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!

$125,000 Settlement Given To Man Arrested for Photographing NYPD

Soulskill posted about a month ago | from the cheaper-than-a-trial dept.

The Almighty Buck 231

mpicpp sends word of a $125,000 settlement for a man who was arrested for photographing members of the New York Police Department. On June 14th, 2012, the man was sitting in his car when he saw three African-American youths being stopped and frisked by police officers. He began taking pictures of the encounter, and after the police were done, he advised the youths to get the officers' badge numbers next time. When the officers heard him, they pulled him violently from his car and arrested him under a charge of disorderly conduct. The police allegedly deleted the pictures from his phone (PDF). Rather than go to trial, the city's lawyers decided a settlement was the best course of action.

cancel ×

231 comments

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

idgi (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708023)

I get the civil settlement, but did the police not also commit a crime?

Re:idgi (5, Funny)

penguinoid (724646) | about a month ago | (#47708123)

Some crimes don't get prosecuted if the victim refuses to press charges. This may be because the victim can forgive it, or because without his testimony there would be no case.

On the other hand: Hey everyone, did you know that photographing police officers can be worth over a hundred grand? Everyone could use an extra $125,000, photograph your local policemen today!

Re: idgi (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709261)

Think of how messed up this is for a minute. The police deleted the pictures from his phone. They tampered with evidence by gaining unauthorized access to his phone. The power we allow law enforcement nowadays, we are all at the mercy of moody people with guns who can peer into and modify your personal belongings. Oh also the law is not on your side on this, I'm glad the dude decided to "forgive" them.

Re: idgi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709395)

An important lesson from this is to make sure that video or pictures you take of cops should be streamed or saved directly to the internet. Then let them wipe the phone, it will be too late.

Re: idgi (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47709517)

or, more practically, make sure your phone password turns on immediately after the phone is put to sleep, rather than there being a 5 min delay.

Re: idgi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709603)

There are apps that can record to a remote server. Bambuser for example (free for private use). Destroy the phone all they want and the video will be safe. Those apps may allow deletion from the server through the app so a lock is still necessary.

Re:idgi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708355)

Good luck getting an assault charge or something similar to stick to the cops. It's tough enough convicting them of murder.

correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709263)

"After a thorough review of the case facts, it was in the best interest of all to resolve this matter without costly litigation and trial," city lawyer Brian Francolla LIED in a statement.

Re:idgi (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47709419)

Yes, they did but who is going to arrest them? Their fellow officers? Is the District Attorney going to alienate the officers who bring the cases and bolster his career?

Welcome to the USA.

LK

precedent (5, Informative)

roc97007 (608802) | about a month ago | (#47708025)

Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.

Re:precedent (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708061)

what's missing from the summary is that the cops involved are being sued in six other federal cases... this was not a single case.

These particular cops are used to f.ck you left,right and center and they don't care about your rights.

Re:precedent (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708109)

... and they don't care about your rights.

My what?

Re:precedent (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708267)

Rights: You know... your right to remain silent (unless told to "start talking", or forced to talk with torture), your right to attorney (after they get done with you), your right for a fair trial (unless charged with the espionage act, thrown into gitmo, or blown up by drone strike), etc. You have plenty of rights*. You live in the land of the free and home of the brave!

*some exceptions apply. Void where prohibited by law (aka constitutional free zones) or where simply inconvenient (e.g. NSA, TSA, etc).

Re:precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708737)

Being blown up by a drone is extremely unlikely, as well as going to gitmo or being charged with espionage.

It is way more common to be driven into bankruptcy then forced to admit guilt for a lesser sentence compared to the trumped up charges (should be illegal) and no lawyer. Mentioning things that do happen to random people every day makes for a better argument than things that only happened a few times.

Re:precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709219)

You live in the land of the free and home of the brave!

You're not brave! You're chickens! You're all chickens!

Cue chicken boo...

Re:precedent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709223)

The worst thing is that the most of Americans are not aware that they are living in a police state.

Re: precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709271)

Also, it'll be too late when they do.

Re:precedent (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about a month ago | (#47708411)

... and they don't care about your rights.

My what?

Yes, it's dated. And yes, it's a British band. But yes, it's relevant [youtube.com] .

Re:precedent (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a month ago | (#47708567)

Thanks for that link. Now I know my rights (all 3 of them).

Re:precedent (1)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about a month ago | (#47709031)

Thanks for that link. Now I know my rights (all 3 of them).

