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!

Supreme Court Blocks Illinois Law Against Recording Police

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the start-your-cameras dept.

Crime 225

An anonymous reader writes "The Illinois anti-eavesdropping law was cut down slightly. While protecting the average citizen from eavesdropping, it also put in place prohibitions against recording the police as they were doing their jobs. An appeals court sided with the ACLU, saying that it was too great a restriction on First Amendment rights. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, cementing in place the lower court's ruling. In Illinois, you can now secretly record the police."

cancel ×

225 comments

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

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096403)

Post

caselaw summary (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096405)

With the Supreme Court not yet weighing in, here's a summary [citmedialaw.org] of the current state of case law. Every federal appellate circuit to consider the matter has come out in favor of recording being protected, however.

Re:caselaw summary (5, Informative)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096509)

It is also worth noting the US Department of Justice [pixiq.com] also believes recording is a constitutional right and important to "engender public confidence in our police departments, promote public access to information necessary to hold our governmental officers accountable, and ensure public and officer safety," and they've set forth a clear set of guidelines that can help police departments set their policy and officer training accordingly.

Re:caselaw summary (0)

Larryish (1215510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096941)

You, sir, are my favourite person for this week.

Re:caselaw summary (4, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096983)

They didn't charge this guy with recording: http://www.infowars.com/california-man-jailed-four-days-for-recording-cops/ [infowars.com]
Instead it was "resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer" and not having reflectors on his bicycle pedals.

Police policy means shit if the officers are not trained appropriately.
http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/ [photograph...acrime.com] is a good clearinghouse for stories about police & private securitywho don't know how to do their jobs.

Re:caselaw summary (3, Informative)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097241)

Not sure where you're going with that; it sounds like you're trying to disagree with me (or the DOJ I guess?) but the whole point of my post was that the DOJ thinks officers need to be "trained appropriately." They also address your point that officers tend to go for obstruction/interference charges (since generally recording isn't actually illegal it is a common "workaround"):

...an individual’s recording of police activity from a safe distance without any attendant action intended to obstruct the activity or threaten the safety of others does not amount to interference. Nor does an individual’s conduct amount to interference if he or she expresses criticism of the police or the police activity being observed. ...BPD’s general order specifically suggests that, if a bystander’s actions are “approaching the level of a criminal offense,” supervisors should “recommend a less-intrusive location to the bystander from which he/she may continue to observe, photograph, or video record the police activity.” ... BPD should revise its general order to provide “members” with the same authority. ... encourage officers to provide ways in which individuals can continue to exercise their First Amendment rights as officers perform their duties, rather than encourage officers to look for potential violations of the law in order to restrict the individual’s recording.

Now, it's quite possible for departments or individual officers to ignore this advice (like BPD did basically immediately after getting it, as we PINAC readers are aware) but at least this document will help in any ensuing civil cases should you find yourself targeted unjustly - and one hopes as that becomes more common (and recording becomes more common in general) police departments across the country will start to get it.

Re:caselaw summary (0)

detritus. (46421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097311)

The DOJ didn't lock this guy up, California police officers did. DOJ means federal agencies.
Also, you may wish to pick a better source than Infowars. They are not a trustworthy news source.

Re:caselaw summary (2)

detritus. (46421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097283)

That depends entirely on who runs the DOJ at any given time - it's not set in stone.

In Illinois? (0)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096411)

In Illinois, you can now secretly record the police."

This is a US Supreme court ruling. Anywhere in the US you can now secretly record the police, even if your state is dumb enough to outlaw it.

Re:In Illinois? (5, Informative)

Millennium (2451) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096457)

The SCOTUS didn't make any ruling; in fact, they refused to hear the case at all. That means the previous decision stands, but only within the jurisdiction of the court that made that decision. Thus, it doesn't apply to the whole country.

Re:In Illinois? (4, Informative)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096497)

Correction: This is a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. In Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin you can probably now secretly record police officers - but might still get arrest for it and have to fight a protracted Court battle. In the rest of the Country there's this 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that was left undisturbed by the S.C.O.T.U.S. your lawyer can now cite to if you get arrested for secretly recording police officers -- the judge in your federal Habeas Corpus action might be persuaded by that authority or might reject it.

