Castle rock V Gonzalez is another good one, a womans three children are murdered by her estranged ex-husband, whom had been violating his restraining order, after the violations are of course, reported to police.
Who of course, do nothing. After four phone calls and in-person visits. Because it's not their responsibility to enforce restraining orders. Or prevent general murder. Or your murder. Or the murder of your kids.
People STOP PROTECTING POLICE. They are under no obligation to protect you, and they've already been proven to consistently be willing to protect themselves at your expense.
Yes, having police officers and their families subject to gang hits and kidnappings certainly wouldn't have any negative effects on society! Again-see Mexico.
If this is a problem, it should be handled in a way that does not infringe on civil liberties.
Does free speech mean I should be able to out undercover CIA agents?
Yes.
Though I would not have a problem with you being liable for the results.
How about revealing the location of military units in the field? Or the locations and patrol routes of Secret Service agents?
Heck, how about posting the names, faces, and home addresses of workers at abortion clinics?
knowing a cop's name is the same as giving away military positions?
really?
If you believe that there shouldn't be any secret police (assuming that secret armies aren't any more preferable to secret police), then yes. What matters is that the information is publicly available, not what that information actually is.
I think you're conflating police secrecy with military secrecy, which is silly. They serve entirely different rolls, that's why we don't have soldiers pulling over speeding cars.
When the Rodney King riots were going on in LA, the National Guard was called in to police the area. The Attorney General may also request Dept of Defense personnel to assist in the policing of nuclear materials. And the Coast Guard is exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act. These are all ostensibly military units performing in a law enforcement role.
No one's afraid of the Coast Guard. If I was a truther conspiracy theorist. I'd be really concerned about the Coast Guard. I mean, sure we're the softer, gentler military service, and you see us out there cleaning ducks off and stuff, but when you look at the legal authority the Coast Guard has it's a little crazy.
They all talk about FEMA, but it's really the Coast Guard you have to watch.
Castle rock V Gonzalez is another good one, a womans three children are murdered by her estranged ex-husband, whom had been violating his restraining order, after the violations are of course, reported to police.
Who of course, do nothing. After four phone calls and in-person visits. Because it's not their responsibility to enforce restraining orders. Or prevent general murder. Or your murder. Or the murder of your kids.
People STOP PROTECTING POLICE. They are under no obligation to protect you, and they've already been proven to consistently be willing to protect themselves at your expense.
Then the cops should be conducting this business in a way that won't blow their cover. You can't put the onus of maintaining secrecy on the private individual. If the department wants to make sure their undercover cops aren't being taped beating the shit out of some kid on a skateboard they need to 1) Stop that behavior or 2) Don't put people who aren't supposed to look like cops on regular duty.
I didn't say anything about the undercover cop being taped committing any illegal or abusive act.
So you're against any video taping of police officers or for a law that prevents said activity?
I'm honestly confused on your position.
I just want to know where the line that constitutes "secret police" is, and which members of law enforcement should be publicly identified. Is it uniformed cops? Undercover cops? CIA? Uniformed or undercover FBI? Military? Secret Service? Air Marshalls?
I'm not talking about documenting police abuse, like the Oscar Grant BART shooting, just a cop meeting a snitch at a bar and you recognizing both of them.
Well many of those groups you listed are not police.
I would put most of them under the umbrella of law enforcement, in whole or in part. The FBI are essentially police, even if they don't have the word "Police" in their name.
And I would think it would be when your actions can be shown to be knowingly endangering the subject of the video, i.e. giving away undercover police officers identities.
why not first names (and badge numbers) on badges, so that the officers are accountable
but their surnames aren't released unless enough evidence is present that charges can be levied
that seems like a reasonable compromise- anonymity and accountability
you'd need, though, an internally overseen investigation unit
I don't understand how this creates accountability in any form.
Cop: "Hey punk, give me your memory card or I'll fuck you a new asshole"
99% of people: "Okay officer, please don't hurt me"
Alternatively
Cop: "Hey punk, give me your memory card or I'll fuck you a new asshole"
1% of people: "No way! It's mine"
Cop: "You're resisting arrest and assaulting an officer, time to go to jail!"
Internal Investigation Unit: "Well, it's your word versus this black guy's, and since 99% of the population lets you get away with anything you do this is the first time your name has ever come up in our committee so... guess he really was resisting arrest and assaulted you."
