lead to conflict with a police officer, which will lead to a disorderly-conduct or similar arrest.

Treat a cop the same way you would treat a 12-foot gator in the backyard. Keep your distance if possible. Never anger it. Appease it until it is gone, and call in a greater power ASAP. For a croc you call animal control, for a cop you call the only higher power citizens have access to - a lawyer.

The actual gap between the power a cop has and the power you have in literally any interaction makes any other course of action untenably risky.

Well... (5, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790855)

The phone shouldn't have been wearing such slutty firmware. It was just asking for this to happen!

U$A (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790907)

Worst than China... Worst than Russia...
The most pathetic country on earth...

Re:U$A (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791295)

...But not worster than trolls.

Re:U$A (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791415)

I dunno, the UK's trying for that title...

Disclaimer: I'm British.

Re:U$A (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791533)

I dunno, the UK's trying for that title...

Disclaimer: I'm British.

Glad to see I'm not the only person who recognizes the race between the UK and US governments, to see which one can repress it's citizens the most.

Next time .. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790935)

"Gimme yer phone, punk"

"Where's the memory card?"

"There is no memory card, the video was sent directly to the cloud."

Oops!

Re:Next time .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791175)

You forgot the rest of it:

"Sir, I've obtained a search warrant for all digital storage devices in your residence..."

Re:Next time .. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791371)

Of course, officer, no problem.

Oh, btw, in case you're wondering, I didn't upload the video to YouTube or create a torrent of it. Some bad people seem to have hacked my server in Europe...

Re:Next time .. (2)

CelticWhisper (601755) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791469)

Doesn't always work that way. There are apps like Qik, Ustream, and TapIn that record directly to web-hosted services and which people can watch live as they stream. TapIn in particular was designed for cases exactly like this, uploading immediately and providing no way to delete the video off the server from the phone itself. It's no longer stored on any equipment owned by the videographer and by the time the police can take any action against the company hosting the video, (ostensibly) millions will already have viewed it, saved it, shared it, etc.

Apps like these really deserve more publicity because they're the best weapon we have against police misconduct. Proof of misconduct that immediately becomes widely-available and which is immune to police coverups.

Re:Next time .. (1)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791599)

You forgot the rest of it:

"Sir, I've obtained a search warrant for all digital storage devices in your residence..."

Exactly, let them try to get a search warrant. After a few denied requests they will learn to not abuse powers. In fact, I doubt they are willing to go further then intimidate peoples with empty threats. When high-school bullies graduate they enrol the police academy...

Re:Next time .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791543)

"OK, where is the cloud? Is in your pocket? Empty your pockets. Show me your hands. OK, where's the cloud?"

"It's everywhere and nowhere."

"You trying to be funny with me kid?"

File a police report. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40790955)

Sounds like someone stole your property. File a police report. I'm sure they'll get right on that.

Re:File a police report. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791393)

You may be joking, but file a report and get the yellow press on it and watch the turd hit the spinning thingie.

I don't like this inaccuracy (5, Insightful)

jdavidb (449077) | about a year and a half ago | (#40790973)

Just one day after Chief Cathy Lanier made it illegal for MPD cops to take recording equipment

My understanding is that the court system ruled it was illegal weeks or months before Chief Lanier's announcement. Lanier didn't make anything illegal or change the law. Lanier simply issued a decree to the MPD informing them of the law and directing them to comply with it.

And of course, with or without the court's ruling, the chief's decree, or any legislative action, it was always immoral for police to confiscate private property when no crime has been committed. Tyranny is still "illegal" (i.e., in violation of the natural law giving us the right to life, liberty, and property) whether or not the legal system supports it or condemns it.

Re:I don't like this inaccuracy (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791155)

My understanding is that the court system ruled it was illegal weeks or months before Chief Lanier's announcement. Lanier didn't make anything illegal or change the law. Lanier simply issued a decree to the MPD informing them of the law and directing them to comply with it.

Yes, it's true. Neither the court's ruling or the Chief's announcement made it illegal. It always was. The big difference is that, unlike real people, the police normally get to claim ignorance of the law. If these allegations turn out to be true, the police chief will find it hard to justify a slap on the wrist. I don't trust him to do the right thing, but people are going to hold his feet to the fire on this one.