My pleasure. Always happy to share.

Re:precedent (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about a month ago | (#47709543)

I prefer beastie boys [youtube.com]

Re:precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708277)

... and they don't care about your rights.

That's because you don't have any, you're just a bunch of "bleeding heart lefties" that think you have 'rights' and that the cops are there to protect you and serve public interests. They only care about your lefts - making sure you're left to die, left in a cell without food for days, etc.

Re:precedent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708571)

That is not true. Cops do respect your right to remain silent if you happen to see things you shouldn't have.

Re:precedent (0)

cdrudge (68377) | about a month ago | (#47708715)

You're allowed to say fuck. Fuck fuck fuckity fuck.

Re:precedent (5, Informative)

Frobnicator (565869) | about a month ago | (#47708653)

Right, because trial can set precedent and the city *really* doesn't want that.

Precedent is only part of the story.

A settlement comes with the clause that they do not admit to any guilt. If the courts get involved, and a guilty verdict comes down, it also comes down with the "under color of law" modifier. That comes with a year in prison at the lowest tier. If there was bodily injury if weapons were used or threat of weapons was used, it jumps to a ten year prison term. The third tier, which triggers if the acts result in death, threat of death, or if they include kidnapping (which false arrests can qualify under), attempt to kidnap, sexual abuse or its attempt, the punishment can grow to life in prison.

It doesn't matter what their original violation was, those are additional bonus punishments of up to a year, a decade, or life in jail.

They will fight in the courts right up until the court decides they are no longer immune. The moment the immunity is broken they will do anything to take a non-guilt settlement.

LEOs (both as individuals and as departments) will do all they can to avoid an actual guilty verdict when their own acts are done under color of law. They will try to get any other deal or settlement they can rather then spend time in the prisons they helped create.

This is a civil case (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a month ago | (#47708793)

So guilt does not apply. It is to determine responsibility, not guilt. There is a major legal difference, and trials proceed differently. Hence you can have OJ Simpson found innocent of a murder, but civilly responsible for causing wrongful death of the same individual.

Re:precedent (4, Informative)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | about a month ago | (#47709075)

There's already binding precedent in the Circuit that covers NYS.

Tunick v. Safir, 228 F.3d 135, 137 (2d Cir. 2000)
loom v. Levy, 159 F.3d 1345 (2d Cir. 1998).

I'm not sure what another case would prove -- the appellate courts are loath to repeat themselves.

you gotta change america (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708029)

I'm sure some countries may be worse. But cmon this shouldn't happen in America. Because your TV shows have always portrayed the police as the opposite. The cops can be dickheads in Australia. But this is unheard of here for the most part.

Spilling over to white people (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708117)

Black people have had to deal with this in the States since well, always.

And now with the cops feeling all big and powerful with their military surplus toys, they are harassing white people, arresting them for no good reason and even physically harming them.

We will start to see changes now - I hope. Although, there are still too many (mostly old people) who still think the cops will not harm you if you do nothing wrong. The subject of the article did NOTHING wrong, but yet he was injured and arrested.

By the way, the President of the US is THE top of the Executive branch - meaning HE is in charge of ALL the police around the country - if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs).

Shame on you Obama. And Double shame for being a Black guy and NOT doing something.

Spilling over to white MEN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708183)

Women are incapable of doing crimes because they lack the body part that all criminals have: the penis.

Re:Spilling over to white people (5, Informative)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about a month ago | (#47708313)

By the way, the President of the US is THE top of the Executive branch - meaning HE is in charge of ALL the police around the country - if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs).

Shame on you Obama. And Double shame for being a Black guy and NOT doing something.

Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. The POTUS is the head of the Executive Branch of the *Federal Government.* He's also the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces. He is in charge of the Department of Justice (the FBI, the ATF, etc.) and the Army, Navy, etc.

He is not in any chain of command the includes local or state police forces. The closest he *could* come to that is to federalize the National Guard (which is equivalent to a state militia), which has been done from time to time (notably in Arkansas to block the state government from halting enforcement of the Brown v. Board of Education [wikipedia.org] decision).

The POTUS cannot legally give orders to local or state police, which are civilian organizations answerable to the municipal and state governments that raise and fund them, and not the Federal government. The only tools that the Federal government has to affect local police is litigation and withholding federal grants to police organizations [policeone.com] . You'll note that this author of the linked article is decidedly not a fan of Federal power over police.