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the only two options possible without external evidence like video-recording, so this doesn't seem like a good situation.
Castle rock V Gonzalez is another good one, a womans three children are murdered by her estranged ex-husband, whom had been violating his restraining order, after the violations are of course, reported to police.
Who of course, do nothing. After four phone calls and in-person visits. Because it's not their responsibility to enforce restraining orders. Or prevent general murder. Or your murder. Or the murder of your kids.
People STOP PROTECTING POLICE. They are under no obligation to protect you, and they've already been proven to consistently be willing to protect themselves at your expense.
turn down the "fuck da police" dial a bit.
but nothing he said is incorrect.
It's a sad fact that police have limited time/people/resources and can't protect 100% of the people 100% of the time. The fact that police are generally exempt from lawsuits for failing to protect specific people at specific times is just the result of this fact.
Castle rock V Gonzalez is another good one, a womans three children are murdered by her estranged ex-husband, whom had been violating his restraining order, after the violations are of course, reported to police.
Who of course, do nothing. After four phone calls and in-person visits. Because it's not their responsibility to enforce restraining orders. Or prevent general murder. Or your murder. Or the murder of your kids.
People STOP PROTECTING POLICE. They are under no obligation to protect you, and they've already been proven to consistently be willing to protect themselves at your expense.
turn down the "fuck da police" dial a bit.
but nothing he said is incorrect.
It was an issue of tone.
And the military is in no way shape or form a law enforcement body BubbaT, and the SS is more of a body guard for the president than a police force.
why not first names (and badge numbers) on badges, so that the officers are accountable
but their surnames aren't released unless enough evidence is present that charges can be levied
that seems like a reasonable compromise- anonymity and accountability
you'd need, though, an internally overseen investigation unit
I don't understand how this creates accountability in any form.
Cop: "Hey punk, give me your memory card or I'll fuck you a new asshole"
99% of people: "Okay officer, please don't hurt me"
Alternatively
Cop: "Hey punk, give me your memory card or I'll fuck you a new asshole"
1% of people: "No way! It's mine"
Cop: "You're resisting arrest and assaulting an officer, time to go to jail!"
Internal Investigation Unit: "Well, it's your word versus this black guy's, and since 99% of the population lets you get away with anything you do this is the first time your name has ever come up in our committee so... guess he really was resisting arrest and assaulted you."
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the only two options possible without external evidence like video-recording, so this doesn't seem like a good situation.
i'm not talking about curtailing abuse- that's a whole other ballgame.
i'm talking about strengthening the argument for filming encounters. some people appear to be against the practice (or support legally limiting the practice) because of how it exposes the identity of involved officers. i'm suggesting that if officers were still 'unique' (with badge numbers) but only had given names present, you're a lot more anonymous with only your face out there than your face and last name.
I'll change my tone in regard to police when they actually get around to feeling obligated to protect me and mine instead of remaining the purely punitive and wildly inconsistent force they are now.
If the police aren't obligated to A) Serve the public trust Uphold the law C) Protect the Innocent, they are no good to me.
I'm not actually arguing that there's a legitmate reason for banning videotaping because police want to hide their identities. I was just proposing a possible reason besides the cynical-but-probably-correct argument that it's because police don't want to be held accountable for their actions.
Castle rock V Gonzalez is another good one, a womans three children are murdered by her estranged ex-husband, whom had been violating his restraining order, after the violations are of course, reported to police.
Who of course, do nothing. After four phone calls and in-person visits. Because it's not their responsibility to enforce restraining orders. Or prevent general murder. Or your murder. Or the murder of your kids.
People STOP PROTECTING POLICE. They are under no obligation to protect you, and they've already been proven to consistently be willing to protect themselves at your expense.
turn down the "fuck da police" dial a bit.
but nothing he said is incorrect.
It's a sad fact that police have limited time/people/resources and can't protect 100% of the people 100% of the time. The fact that police are generally exempt from lawsuits for failing to protect specific people at specific times is just the result of this fact.
i'm not sure i understand you. cops can't do a perfect job all the time (which i agree with, and i think it's unreasonable to expect it of them), so they shouldn't have to be held accountable for not even trying?
Yes, having police officers and their families subject to gang hits and kidnappings certainly wouldn't have any negative effects on society! Again-see Mexico.