Is this city-state run by Republicans? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791001)

Attention all leftist free software lunatics hippies.

I have a question. Is the city-state of Washington DC run mostly by leftists or conservatives?

It's a real question.

Do any of you geniuses know the answer?

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791283)

It's run by Congress, technically (the whole Congress, House and Senate). So neither party controls it by themselves, since the Senate is controlled by one party and the House by the other.

Re:Is this city-state run by Republicans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791575)

It's run by Congress, technically (the whole Congress, House and Senate). So neither party controls it by themselves, since the Senate is controlled by one party and the House by the other.

Nice tap dance.

Soooo, who's the Mayor? What party?

The LAW makes it illegal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791019)

The police chief just reaffirmed the law with a policy because of failure to follow the law on previous occasions.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/jerome-vorus-wins-settlement

Well, technically. (1)

Voogru (2503382) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791029)

The chief stated that they could not take recording EQUIPMENT.

They said nothing about recording media!

Don't you just love clever politicians.

Re:Well, technically. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791139)

To take the media they had to take the equipment.

So they took equipment.

Plus "equipment" is a word implying multiple functioning pieces. And one which is fundamental to a "recording" device is the memory on which the record is stored. They took recording device equipment.

So no, you're not clever.

Live stream (3, Insightful)

bobbutts (927504) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791031)

With a modern phone and decent coverage you can use Ustream [ustream.tv] or Bambuser [bambuser.com]

Either of these will re-broadcast your video live and also create an archive for watching in the future.

Police act like gangs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791065)

It's ridiculous that laws are having to be introduced to allow taking photos of the police in the first place. How many hundreds of cases have there been now that exposed officers abusing their power because of cell phone cameras? Video recording and pictures prevent physical abuse and corruption. It promotes a fair democracy and keep power in check. As taking pictures and videos is really just "one person reporting", it is protected under freedom of the press by any fair-minded, logical individual. It's a shame to liberty that laws are needed to allow it to occur.

easy fix for this guy (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791103)

1 DEMAND that his memory card be returned to him Intact and certified as not having been copied (or any copies made have been destroyed)

2 speak to a lawyer about suing the officer (not the PD the actual Officer in question) for "theft of images for the purpose of creating Child Pornography" (this is an optional Nuclear Option but..)

3 DEMAND that the officer be put on not less than 10 days UNPAID leave

Re:easy fix for this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791437)

1 DEMAND that his memory card be returned to him Intact and certified as not having been copied (or any copies made have been destroyed)

2 speak to a lawyer about suing the officer (not the PD the actual Officer in question) for "theft of images for the purpose of creating Child Pornography" (this is an optional Nuclear Option but..)

3 DEMAND that the officer be put on not less than 10 days UNPAID leave

4. Enjoy the massive amount of parking tickets, speeding tickets, etc. that you begin to get.

Qik (3, Informative)

eyeota (686153) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791107)

qik.com [qik.com] has an app for iPhone/Android, etc allows you to stream video you're recording directly to your account over 3G/4G, etc. People dealing with TSA Abuse have been documenting and recording them using this app and similar. Even if your phone is confiscated, the video is already on the server.

You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791185)

Im glad they took it and the photos.

People will say "I have a right. This is abuse of authority." and so on but in the end it protects police to a certain extent. People will take photos and pictures and upload them with the wrong context.

Lets say a man is attacking someone and violently beating them. The police show up and then have to use force to subdue the man. If its all recorded but just the part of the police physically assualting the man is shown everyone that see's it will say the police went too far, they will distrust the police, they will be afraid of the police, they will make some ignorant and kneejerk comment about america not being free and etc. When in fact they dont know the real context or the real truth of what was going on but people wont care because they WANT to see things in a bad light, they WANT to bitch about the police and they WANT to be outraged. They dont care about context at all. American citizens dont always have the right to stick their nose into things dont involve them. If something is going down then you get the hell away from it and let the cops sort it out because it has nothing to do with you. Not to mention when something like that is going on tensions are running high, nerves are shot and everyone is edge so if you come along with a cell phone and get in on it by recording it of course youre going to get yourself involved when you have no business doing so and they wont be happy about it.

True you technically have the right but you should be considerate enough and smart to leave certain things alone instead of becoming part of it. Just because you can do something doesnt mean you should.