As such, your appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] :

if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs

falls short. Please try again.

Re:Spilling over to white people (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708533)

By the way, the President of the US is THE top of the Executive branch - meaning HE is in charge of ALL the police around the country - if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs).

Shame on you Obama. And Double shame for being a Black guy and NOT doing something.

Bzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing. ...

Was OP playing, err, golf?

Obama did come back from his perpetual golf vacation to DC. For one day. Didn't even bother to put on a tie. I guess he doesn't have extras that he leaves at the White House when he's on vacation. You know, just in case.

So, yeah, while Obama can't give orders to local police, he sure pulled a full fail on using the bully pulpit.

Face it - Obama is a great campaigner and a great golfer. He governs like one, too.

Do you know how many rounds of golf another good golfer who was elected to President managed to play while in office? Ronald Reagan played eight. One for each year in office.

Re:Spilling over to white people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708875)

Idiot troll is obvious.

Re:Spilling over to white people (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708953)

WTF is with all you idiots bitching about Obama's vacations. Reagan only played eight rounds of golf? Well gee, I guess Obama should be more hard working, like Reagan, right?

Reagan: 335 vacation days in 8 years = 41 days per year
Obama: 129 vacation days in 5.5 years = 23 days per year. (shit...I get more vacation days than that)

Yep, Obama...what a slacker. He also took fewer days than either GW Bush or GHW Bush (but more than Clinton).

Re:Spilling over to white people (4, Insightful)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about a month ago | (#47709017)

WTF is with all you idiots bitching about Obama's vacations. Reagan only played eight rounds of golf? Well gee, I guess Obama should be more hard working, like Reagan, right?

Reagan: 335 vacation days in 8 years = 41 days per year Obama: 129 vacation days in 5.5 years = 23 days per year. (shit...I get more vacation days than that)

Yep, Obama...what a slacker. He also took fewer days than either GW Bush or GHW Bush (but more than Clinton).

Don't bother. These guys have learned their lessons from the G.W. Bush Administration [wikipedia.org] :

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actorsand you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

our friends are very busy out there creating new realities. They don't have time for that "fact" stuff.

Re:Spilling over to white people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709217)

As such, your appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] :

if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs

falls short. Please try again.

Wow. I have the balls to admit I might be incorrectly remembering something, and you decide to use that to take a pot shot against me?

People like you are why some people are incapable of admitting they might be wrong.

Re:Spilling over to white people (2)

NotSanguine (1917456) | about a month ago | (#47709359)

As such, your appeal to authority [wikipedia.org] :

if I remember my high school civics correctly (yeah, I'm that old and it was back when education was about having an educated electorate and not training for McJobs

falls short. Please try again.

Wow. I have the balls to admit I might be incorrectly remembering something, and you decide to use that to take a pot shot against me? People like you are why some people are incapable of admitting they might be wrong.

You don't know me, so you have no idea what "people like" me are about. You made an outrageously incorrect statement and attempted to bolster your argument by an "appeal to authority" (your civics class back when schools actually taught something). What I said was based on what *you* wrote.

You were completely off-base and didn't even bother to check to see what the truth was before making an argument not only that you were right, but that you were right because some authority taught you better than everybody else. That's unkind at best and deliberately nasty at worst. Now you're upset with me because I called you on it?

While I didn't need to do so, I just now went ahead and found this [wikipedia.org] in less than two minutes with a google search for "US federal vs local law enforcement"

Perhaps I was a bit harsh in pointing out your (as you say) inadvertent error. I would point out that you were at least as harsh on others with your claim that you know better than everyone else.

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I understand that you dislike our current President and wish to tarnish his image. I'm not real fond of him either. But making incorrect statements to bolster an attack on him doesn't help your cause, IMHO.

I care about this issue too and am disgusted by the horrendous abuses of our public "servants." However, before I make disparaging statements and beat everyone over the head with them, I try to ensure that they are, in fact, correct statements. You might try that some time.

Regardless, have a lovely evening!

Re:Spilling over to white people (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47709455)

You don't know me, so you have no idea what "people like" me are about.

Would you be happy if he said "People who behave like you just did"?

LK

Re:Spilling over to white people (3, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47709449)

I agree, that the only thing that's new is that the police are now treating middle and upper income white people they they have always treated poor whites and minorities.

The President is the head of the Executive branch of government, he is sometimes called the "Chief Law Enforcement Officer in The United States" but he has no authority to direct local police in any way.