If this is a problem, it should be handled in a way that does not infringe on civil liberties.
Does free speech mean I should be able to out undercover CIA agents?
Yes.
Though I would not have a problem with you being liable for the results.
How about revealing the location of military units in the field? Or the locations and patrol routes of Secret Service agents?
Heck, how about posting the names, faces, and home addresses of workers at abortion clinics?
As to the former, if you, random guy on the street, somehow know these things, then they are clearly not being held securely anyway. So yeah, again the act of you passing on what you found out should not itself be illegal. But you should be held responsible for the results, given certain conditions (you should have been able to guess the likely harm caused, etc).
As to the latter, that is arguably intimidation and an incitement to violence. Which are not protected speech.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'll change my tone in regard to police when they actually get around to feeling obligated to protect me and mine instead of remaining the purely punitive and wildly inconsistent force they are now.
If the police aren't obligated to A) Serve the public trust Uphold the law C) Protect the Innocent, they are no good to me.
The cases you sited protect the police from being sued because they can't prevent every crime and protect everyone .
You have a seriously fucked up view on how effective they can be expected to be.
Castle rock V Gonzalez is another good one, a womans three children are murdered by her estranged ex-husband, whom had been violating his restraining order, after the violations are of course, reported to police.
Who of course, do nothing. After four phone calls and in-person visits. Because it's not their responsibility to enforce restraining orders. Or prevent general murder. Or your murder. Or the murder of your kids.
People STOP PROTECTING POLICE. They are under no obligation to protect you, and they've already been proven to consistently be willing to protect themselves at your expense.
turn down the "fuck da police" dial a bit.
but nothing he said is incorrect.
It's a sad fact that police have limited time/people/resources and can't protect 100% of the people 100% of the time. The fact that police are generally exempt from lawsuits for failing to protect specific people at specific times is just the result of this fact.
If you are unfamiliar with washington vs district of columbia, basically the police were called 4 times, and came to the house where the rape and robbery was occuring to three women AND LEFT WITHOUT DOING A DAMN THING. Just rolled by the house.
When the dispatcher was informed of this, they didn't even call the cops to stop the rape.
The women were then taken AND RAPED FOR AN ADDITIONAL FOURTEEN HOURS.
Police are under no obligation to protect you from thier own laziness.
reddeath on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I'll change my tone in regard to police when they actually get around to feeling obligated to protect me and mine instead of remaining the purely punitive and wildly inconsistent force they are now.
If the police aren't obligated to A) Serve the public trust Uphold the law C) Protect the Innocent, they are no good to me.
my encounters with police have been generally positive since i moved to boston.
i'm sure that we have just as many thugs and dicks and tough-guys as any other police department - maybe more - but by and large they have been courteous, helpful. and conscientious.
i still definitely agree that cops need independent oversight and laws that disallow recording cops are ridiculous and terrible.
I'll change my tone in regard to police when they actually get around to feeling obligated to protect me and mine instead of remaining the purely punitive and wildly inconsistent force they are now.
If the police aren't obligated to A) Serve the public trust Uphold the law C) Protect the Innocent, they are no good to me.
You're making a lot of assumptions without a lot of facts to back them up.
Police are in fact required to do A, B, and C. They just aren't obligated to you personally.
For example, a police officer extorting funds from the department could be prosecuted. But you cannot sue the police for not adequately protecting you, personally, when your house was broken into and police did not respond in time to prevent the buglars from killing your grammy.
RUNN1NGMAN on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If you are unfamiliar with washington vs district of columbia, basically the police were called 4 times, and came to the house where the rape and robbery was occuring to three women AND LEFT WITHOUT DOING A DAMN THING. Just rolled by the house.
When the dispatcher was informed of this, they didn't even call the cops to stop the rape.
The women were then taken AND RAPED FOR AN ADDITIONAL FOURTEEN HOURS.
Police are under no obligation to protect you from thier own laziness.
DC cops are internationally famous for being just about the worst cops anywhere
Barry's patronage stuff employed a whole lot of people who are nowhere near qualified to wear a gun.
I'll change my tone in regard to police when they actually get around to feeling obligated to protect me and mine instead of remaining the purely punitive and wildly inconsistent force they are now.