Re:In Illinois? (1, Redundant)

Freddybear (1805256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096503)

They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)
And so you will still need a good lawyer.

Re:In Illinois? (2, Funny)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096645)

They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)

And well they should--this country is being overrun with mopery & dopery. The more mopes & dopes we can get off the streets, the better!

Re:In Illinois? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096763)

The problem is that mopes and dopes got 98% of the votes 3 weeks ago.

Re:In Illinois? (1, Funny)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097217)

The problem is that mopes and dopes got 98% of the votes 3 weeks ago.

You're confusing the mopes and dopes with the bums and scum.

The mopes and dopes did 98% of the voting, thereby electing the bums and scum.

Re:In Illinois? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096865)

Then you better go to the nearest police station and turn yourself in!

Re:In Illinois? (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096701)

And a tape of said event.

Re:In Illinois? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096887)

They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;) And so you will still need a good lawyer.

The idea is that you record _secretly_. You know, where nobody notices. Especially the police.

Well, it would be a good idea for someone to create an iPhone app that streams video directly to the cloud, so no evidence can be destroyed.

Re:In Illinois? (2)

immaterial (1520413) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097541)

Pretty much designed specifically for this purpose: http://www.tapin.tv/ [tapin.tv]

Re:In Illinois? (3, Informative)

CelticWhisper (601755) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097767)

They exist. Qik [qik.com] , UStream [ustream.tv] , and TapIn [tapin.tv] are among them. TapIn in particular was designed for protestors and recording authorities, and provides no means to delete footage on the recording device itself - it must be done from the user's account page, by which time the video will have been downloaded and redistributed beyond the user's (or the police's) ability to control.

Re:In Illinois? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096519)

Well, they really didn't rule. They just refused to hear the case. I would have preferred they actually stated outright that we have the right to film the cops so as to invalidated all the state laws against it.

Re:In Illinois? (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096725)

There refusal to hear the appeal speaks volumes.

Re:In Illinois? (4, Informative)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096831)

No it doesn't. The Supreme Court refuses to hear most of the cases that seek certification to appeal. It could mean they agree with the ruling, or that they don't see any need to weigh in because there's no dispute between the rulings and no obvious error of law. Sometimes it means they want to see the ruling in action before accepting a later appeal. Often it means that there's something about the underlying fact pattern which has rendered the issue moot (e.g. if the criminal charges have been dropped - if a criminal action - or there is no claim for damages - if a civil suit. If there is no further purpose to the ruling other than to satisfy the curiosity of the parties about the meaning of the law, then the case is probably moot and the Supreme Court will reject the appeal).

That's why we say that the Court's refusal to hear an appeal does not have precidential effect -- we don't know the underlying reasoning behind the Court's decisions and shouldn't assume they agree with the ruling below just because they refused to hear the case. That's not a clear inference.

Re:In Illinois? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096891)

More like pamphlets. Refusal to hear a case just means the lower court's ruling stands, and only within that court's jurisdiction. Outside its jurisdiction, this means fuck-all.

Re:In Illinois? (5, Informative)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096591)

No, the SCOTUS declined to hear the case, meaning the lower court ruling stands, but is only applicable within that court's jurisdiction. Specifically, the ruling was from the 7th circuit court, so it applies to Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

Re:In Illinois? (1)

Senior Frac (110715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097133)

Man. Not only didn't read the article, but didn't read the post either! This is new heights for lazy mother______.

Then, somehow, got Score 5: Informative for it too. ___ you slashdot.

Re:In Illinois? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097281)

Man. Not only didn't read the article, but didn't read the post either! This is new heights for lazy mother______.

RTFS (Read the Fucking Summary) is a years-old Slashdot trope for a reason. Idiots even manage to get that wrong. Perhaps the titles should be more accurate, for those who lack the attention span to even fully absorb the summary prior to chiming in with their contributions to the threads.

Just in Illinois? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096459)

If the decision has been, effectively, upheld by the Supreme Court, why wouldn't it apply nationwide?

Re:Just in Illinois? (3, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096537)

The problem is it hasn't actually been upheld by the Supreme Court. If the SC heard the case and upheld it, that would be nationwide binding precedent. But they just chose not to hear the case at all, which has no precedential effect.