He can instruct the FBI to carry out his directives because they are a part of the Department of Justice which is an Executive Branch agency.

LK

Re:you gotta change america (2)

kylemonger (686302) | about a month ago | (#47708521)

Heh, our 1970's TV shows. Go watch The Shield [imdb.com] . And that's not the only example. The days of CHiPs and Adam-12 are long gone.

how are cops like bank executives? (5, Insightful)

bouldin (828821) | about a month ago | (#47708039)

Answer:
When either one does viciously illegal shit, they get away without punishment, and somebody else pays the fine!

Re:how are cops like bank executives? (1)

linear a (584575) | about a month ago | (#47708137)

Better police. For a better Police State.

Re:how are cops like bank executives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708145)

I'm reasonably sure, if I made a fuckup that cost my employer that sort of money - to say nothing of the bad publicity - it would, at the very least, put a damper on my career promotion prospects.

Maybe the officers deserve real punishment. But maybe not. It's a tough job, we don't know anything about the circumstances around this story, and punishing them may just be more hassle than it's worth.

Re:how are cops like bank executives? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708189)

Solution:
    more authoritarianism! the police don't have enough power and there aren't enough police police! hell, just keep adding layers of police policing police! each with 6 figure salaries and cushy retirement plans, so we can rehire them as consultants and pay them double salary.

Reality:
    you won't give a shit during elections, because "your side" will threaten that the other side will take away/grant a issue dear to your heart. so you vote like a robot for "your side" and the police state grows.

Re:how are cops like bank executives? (4, Interesting)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | about a month ago | (#47708889)

From TFA:

“Now we’re going to give you what you deserve for meddling in our business and when we finish with you, you can sue the city for $5 million and get rich, we don’t care,” Lt. Dennis Ferber said, according to the suit filed in Brooklyn Federal Court.

It appears the police followed exactly your logic. However if that statement is substantiated, Ferber's boss would be seriously derelict in their duty if they didn't fire him for this. He's publicly stated that he doesn't care about knowingly causing a multi-million dollar liability for his employer. IANAL, but I expect that should these cops not get punished and pull a similar stunt again, the city would open themselves up for greater punitive damages, as they'd let employees with a known track record of rights abuse continue working where they were likely to abuse again.

It would be good to see criminal proceedings, but I doubt it will happen.

Re:how are cops like bank executives? (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a month ago | (#47709463)

Ferber's boss would be seriously derelict in their duty if they didn't fire him for this.

Two words.
Police Union.

There is almost no accountability for law enforcement. That's a part of what draws sociopaths into that field of work.

LK

Re:how are cops like bank executives? (1)

JonathanR (852748) | about a month ago | (#47709147)

And that's the way it should be. Some day the Stockholm Syndrome sufferers will say enough is enough; but while they remain sycophants to the political and praetorian classes; fuck 'em. Make them pay.

NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708069)

What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.

The public has a right to know.

AC

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47708273)

What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.

The public has a right to know.

You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?

No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (2)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47708331)

The public has the right to know what their government is up to whether you are involved or not. Don't you think so?

I would say that if the public does not have a right to know, then the government or the departments under it do not have the right to settle lawsuits- whether you are involved or not.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47708559)

I only need to know in broad terms what they are doing, not the specific details. There are things I am not entitled to know about government and how they interact with other individuals. So I don't agree with your premise.

IF you think you have a right to know, file a Freedom of Information Act request for the information. See what they will give you.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (5, Insightful)

apraetor (248989) | about a month ago | (#47708339)

Contracts between a private individual and a government entity are not protected by any such privacy considerations. The public has a vested interest, and a right, to scrutinize their government's conduct and to know why it's tax money is being paid to a private individual.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47708541)

Then file a freedom of information request. Even government has reasons to keep things private, such settlements included.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709265)

They agree - the constant violations of your rights, the constant oppression of the "free." No, your argument amounts to rolling over and taking whatever they deign to give you, and you deserve it.

I'm not so sure about the rest of the population.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (4, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month ago | (#47708367)

What I love is none of this 'terms kept confidential' nonsense that is so typical in court settlements.

The public has a right to know.

You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?

No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.

When a crime is involved (such as unlawful arrest, harassment, theft of property, etc. the cops engaged in), the public has a right to know.
When one of the parties IS the state or one of its many agencies, the public has a right to know.
When the public courts handle a case on the matter, criminal or not, for however long, the public has a right to know regardless of whether the case is settled by the court of by the parties outside of the court.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47708527)

Out of court = Not public record

Court ordered Settlement = Public record

File a Freedom of Information request if you think this should be public.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | about a month ago | (#47708391)

You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right? Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know"?