If the police aren't obligated to A) Serve the public trust Uphold the law C) Protect the Innocent, they are no good to me.
my encounters with police have been generally positive since i moved to boston.
i'm sure that we have just as many thugs and dicks and tough-guys as any other police department - maybe more - but by and large they have been courteous, helpful. and conscientious.
i still definitely agree that cops need independent oversight and laws that disallow recording cops are ridiculous and terrible.
I'll change my tone in regard to police when they actually get around to feeling obligated to protect me and mine instead of remaining the purely punitive and wildly inconsistent force they are now.
If the police aren't obligated to A) Serve the public trust Uphold the law C) Protect the Innocent, they are no good to me.
You're making a lot of assumptions without a lot of facts to back them up.
Police are in fact required to do A, B, and C. They just aren't obligated to you personally.
For example, a police officer extorting funds from the department could be prosecuted. But you cannot sue the police for not adequately protecting you, personally, when your house was broken into and police did not respond in time to prevent the buglars from killing your grammy.
Actually the courts have said directly that police officers do not have a legal obligation to protect (average) people.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."
Yes, having police officers and their families subject to gang hits and kidnappings certainly wouldn't have any negative effects on society! Again-see Mexico.
If this is a problem, it should be handled in a way that does not infringe on civil liberties.
Does free speech mean I should be able to out undercover CIA agents?
There's a credible reason regarding the ban on that. You are putting people's lives at risk. No such reason exists here.
What if the cop being taped is undercover? What if the cop is meeting with a confidential informant?
I have much less problem with taping a uniformed cop in public, but there are problems with an "all cops should be taped anywhere, and any negative repercussions it has for them are tough shit" argument.
While making an arrest or gathering evidence to a crime, yes. Police are volunteers who ostensibly want to protect our system of laws. Video taping will not offer any major risk aside from police being able to commit fewer crimes without sanction, but yes, that one guy who will get shot seven years from now because of a video recording will have to suck it up.
We ask significantly more dangerous sacrifices from our armed forces.
Yes, having police officers and their families subject to gang hits and kidnappings certainly wouldn't have any negative effects on society! Again-see Mexico.
If this is a problem, it should be handled in a way that does not infringe on civil liberties.
Which civil liberties would those be? That's kind of a big question if anyone is going to challenge these laws.
Freedom of the press is probably a stretch.
14th amendment substantive due process? What's the fundamental right being infringed? I don't think there is any acknowledged fundamental right under the 14th amendment that's implicated by the law. If that's the case, all the state has to do is show a rational basis for it. And note that a rational basis doesn't have to be the "best" or even a "good" reason for the law. It's a pretty low bar the state needs to clear.
if a cop takes your camera after you haven't done anything illegal with it, that doesn't sound like you're very secure in your person, house, papers or effects.
Well I thought the whole point was that in those three states you HAVE done something illegal by videotaping police. Besides, you don't have an absolute freedom from seizure--only freedom from unreasonable seizure. If you're using your video camera illegally, then the seizure isn't unreasonable. You've got to find a reason why the law itself is unconstitutional.
The whole bill of rights individually and collectively say it is. You run from free speech / press to fair trials to right to speak in one's own defenses, etc. If law enforcement enjoys a de jure or even de facto assumption of truth (And they clearly do), someone's rights re: a criminal trial are clearly being violated by them being threatened with physical violence or legal sanction for merely trying to provide accurate and useful evidence in their own defense.
Castle rock V Gonzalez is another good one, a womans three children are murdered by her estranged ex-husband, whom had been violating his restraining order, after the violations are of course, reported to police.
Who of course, do nothing. After four phone calls and in-person visits. Because it's not their responsibility to enforce restraining orders. Or prevent general murder. Or your murder. Or the murder of your kids.
People STOP PROTECTING POLICE. They are under no obligation to protect you, and they've already been proven to consistently be willing to protect themselves at your expense.
turn down the "fuck da police" dial a bit.
but nothing he said is incorrect.
It was an issue of tone.
And the military is in no way shape or form a law enforcement body BubbaT, and the SS is more of a body guard for the president than a police force.
They callously allowed 3 children to be murdered. His tone wasn't insulting enough.
It would be pretty horrible if people could sue the police department everytime they're mugged or have their house broken into. That's why those rulings are the way they are.
programjunkie, this is a minor point but I wouldn't personally classify the police as volunteers. They do a job and get paid for it, just like everybody else.