Re:Just in Illinois? (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096799)

Sure it does ,they are saying the events were handled correctly. They just don't pick an appeal out of a hat they have read the whole case already and decided no constitutional laws were broken or no constitutional questions need to be answered. They in affect have upheld the lower court case no need to waste the taxpayers money on a non case.

Re:Just in Illinois? (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096925)

No, they refused to hear the appeal entirely. They did not either affirm or overturn the decision; they just left it in the hat and didn't pick it out at all.

Re:Just in Illinois? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097011)

Uh, no. Legally, not hearing the appeal has no effect as far as setting a national legal precedent. If they took the case and upheld the ruling, it'd be precedent set for the entire country. Since they didn't hear it, it's moot. The law still stands for the 7th circuit, but it hasn't been upheld nationally. I don't think you get how this works. To uphold a law, you have to hear the case and rule in favor of the lower court's decision - you cannot uphold a law "in affect", that doesn't mean anything.

Re:Just in Illinois? (5, Informative)

cdecoro (882384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097233)

No, no, no. Not at all. The Supreme Court has been overwhelmingly clear that a refusal to grant certiorari (that is, a refusal to hear an appeal) has no precedentiary value *whatsoever.* But you're not the first to make that mistake. See, e.g., United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923) ("The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times."), quoted in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989).

If the Court wishes to express that a lower court case is a "non-case," as you put it, they will make what is known as a summary disposition.

Re:Just in Illinois? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097351)

Sure it does ,they are saying the events were handled correctly. They just don't pick an appeal out of a hat they have read the whole case already and decided no constitutional laws were broken or no constitutional questions need to be answered. They in affect have upheld the lower court case no need to waste the taxpayers money on a non case.

Admit it; you're just trying to validate your sig, "Jack of all trades,master of none," because clearly you don't know jack shit about how the law works.

You're wrong, though. You're a master of talking out of your ass when you're clearly out of your depth.

Re:Just in Illinois? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096549)

See Millenium's post here [slashdot.org] for the explanation.

The problem is presentation, not recording. (2, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096461)

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

Realizing the significance of his footage, Holliday phoned the local police station, but claims that the person who answered the phone 'blew him off'. Next, he tried CNN, but no one was there to take his call. Finally, Holliday took his tape to local Los Angeles station KTLA. They edited out the blurry first 13 seconds of the tape showing King charging Officer Powell, and broadcast the last 68 seconds of the beating. The next day CNN and NBC obtained copies, and the tape was seen around the world.

http://www.seeingisbelieving.ca/handicam/king/ [seeingisbelieving.ca]

oh yeah. they always do that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096547)

'sfunny, though: there's no video evidence of those 13 seconds on that site.

Since seeing is believing and I've seen no 13 seconds, I don't see why I should believe it.

And don't they ALWAYS leave out like some REALLY IMPORTANT bit when those plebs recording the police miss or reporting on it show that there might have been something earlier that might have been showing the person getting stroppy with the police herding them and bransishing weapons.

Just as well the police never lose any footage, right? They have backup of their actions in their own records, right?

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (5, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096585)

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

So the beating was justified then? Wow.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096825)

If you do not comply with a order to lay down yes they will beat you down (and hard). What do you think cops are for? It is 'to keep the peace'. Sometimes that means cracking some skulls.

Most cops react badly when you come at them (even for 5-10 seconds). They deal with wakos every day who will shiv you for a pack of cigs.

Is what they did right? No. Was it expected? Very much so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8

Cops are twitchy do NOT poke them... Does not make it right. Just the way it is.

10 seconds of misjudgment on your part can mean the difference between getting a ticket or a ride downtown with some bruses.

Can it be changed? Sure, but not without lots of work and major attitude changes from the public, criminals, and the cops.

Don't mess with people in difficult jobs (-1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096879)

Most cops react badly when you come at them (even for 5-10 seconds). They deal with wakos every day who will shiv you for a pack of cigs.

Is what they did right? No. Was it expected? Very much so.

I agree completely.

In the same way, I don't mess with firefighters, airline pilots, CIA spies, surgeons, security guards or others trying to accomplish high-risk, difficult jobs.

We can go on and on all day about how it shouldn't be but... cops are in the combat zone. Don't lunge at them. Especially not repeatedly. Doubly so if you've just taken them on a nine-mile 100+mph car chase while your fellow passengers think you're on the dust.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs (4, Informative)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096973)

Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.