People fear the police and when people fear something they tend to hate it. People also have double standards about the cops. They bitch the police dont do enough when something bad happens, but then the police then pull that person over for speeding and give them a ticket they bitch about the cops just for doing their job. If someone is doing something violent and the police respond in kind because its the only way to end it quickly before more damage is done then people blame the police instead of blaming the person who caused the whole situation.

So do yourself and the cops a favor and just keep on walking or go the other direction if something is going down and mind your own fucking business.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791401)

More evidence is better. Context can wait until it's in the courtroom. Otherwise you're just giving permission for the cops to beat the shit out of anyone for any reason because anyone nearby will just keep walking.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791403)

Congratulations. You're a fascist. American citizens absolutely have the right to hold police accountable when they cross the line. Suggesting otherwise is reprehensible.

Re:You shouldnt be allowed to record it. (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791487)

What keeps the police from issuing a statement that puts the record straight? If I'm not too mistaken, they even have a PR department just for this reason, have the spin doctors work for their dough!

Of course it is possible to show the police in an unfavorable light by showing selected snippets of a video, there are, though, a few things that you simply cannot explain with "selective reporting". Like, say, beating a person who is already lying on the floor and trying desperately to keep the blows from hitting his face...

"Made it illegal" (1)

TorrentFox (1046862) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791229)

She didn't "Make it illegal". It was illegal and has always been illegal - she just recognized this fact.

Re:"Made it illegal" (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791465)

It's not illegal. if the cfop that did it is not fined, has to PERSONALLY pay restitution and spend jail time, then it's not illegal.

It's time we started jailing dirty cops.

is that not armed robbery? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791233)

It sure seems like it would be. The cop is using the threat of violence to steal the guy's personal property. I don't know how the courts look it, but if I'm on the jury, my vote would be to send him to jail.

The Cop is the Criminal (2)

hd6tor (1026690) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791279)

Hopefully the law breaker, I mean the police officer, will be charged with assault and theft under, then prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Re:The Cop is the Criminal (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791441)

No, the cop isn't. The policy is criminal. Sadly in most places, not following the policy set by the chiefs of police/civilian oversight board is grounds for immediate termination and/or being called before a disciplinary commission. The real problem, that most people don't seem to understand is, that there are little tin pots at the highest levels of policing that have a chip on their shoulder.

Now you might say, well a cop should just ignore bad laws. Well, plenty of them do. The problem is, they're not ignoring a law in this case, and ignoring policy is much worse than ignoring a bad law. That's just how fucked up it is now. I probably shouldn't get started on the whole political correctness run amok bit either.

Cellphone and camera not the best choice... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791435)

If you want to record cops beating someone up, you need to buy a camera they cant spot.

http://looxcie.com/ [looxcie.com]

I have one and it works great. I havent caught a cop beating someone up, but it works awesome for other uses as well.

and cops are far too stupid to realize your bluetooth headset is a camera.

shame the cop wasn't dumber (1)

DynamoJoe (879038) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791439)

it would have been great if he had simply blanked the memory card and handed it back. It would have given a forensics app something to work with.

There needs to be an app for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#40791463)

Someone needs to create an Android app that can record video directly to youtube. Go ahead and take my phone and/or memory card, I still got your dirty ass on video.

ACLU Police App Lets People Police The Police (5, Informative)

colordev (1764040) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791493)

The Android “Police Tape” app records video and audio discreetly, disappearing from the screen once the recording begins to prevent any attempt by police to squelch the recording. In addition to keeping a copy on the phone itself, the user can choose to send it to the ACLU-NJ for backup storage and analysis of possible civil liberties violations

more information here [aclu-nj.org]

an iPhone version is probably still awaiting approval from Apple

DropBox / G+ (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | about a year and a half ago | (#40791585)

At least for iPhones (which wouldn't have a memory card anyway), you have an instant upload such as what is available with G+ that automatically puts new pics into a special folder online. Same that you can enable on DropBox as well. I'm sure there are many more apps that do this automatically as well without needing to run a special app, they just do it automatically. While technically it's not direct upload to the cloud or instant unless you take with the app itself, by the time they get around to it, gotten past your password, it likely will have uploaded.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...