Runningman, I did happen to cite two pretty fact laden court cases which support what I've typed 100%
Mebbeh read them. Castle Rock V Gonzales
Washington V District of columbia
Reading. And for bonus points, imagine how many cops in the area for each were involved in a traffic stop or manning a speed trap.
Trust me, I'm familiar with that line of cases. The cases stand for the proposition that there's no individual right to protection from the police in a particular instance. Not that the police are not accountable at all to anyone for any reason, which your previous post seems to imply.
And Castle Rock v. Gonzales wasn't a close case--liberal and conservative justices alike voted for the majority. It's a sad case, but if people had an right to sue police departments when the police failed to protect them the entire system would come to a screeching halt.
Problem is that your average layman doesn't know the law nearly as well as he thinks, or you get publicity hounds who have a FUCK DA POLICE attitude who serve to muddy the waters by releasing heavily edited clips to push an agenda.
In the first case especially is how people end up kissing concrete because they think they can run up into the middle of an arrest or what have you with a cell phone in everyone's face and turn what's a simple bust into a huge distraction. Sorry if I don't want the upright libertarian's brigade in my face with his iphone when I'm trying to deal with a tweaker.
So when someone does get wrapped up, the first thing they always scream is "I wasn't doing anything!" and police brutality. So now you have cops, instead of worry about doing their jobs, worrying about civil suits because someone wants to be Youtube video of the month.
If you want two good examples of this, we can recall the mexican smuggler getting shot for throwing rocks at an agent and when the cop was assualted in Seattle and punched the one woman in the face. Pretty clear cut what happened, but it was still a tempest in a teapot.
Edit: And Checkpoint Preacher is another good example of what happens when people who think they know the law don't.
I think that a very Basic Law class should be required for a high school diploma. It should cover practical situations, inform you what rights you have and what rights you don't have, go over what steps can be taken during traffic stops, arrests, etc.
Right now there's a lot of confusion because it's not mandatory for most people to know, and there are a lot of differences by state.
These are examples of extreme unpunished incompetence by two disparate local police forces, each of which had their incompetence held up as proper by a high court in the united states, and in one case the highest.
If you read the info on both cases, they are simply heinous, and pretty much the perfect example of why I don't trust the police and think they should, indeed, be recorded at any and all times they are on duty.
Read the wiki for either of them. They are extreme examples, that doesn't mean when it's you being raped for fourteen hours, the police will feel any more obligated to help, no matter how many times your loved ones call, begging for them to.
Seriously washington vs district of columbia. Fourteen hours of rape. Police came to the house WHILE THE RAPE WAS IN PROGRESS AND PEOPLE WERE CALLING FOR HELP, they knocked on the door, and left. You read about that case and you tell me police deserve anonymity.
The city should be paying out for that, no doubt. People should be able to sue for something like that, and win.
Runningman, I did happen to cite two pretty fact laden court cases which support what I've typed 100%
Mebbeh read them. Castle Rock V Gonzales
Washington V District of columbia
Reading. And for bonus points, imagine how many cops in the area for each were involved in a traffic stop or manning a speed trap.
Trust me, I'm familiar with that line of cases. The cases stand for the proposition that there's no individual right to protection from the police in a particular instance. Not that the police are not accountable at all to anyone for any reason, which your previous post seems to imply.
And Castle Rock v. Gonzales wasn't a close case--liberal and conservative justices alike voted for the majority. It's a sad case, but if people had an right to sue police departments when the police failed to protect them the entire system would come to a screeching halt.
Um, did you see my post? The court specifically spelled out exactly who the police are required to protect: those who do not have personal freedom. The rest of us have no such expectation of protection. At all.
This is like you defending a waiter who spends his entire shift on a smoke break out back, and when confronted, says "Listen, I might have a duty to wait tables, but I don't have a duty to wait on any particular table, so I'm in the clear."
Not that the police are not accountable at all to anyone for any reason, which you previous post seems to imply.
Who exactly are they accountable to? Because as far as I can tell, the answer is no one.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."
These are examples of extreme unpunished incompetence by two disparate local police forces, each of which had their incompetence held up as proper by a high court in the united states, and in one case the highest.
If you read the info on both cases, they are simply heinous, and pretty much the perfect example of why I don't trust the police and think they should, indeed, be recorded at any and all times they are on duty.
