http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/22/emily-good-arrested-videotaping-police-rochester_n_882122.html
Watch the video. It is rather astounding.
What kind of bothers me about this (Well, one thing anyway - there are plenty of things to be bothered about) is that she is going to go into court, and it is going to be thrown out. No DA is going to touch this, I am guessing.
But is that it? Because exercising the power to arrest when in fact the law does not support that use of the power should be a pretty fucking big deal, I think. I mean, if I went and grabbed someone and hauled them off against their will and locked them up somewhere for a few hours even, I would go to jail for a rather long time. That is a pretty serious crime.
I am not suggesting that this police officer needs to be arrested - rather I suspect this is a training and culture issue. But if this is as bad as it looks, then there is a very serious systemic problem here. We have a police officer, and where there is one, there is almost certainly more, who simply does not understand his role in enforcing the law and how to use the rather considerable power that has been granted to him.
And for everyone we have video of, how many instances of the police abusing their power do we NOT see? And I am not even talking about the obvious, cop beating someone up or something, *major* abuses, but more the little things. Police not being entirely honest in their reports. Demanding that people do things they have no power to demand. Constructing probable cause. Etc., etc.
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2011, 03:17:13 PMNo DA is going to touch this, I am guessing.
Possibly not in New York. But people get arrested for videotaping the police all the time.
QuoteCarlos Miller, a Miami journalist who runs the blog "Photography Is Not a Crime," said he has documented about 10 arrests since he started keeping track in 2007 [through July 2010]. Miller himself has been arrested twice for photographing the police. He won one case on appeal, he said, while the other was thrown out after the officer twice failed to appear in court.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/TheLaw/videotaping-cops-arrest/story?id=11179076
http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248
Yeah, the legal case in New York seems very cut and dried - the officer has no case at all. He didn't even arrest her for the typical bullshit charge of wiretapping, which is what is normally used in these cases.
Which just doesn't even pass the most basic of sanity checks, btw - the claim that videoing a police officer is "wiretapping" since the police officer has not consented. If that is illegal, does that mean that someone videoing a baseball game is "wiretapping" unless they get permission from every single player, spectator, person walking by? I mean really, how could that ever go anywhere?
Of course, for every time the police actually arrest someone, how many times have they successfully intimidated someone into stopping their recording by simply threatening to arrest them, or even just ordering them to stop, when they have no legal power to do that?
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2011, 03:30:21 PM
Which just doesn't even pass the most basic of sanity checks, btw - the claim that videoing a police officer is "wiretapping" since the police officer has not consented. If that is illegal, does that mean that someone videoing a baseball game is "wiretapping" unless they get permission from every single player, spectator, person walking by? I mean really, how could that ever go anywhere?
In most (could be all, but damned if I'm going to do the research) cases, you have to be secretly recording to qualify as wiretapping (which the person was in the 2006 Massachussetts case). So if you're obviously holding up your video camera, no problem.
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2011, 03:30:21 PM
Of course, for every time the police actually arrest someone, how many times have they successfully intimidated someone into stopping their recording by simply threatening to arrest them, or even just ordering them to stop, when they have no legal power to do that?
37.
Police are obviously going to have to learn to do their jobs in an environment where there will always be cameras around and little cunts more than willing to use them in order to trip the officers up on some technicality.
If you're always going to be by the book, you'll never get anything done as we have frequently learned from watching cop shows.
You're going to suspend a good cop for tripping on vicodin on the job? I don't think so. He needs to be out there, busting heads and taking down colombian drug lords.
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2011, 03:30:21 PM
Of course, for every time the police actually arrest someone, how many times have they successfully intimidated someone into stopping their recording by simply threatening to arrest them, or even just ordering them to stop, when they have no legal power to do that?
Recording, or doing any number of other perfectly legal things that a given cop doesn't like. Unfortunately, this is the kind of shit that goes along with having a police force; some officers are simply not going to be able to resist abusing their authority in this way - the very people attracted to the job are often attracted because it will give them so much power. I don't think it is avoidable unless you want to pay cops enough that you can afford to be hyper-choosey about whom you take.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
the very people attracted to the job are often attracted because it will give them so much power.