Your right; don't lunge at cops. But not because they are in great danger, because they are armed trigger happy bullies.

The biggest work place risk of being a cop? Traffic accidents.

Re:Don't mess with people in difficult jobs (2)

Dave Emami (237460) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097447)

Gardening is a much higher risk job then being a cop. Roofing and fishing is another league completely.

When it comes to death/injury rates, yes. Psychologically speaking, definitely no. There is a distinct difference between dealing with passive inanimate hazards and hostile people. Lawnmowers do not come to life and attack gardeners except in bad movie adaptations of Stephen King stories.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096989)

What do you think cops are for? It is 'to keep the peace'.

Their job is to make sure that I feel safe and I pay good tax money to make sure that they can do their job.

Currently I'm not sure if I should feel safe or worried when in proximity to the police. I'm also not sure if they deserve my tax money.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097105)

Is what they did right? No. Was it expected? Very much so.

Wait... WHAT?! Are you saying that we should *expect* the cops to do something that isn't right?

No.

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! We should *expect* the cops to obey the law.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097357)

I used the word 'expect' as in 'you do X then Y happens'. Not as in 'I expect you to do X'. I was being a bit to subtle for you, sorry.

I mean "you come at a cop do not expect him to shake your hand"... He is going to act like a circus master and the tiger is eating people.

Cops have a saying. "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6".

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096985)

How would you reacted? Justified maybe not but how mush like god do you think the police are?

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (4, Insightful)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096587)

Yes, because 13 seconds of lunging requires a 68 second response of multiple people beating someone. Your premise is that if they showed the first 13 seconds people would of regarded the reaction as reasonable. I think you may want to reconsider that premise.
Regardless of how it looks it should be made public if it took place in a public area. Having police harass you and break/confiscate your equipment and arrest you while recording a public event is mind boggling. If they're not doing anything wrong then they have nothing to hide.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (3, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096837)

Yes, because 13 seconds of lunging requires a 68 second response of multiple people beating someone. Your premise is that if they showed the first 13 seconds people would of regarded the reaction as reasonable. I think you may want to reconsider that premise.

I think you completely missed the OP's point. The point is that a video recording (any video recording, for that matter, not just of police) can and almost inevitably will, given the generally sensationalist bent of the media, be taken out of context. In the case of his example, that doesn't mean the beating would be justified, not by a long shot. But it would certainly make a lot more sense, and be far less grievous, than a beating for no reason whatsoever. It's pretty easy to edit video footage to show whatever the hell you want it to show (reality TV shows exist because of that fact).

Does that mean the police can ban recording them? No, not by a long shot. But the concern is valid. The response would be to record every police encounter themselves, although that is technically challenging in some cases (already done, IIRC, by most departments for traffic stops). Something like Google Glass would help considerably. Even then, their response wouldn't get as widely published as initial "shocking" footage, but it would help a lot.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096997)

It's not like the cops don't edit selectively themselves. Lose tapes etc.

This just levels the playing field.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (2)

Cali Thalen (627449) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097497)

If you dig a big hole in your end of the field, because the other team dug a big hole on their end of the field...I'm not sure that 'level' would be a good description of the playing field.

IMO, if the cops doctor evidence, they should be held accountable, by law. And if the 'news' or anyone else doctors evidence, they should be held accountable as well. I think that by publishing this sort of footage, you're effectively presenting evidence, albeit not in a court of law in the case of the news, but there should still be punishment (assuming there isn't some libel law already in place for this...IANAL by any stretch of the imagination).

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097027)

The point is that a video recording (any video recording, for that matter, not just of police) can and almost inevitably will, given the generally sensationalist bent of the media, be taken out of context.

This only happens when the original isn't widely spread.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (1)

gatfirls (1315141) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097061)

"...But it would certainly make a lot more sense, and be far less grievous, than a beating for no reason whatsoever.....". No, not really. Well not for most people who take an objective look at what was seen. The "just world" juries give police a very high benefit of the doubt in the first place, and usually "you don't know what happened before or after the recording" is their biggest defense should they find themselves in trouble. It's definitely the mating call of the apologist.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097091)

But in the example, Rodney King, the context was irrelevant as far as the police go. It explains WHY the cops were so mad that they beat on him after he was down. Realistically, I don't expect cops to be saints and immune to anger, but as far as standards for law enforcement, "He was being a complete asshole and endangering everyone" is not a valid reason.