Read the wiki for either of them. They are extreme examples, that doesn't mean when it's you being raped for fourteen hours, the police will feel any more obligated to help, no matter how many times your loved ones call, begging for them to.
Seriously washington vs district of columbia. Fourteen hours of rape. Police came to the house WHILE THE RAPE WAS IN PROGRESS AND PEOPLE WERE CALLING FOR HELP, they knocked on the door, and left. You read about that case and you tell me police deserve anonymity.
The city should be paying out for that, no doubt. People should be able to sue for something like that, and win.
Listen, we get it, it sucks, but you're just yelling 14 HOURS OF RAPE over and over again without listening to any when they tell you why the system works that way.
The police can't possibly stop every crime or meet the needs of every citizen. If the police could be sued for not responding to mugging X the entire law enforcement system would grind to a halt.
You just keep linking a handful of cases and acting like that is what the ruling is meant to protect.
Listen, we get it, it sucks, but you're just yelling 14 HOURS OF RAPE over and over again without listening to any when they tell you why the system works that way.
The police can't possibly stop every crime or meet the needs of every citizen. If the police could be sued for not responding to mugging X the entire law enforcement system would grind to a halt.
You just keep linking a handful of cases and acting like that is what the ruling is meant to protect.
Make a strong requirement to show significant negligence prima facia. I doubt the system would actually be flooded with frivolous cases.
Alternatively, screwing up bad or being egregiously negligent enough should itself be illegal.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Listen, we get it, it sucks, but you're just yelling 14 HOURS OF RAPE over and over again without listening to any when they tell you why the system works that way.
The police can't possibly stop every crime or meet the needs of every citizen. If the police could be sued for not responding to mugging X the entire law enforcement system would grind to a halt.
You just keep linking a handful of cases and acting like that is what the ruling is meant to protect.
Make a strong requirement to show significant negligence prima facia. I doubt the system would actually be flooded with frivolous cases.
Alternatively, screwing up bad or being egregiously negligent enough should itself be illegal.
Oh totally, I agree. And in extreme cases there should absolutely be legal recourse.
See, styrofoam, you say 'we get it' but obviously do not. You still haven't even read about the case you are trying to talk about. It isn't about EVERY citizen, it's about the citizens that police willfully IGNORE when they are in danger, and the people who then expect others to want to protect the anonymity and job of said police.
The women in washington Vs district of columbia saw police come to the house.
A house there was a rape and robbery they had reported occurring in. The police left without doing anything.
Let me repeat that because you don't seem to get it.
The police left the scene of a CURRENTLY OCCURRING rape and robbery. Naturally the women who had reported said crime, assumed the police would DO THEIR GODDAMN JOB AND STOP THE RAPE. So they went back inside.
Naturally, police in this country being what they are - they did not stop said rape, instead simply left the house, at which point the women were kidnapped and raped continually, yet again.
Do you get it now? Or do you still think these jokers deserve some kind of protection of anonymity over the common people they have shirked thier responsibility to protect. My opinion: They do not. They are under no obligation to protect me, and I am under no obligation to protect THEM.
I understand that should I meet an unfortunate end, or cause that fate for someone else, the police are there in order to ensure punishment takes place, that does not indicate they deserve more anonymity than I have in public.
They need to be answerable when they are negligent, currently, they are not and one of the few recourses the common folk have for this, is to catch them in the act of negligence or outright wrongdoing with a recording device.
Posts
well, even externally overseen by a third party agency
turn down the "fuck da police" dial a bit.
No one's afraid of the Coast Guard. If I was a truther conspiracy theorist. I'd be really concerned about the Coast Guard. I mean, sure we're the softer, gentler military service, and you see us out there cleaning ducks off and stuff, but when you look at the legal authority the Coast Guard has it's a little crazy.
They all talk about FEMA, but it's really the Coast Guard you have to watch.
but nothing he said is incorrect.
hitting hot metal with hammers
I would put most of them under the umbrella of law enforcement, in whole or in part. The FBI are essentially police, even if they don't have the word "Police" in their name.
Sounds reasonable.
I don't understand how this creates accountability in any form.
Cop: "Hey punk, give me your memory card or I'll fuck you a new asshole"
99% of people: "Okay officer, please don't hurt me"
Alternatively
Cop: "Hey punk, give me your memory card or I'll fuck you a new asshole"
1% of people: "No way! It's mine"
Cop: "You're resisting arrest and assaulting an officer, time to go to jail!"