No, No, they don't have a right to know. I may allow you to use my intellectual property and by contract disclose it to you for your use, but that doesn't mean everybody in the world is now entitled to see everything.

If one of the entities is a government, the public DOES have the right to know, since it's public funds that are being used to settle.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month ago | (#47708465)

" Are you really saying that I must publicly disclose the terms of any private contract I am a party to, just because the "Public has a right to know""

Yes, because court actions are taken as legal precedent that gets studied for generations to come and cited whenever relevant cases arise. If we start keeping legal settlements secret, a huge chunk of case law drops out of the historical record.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47708509)

An "out of court" settlement is not a legal precedent, beyond the fact the city settled. No lawyer is going to provide a brief that claims "Well because they settled before, they need to settle with my client too."

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about a month ago | (#47708741)

You do realize that settlements are basically private contracts right?

There is no such thing as a "private contract". A contract, by nature, is an agreement that the state will enforce. State actions are not private. If two people make an agreement and will never disclose that agreement to anyone else under any circumstances, then a court will never see it, and it is in no meaningful way a contract.

Of course that only goes double when one of the parties is a government agency. Nothing a government agency does is private.

Re:NOT CONFIDENTIAL!! YAY!! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a month ago | (#47709185)

No, No, they don't have a right to know.

I have to disagree. If you do business with the government, you lose some of the privacy that you would have in a private transaction. Secrecy in government is just too tempting to abuse.

Always lock your phone! (4, Interesting)

HaeMaker (221642) | about a month ago | (#47708091)

Always lock your phone and set media to sync to the cloud (if you can afford the data...). It would have been really interesting to hear what the cops told the judge when they sought a warrant to unlock it.

Re:Always lock your phone! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708211)

>"It would have been really interesting to hear what the cops told the judge when they sought a warrant to unlock it."

The same thing they tell every judge. "See you on the golf course this Sunday!"

Re:Always lock your phone! (1)

Dwedit (232252) | about a month ago | (#47708295)

Probably the $5 wrench solution to unlock the phone.

Re:Always lock your phone! (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a month ago | (#47708569)

"The guy dropped it on the ground by accident, we didn't break it."

Re:Always lock your phone! (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a month ago | (#47708621)

"The guy dropped it on the ground by accident, we didn't break it."

Thus, the cloud advice. By the time they got to the phone, audio and video is on the way up.

Re:Always lock your phone! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47708623)

you mean interesting to hear the cops banter while they pistol whipped the guy until he gave them the password? Hell, here in Chicago the cops beat people for jollies even if they don't need anything.

cameras - why use the obvious ones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708115)

there are a number of spy devices which don't stick out like a sore thumb and some record in HD........ devices like:

pen cams
hat cams
wrist watch cams
and more

the list is large and the devices plenty.

if my watch is aimed in your direction and I'm not acting strange, (hell maybe I'm reading a book at the same time while the watch records) how would they know?

Re:cameras - why use the obvious ones? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708169)

Because we're not all James Bond?

Re:cameras - why use the obvious ones? (2)

Ken McE (599217) | about a month ago | (#47708193)

if my watch is aimed in your direction and I'm not acting strange, (hell maybe I'm reading a book at the same time while the watch records) how would they know?

If you are only recording pictures in a public place then you're good (legally). If you surreptitiously record sound then you may run afoul of wiretapping laws. That there are no wires and you're not tapping anything makes no difference. Depends on your jurisdiction.

Re: cameras - why use the obvious ones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708555)

If they do not know then you do not get 125k.

Re:cameras - why use the obvious ones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708907)

mod parent up! fuck cell phone cameras

We need cops to turn their guns (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708139)

I don't agree with street thugs but cops would be serving the people much better if they were shooting muslims in the face instead.
 
FUCK MOHAMMAD!! FUCK ALLAH!!! FUCK ISLAM!!!!!!!!

Re:We need cops to turn their guns (4, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about a month ago | (#47708683)

FUCK MOHAMMAD!!

No thanks. I don't swing that way....

Re:We need cops to turn their guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709297)

Also, fuck another group that's just as bad as the islamist terrorist groups:

FUCK JESUS! FUCK JEHOVAH! FUCK CHRISTIANITY!