It's poor journalism though, you're right. And that extra context might have provoked less of an angry response from the community. The riots were at least partly the media's fault because of that. But the context does not excuse the cops. We must have high standards for law enforcement. Especially in Illinois.

How long of an attack is acceptable? (1)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096889)

I'm thinking of attacking you and your family. I'm probably on drugs, and won't stop until you beat me down. How long is acceptable? Or do you just let do horrible things to them?

Re:How long of an attack is acceptable? (2)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097117)

One large bullet should do. Unless you move, then I might need to add some more.

Re:How long of an attack is acceptable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097539)

I'm thinking of attacking you and your family. I'm probably on drugs, and won't stop until you beat me down. How long is acceptable? Or do you just let do horrible things to them?

As far as strawmen go, that's one of the most poorly constructed I've ever seen.

Re:How long of an attack is acceptable? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097785)

I'm thinking of attacking you and your family. I'm probably on drugs, and won't stop until you beat me down. How long is acceptable? Or do you just let do horrible things to them?

Let me set fire to your straw man. My family is made up of fourteen ex Army rangers and they all have mace and tazers and plenty of plastic ties to bind you. Go ahead, punk, make my day.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097141)

Cops are Humans not Emotional shells we expect them to be.Every person has a breaking point so do cops

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (4, Insightful)

hoxford (94613) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097449)

As long as cops are given the authority to use force above and beyond what ordinary citizens are they expected to behave differently than ordinary citizens. They are supposed to follow the law and follow their training. If they cannot behave better than a typical goon when confronted with an emotionally charged situation then they should not be given any more authority than a typical goon. Ultimately, though, you are correct which is why the idea that only cops should be allowed to carry guns is silly.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096607)

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown

The obvious solution is for the cops to make their own recordings of any interaction with the public. Cameras in police cars are already common, and some police departments are now using headcams as well. Then if the media show a misleading snippet, the police can counter with a recording of the full event.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (2)

M1FCJ (586251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097181)

What misleading snippet? The Police cameras never record anything that shows the Police doing something wrong since they have an automagical bit, the camera automagically breaks down just before the Police smashes the brains out of someone. Or the tape disappears. Or the camera would be looking to the wrong place. Or the policeman himself would have had turned it off himself accidentally by tripping the off button as he was getting out of the car... Never...

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097265)

Then if the media show a misleading snippet, the police can counter with a misleading snippet of their own.

FTFY.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097299)

Ideally, cop recordings would also be publicly accessible with an exception for time sensitive activities (stings, raids, etc). These exceptions would be released once the time sensitive element becomes irrelevant.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (1)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096699)

The site you link to actually says this, prior to the supposed, unseen "lunge":

"By the time Holliday started videotaping, LAPD officers were already beating King."

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (5, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096803)

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use.

His 100 mph chase, drug use, priors, and lunging don't give the cops an excuse to beat a suspect. Ever. Punishment is supposed to come from the courts, not the police. Punishment isn't a cop's job, solving crimes and arresting people are.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (-1, Flamebait)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096959)

And if someone pulls a gun and starts shooting civilians, you probably think the cops shouldn't shoot back because that's punishment reserved for the courts. Sometimes you need to respond to force with force.

This is unrelated to the Rodney King beating, those guys were a bunch of assholes.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (3, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097183)

Reductio ad absurdum

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097259)

Apples and oranges much do you?

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097439)

In that case, it is the cops' responsibility to try to stop the attack and potentially arrest the man for processing. They would be in the right to shoot back. If the attacker dies in the processes, he dies. The lethal retaliation was about disabling the attacker not punishment. If they somehow managed to disable the attacker without killing him and then a cop walked up to the attacker and shot the him in the head, said cop should be arrested for murder. The cops are not meant to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097451)

The rules are actually not all that complicated.

Police can legally use force:
- To subdue a civilian who is physically resisting arrest. If that civilian is using or threatening to use deadly force, such as shooting at cops, then the cops can shoot back.
- To protect another civilian. If a bad guy is attempting to kill somebody, the cops can shoot him. If the bad guy is trying to beat someone up, the cop can use non-lethal force to stop him and arrest him.