:lol:
You crack me up.
Go on. Give me a source for this claim.
Is videotaping parole officers (or probation officers, can't remember which one Strix is) a crime? :showoff:
Quote from: Slargos on June 22, 2011, 04:03:04 PM
:lol:
You crack me up.
Go on. Give me a source for this claim.
He can't give you a source, because it's simple common sense.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2011, 04:05:06 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 22, 2011, 04:03:04 PM
:lol:
You crack me up.
Go on. Give me a source for this claim.
He can't give you a source, because it's simple common sense.
:lmfao:
I guess we can add another to the list in Marty's dogma thread.
"It is known."
People don't generally use a d100 when choosing a career. /shrug
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 22, 2011, 04:07:17 PM
People don't generally use a d100 when choosing a career. /shrug
While we're playing this game, did you know that people often choose to be medical doctors due to the easy access to narcotics?
It happens.
Americans often join the army because they want to stack people into naked pyramids.
Jews often join the army just to be allowed to murder arabs without repercussion.
Swedes often join online forums because.... well, I can't even really rationalize it.
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2011, 03:17:13 PM
What kind of bothers me about this (Well, one thing anyway - there are plenty of things to be bothered about) is that she is going to go into court, and it is going to be thrown out. No DA is going to touch this, I am guessing.
But is that it? Because exercising the power to arrest when in fact the law does not support that use of the power should be a pretty fucking big deal, I think. I mean, if I went and grabbed someone and hauled them off against their will and locked them up somewhere for a few hours even, I would go to jail for a rather long time. That is a pretty serious crime.
I am not suggesting that this police officer needs to be arrested - rather I suspect this is a training and culture issue. But if this is as bad as it looks, then there is a very serious systemic problem here. We have a police officer, and where there is one, there is almost certainly more, who simply does not understand his role in enforcing the law and how to use the rather considerable power that has been granted to him.
And for everyone we have video of, how many instances of the police abusing their power do we NOT see? And I am not even talking about the obvious, cop beating someone up or something, *major* abuses, but more the little things. Police not being entirely honest in their reports. Demanding that people do things they have no power to demand. Constructing probable cause. Etc., etc.
id take her civil case
Quote from: Slargos on June 22, 2011, 04:03:04 PM
:lol:
You crack me up.
Go on. Give me a source for this claim.
And if I do (and I can), then what? You will change your position... how?
Or will you just claim that what I said was self-evident and that you knew it all along?
Give me a motivation for providing the link to support my assertion. After all, it is work on my part, and if there is no gain, why should I bother?
You crack me up. You actually
haven't a clue as to what the research says, do you? :lmfao:
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2011, 04:42:08 PM
]And if I do (and I can), then what? You will change your position... how?
It will turn what seems like an unreasonable claim into a reasonable one, and I will go on my merry way.
QuoteOr will you just claim that what I said was self-evident and that you knew it all along?
Now you're just projecting. You pull shit like that, I don't.
QuoteGive me a motivation for providing the link to support my assertion. After all, it is work on my part, and if there is no gain, why should I bother?
Fuck if I care. You can make all the unsupported statements you wish. There is no gain to any of this, and I'm left wondering why you even bother to post here. You have nothing to add.
Quote
You crack me up. You actually haven't a clue as to what the research says, do you? :lmfao:
Of course not, if I were privy to your vast information about the motivations for joining the police and you are actually correct, I obviously wouldn't object.
You're not very bright, are you? :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on June 22, 2011, 04:13:41 PM
Americans often join the army because they want to stack people into naked pyramids.
Jews often join the army just to be allowed to murder arabs without repercussion.
... and Swedes often post on the internet to make complete asses of themselves.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
I don't think it is avoidable unless you want to pay cops enough that you can afford to be hyper-choosey about whom you take.