The three made some mistakes (4, Informative)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about a month ago | (#47708301)

1. They should have refused to comply with the search on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

If the police insisted then they would be forced to make an arrest. Then the three should insist on using the legal representation, the representative will ask why they are under suspicion and force the police to obtain a proper warrant etc...

In reality though, as soon as they refuse to submit to the unconstitutional search, the police will either walk away or be forced to commit a serious infringement, which can be dealt with later.

2. They did not start recording the police themselves as soon as the police approached them. That way they have on record their refusal to agree to a warrantless search which renders any search before arrest unconstitutional, and if they make an arrest then they need to have a good reason - which the story implies they did not.

When you start recording you should say to your friend, or the officers if you are alone, "this is being uploaded automatically to my blog, so don't worry if they try to delete the video". If you are smart then your friend will reply "did you press the live upload button" and you will check and say "yeah, it is uploading now" - or something like that. That will put the pressure on the officers to behave themselves.

If you can afford it, then actually do set yourself up to upload the feed automatically, but the threat alone is likely to be enough.

Always remain calm and speak politely. Be nice. Be friendly. Do not use hostile body language. Do not scowl. You cannot scare the police, they are not old women walking down a dark alley. I know that blacks think that they can scare anybody with a dirty look, but honestly, the police LOVE IT when somebody becomes aggressive - because it will give them grounds for arrest. They are trained to deal with your aggression and you play into their hands when you become aggressive. THEY WANT YOU TO BECOME AGGRESSIVE SO THAT THEY CAN ARREST YOU, SO DONT DO IT!

Re:The three made some mistakes (5, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a month ago | (#47708399)

I take it you've never been Black, right?

And you've also never heard of 'Stop and Frisk'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

Re:The three made some mistakes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708453)

>"I take it you've never been Black, right?"

I'm white and have been harassed plenty of times by cops for minding my own business. Granted that was back in the college days but harassment is harassment.

Re:The three made some mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709067)

Did they stop after you graduated from college? If so, then you're talking out of your ass.

Re:The three made some mistakes (1)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about a month ago | (#47708803)

"I take it you've never been Black, right?" Deeply offensive question. I will not submit to your racial profiling.

"And you've also never heard of 'Stop and Frisk'."
Yes I have and I think it is unconstitutional ... so do many judges "On August 12, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the stop and frisk practice was unconstitutional".

If your constitutional rights are being infringed then you need to fight for your rights. The way you do that is no through violence but to insist on your rights every time. Even if the police say it is constitutional, you state that it is not and that you do not submit and you record it. AND THEN YOU LET THE LAWYERS BATTLE IT OUT.

Re:The three made some mistakes (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about a month ago | (#47709143)

And in June 2012, it was constitutional in NYC. I agree with you....that is a completely wrong concept. But wrong or right, it was the law of the land.

As far as the Black/not Black thing....you may think it is deeply offensive/racist. Others may look at it as getting shot or not getting shot.

Re:The three made some mistakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709631)

Black people understand, but niggers don't. It doesn't matter what color you are. You can't fight the police on the street. You can only fight them in court.

Re:The three made some mistakes (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a month ago | (#47708955)

You had me agreeing with you right until the "I know that blacks..." line. Yes, there are some people who think they can scare anyone with a dirty look. There are people like that who happen to be African-American and who happen to be Caucasian. The color of your skin doesn't make you give people dirty looks and act aggressive. (Socio-economic status is more at play than race alone.)

I will agree with the "don't be hostile" advice, though. This doesn't mean that you have to roll over and do whatever the police order you to do. Just make sure that you are being polite when you refuse. Of course, this isn't iron-clad protection. If a police officer decides you are a threat (say, because you are a young, black man and he's a racist idiot on a power trip), he can beat you up and then tell the world that you were aggressively charging him. Especially if the only witnesses are other police officers.

Re:The three made some mistakes (2)

brantondaveperson (1023687) | about a month ago | (#47709383)

I know that blacks...

This remark betrays a deeply held racism that you really need to take a good hard (non-agressive) look at. Seriously.
No, you do not 'know' anything about 'blacks' (whatever that term might actually mean? Africans? Ghanians? Nigerians? African-Americans? People who like wearing a lot of black?). You hold prejudices about people who are not white.

That's awesome! Taxpayers get fucked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708319)

Fuck yeah! the United States Government gets away with whatever crimes it commits, then you the taxpayer get to pay $125,000.00 out of your pocket to compensate anyone who's been wronged by the criminals (the United States Government).