Police cannot legally use force:
- Towards a civilian that is not physically resisting them.
- Towards a civilian that is unable to resist them (e.g. handcuffed and pinned on the ground).

Police cannot legally use deadly force towards a civilian that does not present a lethal threat to the officer or another civilian. For example, a cop encountering a fistfight is supposed to use non-lethal force only.

The Rodney King beating was a crime (in my view) because the cops continued to use force after Rodney King was unable to resist.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097197)

<Devil's Advocate> We're talking about force used to subdue a suspect, not "punish" them. Where did you even get that idea? When a possibly drugged-up suspect with a seasoned criminal history leads you on a car chase and lunges at the cops, that's all going to factor in to whether or not force is going to have to be used to subdue him - if the guy is assaulting the police officers, you're probably going to need to use some. It has nothing to do with any kind of "justified punishment". </Devil's Advocate>

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (2)

jrmcc (703725) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097097)

100+mph?? hah - He was in a Hyundai Excel and as a former owner I'd say he found some pretty big hills to go down to get that speed.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097289)

Maybe it had nitrous and 24in rims

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097419)

I think most cop shops are afraid of something happening like occurred with the video of Rodney King's beatdown, in which the news snipped off crucial sections in which King repeatedly lunged at police. In addition, they tended not to mention his 100+mph evasion attempt, his prior criminal record or his extensive drug use. We all know how that turned out.

Unlike in 1991, that extra information would be much easier to access today (in particular, the whole video is on YouTube now). So that's no excuse.

Re:The problem is presentation, not recording. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097679)

Law enforcement could address this by requiring mandatory, ubiquitous, publicly-accessible video of all uniformed peace officers while on duty. The tech is here and has been for several years. What better way is there to deal with the seemingly endless recordings and complaints presented by the public? Spokespeople regularly say such incidents are the result of "a few bad apples" and are taken out of context, edited to reflect unfavorably on security and law-enforcement personnel. Yet police departments in the United States seem very reluctant to adopt a standard that would act to protect their officers and their reputations as they carry out their duties?

If you have nothing to hide... (5, Insightful)

logicassasin (318009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096513)

Finally the line "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" can be used against law enforcement. Since law enforcement agencies across the country are adopting ever more invasive tactics to monitor citizens, it's refreshing to see that we can finally monitor them without fear of reprisal.

Re:If you have nothing to hide... (2)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096987)

You'll still see reprisals. This won't change that.

Re:If you have nothing to hide... (0)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097227)

Ya know if we were talking about getting videotaped for a short time while doing there jobs they shouldn't even notice it. No this is 8hrs a day video taping and something the cops are not trained to handle. Hell the standards for being a cop have been lowered so much over the years to allow people who should never have any business being a cop to be one. And now we expect these people who shouldn't be cops to now be super human cops ya not happening. Fat Cops,out of shape cops, 4'2' cops, Cops that suffer from PMS, Last statement sexist? its the truth and not the political correct thing to say but its the truth. And we allow them to run around with guns on there hips.lol

Commander Vimes... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097485)

Commander Vimes didn't like the phrase "The innocent have nothing to fear", believing the innocent had everything to fear, mostly from the guilty but in the longer term even more from those who say things like "The innocent have nothing to fear".

If the cops have nothing to hide... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096515)

...then they have nothing to fear by being taped.

Isn't that pretty much what "the authorities" usually want to tell Joe Citizen?

Fuck Illinois (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096557)

Moving out of this crap state.

Officer Murray? (1)

GodInHell (258915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096905)

Is that you?

law for citizens only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096601)

I'm not quite clear on this. Does it mean that it is illegal to pro-actively take means to record police, only? ...or is it just straight out illegal to record police working.

Re:law for citizens only? (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096797)

I'm not quite clear on this. Does it mean that it is illegal to pro-actively take means to record police, only? ...or is it just straight out illegal to record police working.

Did you even read the headline? Not the story; not the summary; just the HEADLINE?

1st world country? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096667)

Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?

The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.

Re:1st world country? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096897)

Are we really in a first world country when we are punished for attempting to hold our law enforcement officers to a standard?

The fact that we are even discussing this issue makes me question the validity of our laws.