Internal Investigation Unit: "Well, it's your word versus this black guy's, and since 99% of the population lets you get away with anything you do this is the first time your name has ever come up in our committee so... guess he really was resisting arrest and assaulted you."
Unless I'm mistaken, that's the only two options possible without external evidence like video-recording, so this doesn't seem like a good situation.
It's a sad fact that police have limited time/people/resources and can't protect 100% of the people 100% of the time. The fact that police are generally exempt from lawsuits for failing to protect specific people at specific times is just the result of this fact.
It was an issue of tone.
And the military is in no way shape or form a law enforcement body BubbaT, and the SS is more of a body guard for the president than a police force.
i'm not talking about curtailing abuse- that's a whole other ballgame.
i'm talking about strengthening the argument for filming encounters. some people appear to be against the practice (or support legally limiting the practice) because of how it exposes the identity of involved officers. i'm suggesting that if officers were still 'unique' (with badge numbers) but only had given names present, you're a lot more anonymous with only your face out there than your face and last name.
If the police aren't obligated to A) Serve the public trust
Meanwhile, being a fisherman continues to be an order of magnitude more dangerous than being a cop.
i'm not sure i understand you. cops can't do a perfect job all the time (which i agree with, and i think it's unreasonable to expect it of them), so they shouldn't have to be held accountable for not even trying?
hitting hot metal with hammers
As to the former, if you, random guy on the street, somehow know these things, then they are clearly not being held securely anyway. So yeah, again the act of you passing on what you found out should not itself be illegal. But you should be held responsible for the results, given certain conditions (you should have been able to guess the likely harm caused, etc).
As to the latter, that is arguably intimidation and an incitement to violence. Which are not protected speech.
The cases you sited protect the police from being sued because they can't prevent every crime and protect everyone
.
You have a seriously fucked up view on how effective they can be expected to be.
If you are unfamiliar with washington vs district of columbia, basically the police were called 4 times, and came to the house where the rape and robbery was occuring to three women AND LEFT WITHOUT DOING A DAMN THING. Just rolled by the house.
When the dispatcher was informed of this, they didn't even call the cops to stop the rape.
The women were then taken AND RAPED FOR AN ADDITIONAL FOURTEEN HOURS.
Police are under no obligation to protect you from thier own laziness.
my encounters with police have been generally positive since i moved to boston.
i'm sure that we have just as many thugs and dicks and tough-guys as any other police department - maybe more - but by and large they have been courteous, helpful. and conscientious.
i still definitely agree that cops need independent oversight and laws that disallow recording cops are ridiculous and terrible.
You're making a lot of assumptions without a lot of facts to back them up.
Police are in fact required to do A, B, and C. They just aren't obligated to you personally.
For example, a police officer extorting funds from the department could be prosecuted. But you cannot sue the police for not adequately protecting you, personally, when your house was broken into and police did not respond in time to prevent the buglars from killing your grammy.
DC cops are internationally famous for being just about the worst cops anywhere
Barry's patronage stuff employed a whole lot of people who are nowhere near qualified to wear a gun.
Sorry you're just being way too reasonable
Mebbeh read them. Castle Rock V Gonzales
Washington V District of columbia
Reading. And for bonus points, imagine how many cops in the area for each were involved in a traffic stop or manning a speed trap.
Actually the courts have said directly that police officers do not have a legal obligation to protect (average) people.
While making an arrest or gathering evidence to a crime, yes. Police are volunteers who ostensibly want to protect our system of laws. Video taping will not offer any major risk aside from police being able to commit fewer crimes without sanction, but yes, that one guy who will get shot seven years from now because of a video recording will have to suck it up.
We ask significantly more dangerous sacrifices from our armed forces.
The whole bill of rights individually and collectively say it is. You run from free speech / press to fair trials to right to speak in one's own defenses, etc. If law enforcement enjoys a de jure or even de facto assumption of truth (And they clearly do), someone's rights re: a criminal trial are clearly being violated by them being threatened with physical violence or legal sanction for merely trying to provide accurate and useful evidence in their own defense.
They callously allowed 3 children to be murdered. His tone wasn't insulting enough.
reddeath is just arguing from extreme examples.