In this particular case, at least, we know exactly how much the officer in question makes.
http://rocdocs.democratandchronicle.com/database/city-rochester-police-pay-and-overtime
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa313%2FHabbaku%2Fearnings.png&hash=fddd207ae5c85d37d2e8480a9e3c7ebd57779f06)
I don't think ~$75k/year is chump change, even in New York.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 22, 2011, 07:01:28 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
I don't think it is avoidable unless you want to pay cops enough that you can afford to be hyper-choosey about whom you take.
In this particular case, at least, we know exactly how much the officer in question makes.
I sup[pose some might find that interesting, but since my point wasn't about this officer (nor was the post I was responding to), your data doesn't really say anything about my point.
As for $65.6k base pay being "not chump change," even in NY, you are right. Studies show that even more cops join because of the pay and benefits than join because they are authoritarian personalities (the latter, btw, is probably advantageous in some lines of police work). A lot of cops also have pensions starting with 20 years on the force, as well.
But the pay isn't so great that it generates a huge pool of otherwise-qualified applicants, so that you can weed out the authoritarian types. Which was my point, and has little (maybe nothing) to do with Officer Masic. He could have been simply ignorant of the law, rather than authoritarian.
I believe some states are trying to get legislation passed to make it illegal to video record law enforcement. Whether it will hold up..who knows. Personally as a Police Officer.. I dont give a shit either way.
Inregards to the posted vid, the officers obstructed themselves. They should have ignored her. Oh and shes a dumb ass anyway.
Here's a snippet of Washington state
QuoteWashington State passed a law making it illegal to videotape police in the performance of their duties. The Federal District Court ruled it unconstitutional, and the 9th Circuit upheld.
Most states have one-party consent on so-called "wiretapping" in a public place--meaning, I consent to me recording you. There's 11 states that have two-party and there's currently federal legislation in progress trying to make recording in public legal in all states.
QuoteThe court further stated that its decision on the First Amendment question was supported by the fact that none of the cases reviewed involved traffic stops—an activity the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be "inherently dangerous." Thus, the court determined that the right to videotape police officers during traffic stops was not clearly established, and the police officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the alleged First Amendment violation.
Quote from: JonasSalk on June 22, 2011, 08:24:16 PM
Most states have one-party consent on so-called "wiretapping" in a public place--meaning, I consent to me recording you. There's 11 states that have two-party and there's currently federal legislation in progress trying to make recording in public legal in all states.
It's the lobbyists for Big Youtube at work. <_<
Quote from: JonasSalk on June 22, 2011, 08:24:16 PM
Most states have one-party consent on so-called "wiretapping" in a public place--meaning, I consent to me recording you.
Keep in mind this only works if you are actually a party to the conversation being recorded, as I read those statutes.
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2011, 06:52:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on June 22, 2011, 04:13:41 PM
Americans often join the army because they want to stack people into naked pyramids.
Jews often join the army just to be allowed to murder arabs without repercussion.
... and Swedes often post on the internet to make complete asses of themselves.
So I take it you agree with grumbler's assessment about the motivations of police officers then? Perhaps you too have read this research data he claims to possess. :hmm:
Not trying to defend Officer Masic because grumbler's earlier point about people seeking power through a law enforcement position is a major on-going issues (which is why you go through a lot of psyche screening) but I think I know Officer Masic's motivation in this instance.
He does a lot of plain clothes work, so he was probably more concerned with his face being plastered all over YouTube and/or other internet video places than abusing his authority for personal gratification. I am sure his first thought was about his personal safety if he works plain clothes again.
He wasn't right, regardless, because he is trained to know that he cannot arrest someone for what he did.
That is pretty interesting Strix, and certainly would explain what seemed like somewhat inexplicable behaviour.
He didn't really come across in the video as someone on a power trip - just as someone who did not want to be video-taped, but had no real idea how to stop it. I assumed he simply did not know that being videoed was a part of the job, and something he would have to tolerate, even if he didn't like it, so he decided to try to do something about it not knowing that what he was doing was probably not legal.