No, the ban was ruled unconstitutional, so we aren't in such a country (did you even read the headline?). That's one thing the courts are for, so I would say the law is working as intended, more or less (in this case, of course). It's up to Illinois voters to remove the people responsible for trying to make such a law from power, but that would be their problem.

Record Secretly? (5, Insightful)

mk1004 (2488060) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096681)

Secretly? How about openly? I'd say that you'd better record secretly if you don't want to spend the night in jail and get hit with some BS resisting arrest charge or the like.

There are plenty of officers who don't like the idea of being recorded, and their reasoning varies from concerns about "Monday morning quarterbacking" to the sociopaths not wanting to get caught abusing their power. Still, if they can record us, we should be able to record them.

Re:Record Secretly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096789)

In Soviet Illinois, Secret Police record you.

Re:Record Secretly? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097101)

I'd say that you'd better record secretly if you don't want to spend the night in jail and get hit with some BS resisting arrest charge...

Hell no. If I didn't have other responsibilities I'd be out in front with that shit, recording any and all police activity, in secret or otherwise. Cops do a great job until you find them doing something corrupt, then YOU are doing a great job. Every citizen who loves the constitution should be ready to record any and all police activity by whatever means available.

Re:Record Secretly? (1)

mk1004 (2488060) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097471)

Cops do a great job until you find them doing something corrupt, then YOU are doing a great job. Every citizen who loves the constitution should be ready to record any and all police activity by whatever means available.

Well said.

Woot (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year and a half ago | (#42096815)

The Supremes get something right. Well, at least not wrong.

Judge, jury, and executioner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42096873)

Do away with all of these silly laws and just establish a Hall of Justice!

OK, maybe we would first have to nuke most of the world and make it uninhabitable, but that is the price of progress. :)

It as always been Legal (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097055)

That does not mean you will not be arrested or bitten for it, as it is still illegal to not follow the directions of police.

Re:It as always been Legal (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097223)

It is NOT illegal to refuse an unlawful order. The police have some discretion, but they are HIGHLY constrained to the types of orders they can give, and have to provide reasonable justification, albeit later.

Re:It as always been Legal (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097431)

"HIGHLY constrained to the types of orders they can give, and have to provide reasonable justification, albeit later."

I agree, you still legally have to do what they tell you to do. (http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/259457/)
And leaving legality out of it, they will likely beat you and arrest you anyways, if you do not follow all of their instructions.

Re:It as always been Legal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42097823)

"HIGHLY constrained to the types of orders they can give, and have to provide reasonable justification, albeit later."

I agree, you still legally have to do what they tell you to do. (http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/259457/) And leaving legality out of it, they will likely beat you and arrest you anyways, if you do not follow all of their instructions.

Yea, hey, a word of advice - you may want to refrain from quoting World News Daily as a 'reputable' source for... well, anything.

Here's a couple gems I pulled from their site to prove my point; the first is an article on giving thanks, [wnd.com] written by none other than Chuck "1000 Years of Darkness if Obama is Re-elected" Norris.

My other example is an excerpt from a Joseph Farah article titled, "HOW OLD IS THE EARTH??": [wnd.com]

No one can be 100 percent certain, though I subscribe to the idea that the Bible is literally true and that the Earth and the universe were created in seven actual days about 6,000 years ago.

In summation, WND.com != reputable source.

Posting anon to preserve moderation.
--
CanHasDIY

Nothing to fear (3, Insightful)

hduff (570443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097179)

If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear officer.

Doing No Wrong? Nothing To Worry About (3, Insightful)

assertation (1255714) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097291)

I love it.

Cops and other forms of authority are always telling people that if they are doing nothing wrong, then they shouldn't be concerned about a lack of privacy.

Right back at you Police Officers. If you are doing your job without breaking the law you have no reason to be concerned about me recording you.

So what? (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097389)

So what? They'll make another fucked up law, and people will have to spend millions to fight it, and what do the lawmakers get for being assholes? RE-ELECTED!!!

go right ahead as long as... (4, Insightful)

goffster (1104287) | about a year and a half ago | (#42097417)

You don't mind getting roughed up a little and sitting in jail for an
evening on trumped up charges and then paying for a lawyer to
eventually dismiss your charges for which you file a complaint that
is ultimately ignored.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>