Same thing goes for other criminal organizations such as banks. Banks do whatever they want, make billions for themselves, but when they fail, the taxpayer gives them an infinite amount of money to stay afloat.

So we now, and have been living in a society, where the people pay for any corporate entity's fuck up. (The united states is a corporation, read about it, so are banks)

The individual has absolutely no rights anymore. Facts.

Re:That's awesome! Taxpayers get fucked! (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month ago | (#47708499)

That's why settlements like this need to come directly out of the police budget. That's still the taxpayer's pocket, but taken from an amount already earmarked for police work. Let them be forced to prioritize, denominating the settlement charge in terms of pot busts foregone next year.

Phone Pictures (1)

linuxrocks123 (905424) | about a month ago | (#47708333)

I'm going to go WAAAAY out on a limb here and speculate that these bullying asshole police officers weren't tech-savvy enough to know how to permanently delete stuff from a cell phone. Most likely, a simple FAT file system undeletion utility could have brought back all those pictures, or at least most of them. Does anyone know if the victim here did anything to try to get those photos undeleted?

It would have been nice if ... (1)

John Jorsett (171560) | about a month ago | (#47708435)

1) the story had named the officers. As it is, one has to go to the PDF of the complaint to find the names of the cops. 2) the story said whether any of them were disciplined in any way over this incident, 3) they were prosecuted for it, but at a minimum their pay should be docked for the cost of the settlement.

Leave New York (1)

NetNinja (469346) | about a month ago | (#47708557)

Leave that rat infested city of filth. The cops are above the law.
The politicians are above the law.
The laws are written so you can't win and only if you have millions can you fight the city and take it to it's knees.
I left years ago and it's still the same filthy shit hole I left in the 80's

Re:Leave New York (4, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | about a month ago | (#47708751)

Exactly. Leave New York and go somewhere safe and free and rights are respected. I'd suggest somewhere in the safe Midwest, close to a major city so that you have services and activities that are of interest, but not too close so that you are under the actual jurisdiction of the big city's police department. I hear the St. Louis area is nice and quite. Maybe Ferguson?

It's not a New York City problem or even a big city problem, it's a law enforcement problem.

no prison? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708601)

America will not have faith in big government until cops who do things like this, lose their jobs because of unexcused absenses due to their felony prison sentences. Who is preventing these prosecutions? Are Repubs giving extra criminal powers to police, in order to increase scepticism of govt?

Re:no prison? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about a month ago | (#47708651)

You are confused, this has nothing to do with "big government". People have no faith in the federal government for other reason, namely being power and money grubbing megacorporate bitches.

bullshit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708635)

unless the arresting officers are put in prison or executed nothing will change. the more power you have over normal people the bigger the consequences of abusing that power.

Ferguson Should take note (1, Interesting)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a month ago | (#47708877)

Over 1000 times $125,000 is over $1 Billion.
Fiscal penalties can work ....
They're ruined.
Civil rights violations are a federal crime.

Rash of people photoing NYPD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47708991)

Next in news.

Once again!!! (3, Insightful)

Rigel47 (2991727) | about a month ago | (#47708993)

The taxpayer is on the hook for CRIMES committed by cops.

From Gen. Alexander's willful and wanton (and unpersecuted) perjury on down to cops killing and chilling there is NO accountability in this country if you're on of "the good guys."

We can use this: (2)

crioca (1394491) | about a month ago | (#47709009)

Combine this with the fact that police are much more likely to arrest black people and I think we just found a way to address the systemic poverty of black Americans...

All I got (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47709125)

was a good old fashion ass Reaping!!! by two lesbians with a couple ding dongs, shoved doughnuts up my ass!!

Four easy steps 2 begin to fix broken system (3, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a month ago | (#47709315)

1. Nationally require body cameras always rolling while on-duty. Knowing you won't get away with unprofessional behavior = priceless.

2. Total national outlaw of plea deals because coercion is morally indefensible. This is supposed to be the "land of the free" not North Korea.

3. Total ban on performance/incentive structures having effect of perverting justice. This includes linkages between career status/advancement and prosecution rates and officer ticketing/arrest quotas.

4. Total ban on mandatory minimum sentencing.

Why is this story on Slashdot? (0)

chrism238 (657741) | about a month ago | (#47709441)

I can't seem to find its technical relevance anywhere.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?