Trust me, I'm familiar with that line of cases. The cases stand for the proposition that there's no individual right to protection from the police in a particular instance. Not that the police are not accountable at all to anyone for any reason, which your previous post seems to imply.
And Castle Rock v. Gonzales wasn't a close case--liberal and conservative justices alike voted for the majority. It's a sad case, but if people had an right to sue police departments when the police failed to protect them the entire system would come to a screeching halt.
And the people who are equating the police to CIA undercover operatives aren't?
In the first case especially is how people end up kissing concrete because they think they can run up into the middle of an arrest or what have you with a cell phone in everyone's face and turn what's a simple bust into a huge distraction. Sorry if I don't want the upright libertarian's brigade in my face with his iphone when I'm trying to deal with a tweaker.
So when someone does get wrapped up, the first thing they always scream is "I wasn't doing anything!" and police brutality. So now you have cops, instead of worry about doing their jobs, worrying about civil suits because someone wants to be Youtube video of the month.
If you want two good examples of this, we can recall the mexican smuggler getting shot for throwing rocks at an agent and when the cop was assualted in Seattle and punched the one woman in the face. Pretty clear cut what happened, but it was still a tempest in a teapot.
Edit: And Checkpoint Preacher is another good example of what happens when people who think they know the law don't.
They are, perhaps you misunderstand my position.
Who exactly are they accountable to? Because as far as I can tell, the answer is no one.
Right now there's a lot of confusion because it's not mandatory for most people to know, and there are a lot of differences by state.
If you read the info on both cases, they are simply heinous, and pretty much the perfect example of why I don't trust the police and think they should, indeed, be recorded at any and all times they are on duty.
Read the wiki for either of them. They are extreme examples, that doesn't mean when it's you being raped for fourteen hours, the police will feel any more obligated to help, no matter how many times your loved ones call, begging for them to.
Seriously washington vs district of columbia. Fourteen hours of rape. Police came to the house WHILE THE RAPE WAS IN PROGRESS AND PEOPLE WERE CALLING FOR HELP, they knocked on the door, and left. You read about that case and you tell me police deserve anonymity.
The city should be paying out for that, no doubt. People should be able to sue for something like that, and win.
Um, did you see my post? The court specifically spelled out exactly who the police are required to protect: those who do not have personal freedom. The rest of us have no such expectation of protection. At all.
This is like you defending a waiter who spends his entire shift on a smoke break out back, and when confronted, says "Listen, I might have a duty to wait tables, but I don't have a duty to wait on any particular table, so I'm in the clear."
Also, they should be accountable to the public, seeing as we, y'know, pay their salary via taxes
Listen, we get it, it sucks, but you're just yelling 14 HOURS OF RAPE over and over again without listening to any when they tell you why the system works that way.
The police can't possibly stop every crime or meet the needs of every citizen. If the police could be sued for not responding to mugging X the entire law enforcement system would grind to a halt.
You just keep linking a handful of cases and acting like that is what the ruling is meant to protect.
Make a strong requirement to show significant negligence prima facia. I doubt the system would actually be flooded with frivolous cases.
Alternatively, screwing up bad or being egregiously negligent enough should itself be illegal.
Oh totally, I agree. And in extreme cases there should absolutely be legal recourse.
The women in washington Vs district of columbia saw police come to the house.
A house there was a rape and robbery they had reported occurring in. The police left without doing anything.
Let me repeat that because you don't seem to get it.
The police left the scene of a CURRENTLY OCCURRING rape and robbery. Naturally the women who had reported said crime, assumed the police would DO THEIR GODDAMN JOB AND STOP THE RAPE. So they went back inside.
Naturally, police in this country being what they are - they did not stop said rape, instead simply left the house, at which point the women were kidnapped and raped continually, yet again.
Do you get it now? Or do you still think these jokers deserve some kind of protection of anonymity over the common people they have shirked thier responsibility to protect. My opinion: They do not. They are under no obligation to protect me, and I am under no obligation to protect THEM.
I understand that should I meet an unfortunate end, or cause that fate for someone else, the police are there in order to ensure punishment takes place, that does not indicate they deserve more anonymity than I have in public.
They need to be answerable when they are negligent, currently, they are not and one of the few recourses the common folk have for this, is to catch them in the act of negligence or outright wrongdoing with a recording device.