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.
Free Speech.
Well, there's no expression in the act of video taping--but is prohibiting it prior restraint on speech? Preventing people from criticizing police?
Just to play devil's advocate, I can think of a few situations where police might be acting completely lawfully and would really not want to be videotaped. Like if the people doing the videotaping were more interested in identifying officers involved in the arrest than in documenting misconduct.
It's not too much of an issue in the US, but there's a reason police in Mexico wear masks to hide their identity.
Tough.
comparing mexico, which is basically run by the drug cartels at this point, to other civilized nations is silly.
In a place where being a cop means you can killed for that reason alone 24/7, there's a benefit to concealing your identity.
In a place like america, there is no excuse.
I think saying there's no excuse for a cop in the US to want to conceal their identity is a little naive. The US is certainly no Mexico, but that doesn't mean cops and their families are never targeted by criminals here.
I have no idea what the justification was for the law in those three states--and I certainly don't think this is it. I'm just pointing out that there are situations where a cop would justifiably not be ok with someone video taping him while he arrests someone.
How long before we get Thanatos in here with all the statistics saying being part of a police force is actually one of the safer jobs in the US?
The idea of cops and their families being targeted based on their occupation primarily resides in movies, and in deep undercover operations. Neither of which involve a beat cop beating up a kid for skateboarding.
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.
Just to play devil's advocate, I can think of a few situations where police might be acting completely lawfully and would really not want to be videotaped. Like if the people doing the videotaping were more interested in identifying officers involved in the arrest than in documenting misconduct.
It's not too much of an issue in the US, but there's a reason police in Mexico wear masks to hide their identity.
Tough.
comparing mexico, which is basically run by the drug cartels at this point, to other civilized nations is silly.
In a place where being a cop means you can killed for that reason alone 24/7, there's a benefit to concealing your identity.
In a place like america, there is no excuse.
Not that these laws are in any way okay, but there are officers that work undercover that will occasionally still work traffic beats. They have a vested and legitimate reason for not being recorded.
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.
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, 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.
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.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
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.
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.
there's a million good reasons why it shouldn't be illegal, but in the majority of cases it is. i think a really bad law isn't as bad as police enforcing a law that doesn't exist, especially when they're literally unreasonably seizing your shit.
about half a year back i had an unfortunate incident with the philadelphia police department wherein i endured a felony stop and was searched and detained for half an hour for nothing illegal. the nature of the stop (guns out) meant that i couldn't pull out any recording apparatus. however, as sort of a call back to what y'all were mentioning: i asked for badge numbers (of the first officer on scene and every other officer who came into earshot) and not a single one was given. the only way i got a name was by looking at a badge number.
a lot of cops are very haughty about their anonymity.
Just to play devil's advocate, I can think of a few situations where police might be acting completely lawfully and would really not want to be videotaped. Like if the people doing the videotaping were more interested in identifying officers involved in the arrest than in documenting misconduct.
It's not too much of an issue in the US, but there's a reason police in Mexico wear masks to hide their identity.
Tough.
Only if you condone the killing of police officers, at which point have fun with no protection. That's a nice car, your wife looks pretty, now they are mine, bitch.
Identifying arresting officers or undercover officers puts them in real danger. A person taping the cops may have no idea. But in the past cops have been taped for the specific purpose of tracking down specific officers.
Though this is a typical "I'm pro killing cops, soldiers, federal agents, and all of that" attitude that is far to common in this country.
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.
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.
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?
Just to play devil's advocate, I can think of a few situations where police might be acting completely lawfully and would really not want to be videotaped. Like if the people doing the videotaping were more interested in identifying officers involved in the arrest than in documenting misconduct.
It's not too much of an issue in the US, but there's a reason police in Mexico wear masks to hide their identity.
Tough.
Only if you condone the killing of police officers, at which point have fun with no protection. That's a nice car, your wife looks pretty, now they are mine, bitch.
Identifying arresting officers or undercover officers puts them in real danger. A person taping the cops may have no idea. But in the past cops have been taped for the specific purpose of tracking down specific officers.
Though this is a typical "I'm pro killing cops, soldiers, federal agents, and all of that" attitude that is far to common in this country.
o_O
Nobody has said it's okay to kill them. Just that it's okay to document their actions.
First off, if an undercover cop is being videotaped with the intent of harming him, well, they know who he is anyway and he isn't really undercover. So what's the big deal with videotaping cops who aren't undercover? Are they afraid that people will know that they are cops? Then why did they take the job?
Being a cop isn't even as dangerous as being a pizza delivery driver. When pizza boys get protection from any and all surveillance, then I guess we can talk about protecting cops as well.
This law is like the fucking definition of overbroad. In the process of maintaining undercover officer security (which is hardly the purpose of the law) it tramples all over civilian freedoms.
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?
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.
If you aren't allowed to videotape your arrest, how can you prove your innocence? The odds are stacked against citizens in the courtroom, presumption of innocence or no. If you show up and all you've got is, "I didn't do it" and all the cop has is, "You did it", guess who wins the trial?
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?
Personally, I think the restraint on that sort of thing should properly be on the person who is the leak themselves.
Once information makes it to the press, I don't think there should be any legal restraint on what they can or cannot publish. Besides, the existing moral restraints have worked so far. Newspapers and other media have never had a problem sitting on stories where publishing them would have been harmful to national security. There have obviously been some lapses, like Geraldo drawing maps in the sand, but I think that overall the press has been good about holding back on things when the government asks them to.
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.
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?
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?
Personally, I think the restraint on that sort of thing should properly be on the person who is the leak themselves.
Once information makes it to the press, I don't think there should be any legal restraint on what they can or cannot publish. Besides, the existing moral restraints have worked so far. Newspapers and other media have never had a problem sitting on stories where publishing them would have been harmful to national security. There have obviously been some lapses, like Geraldo drawing maps in the sand, but I think that overall the press has been good about holding back on things when the government asks them to.
That's where the burden of restraint currently is. It's illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA agent. But since Robert Novak's not in jail, it apparently isn't illegal to repeat that information.
However, with the videotaper we're dealing with a primary source. The equivalent of Novak would be Reddit's moderator, I suppose.
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.
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.
so it follows logically that you don't think a police officer shouldn't have to give you his badge number if you ask for it, because later on you might want to get back at him for pulling you over.
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.
Just to play devil's advocate, I can think of a few situations where police might be acting completely lawfully and would really not want to be videotaped. Like if the people doing the videotaping were more interested in identifying officers involved in the arrest than in documenting misconduct.
It's not too much of an issue in the US, but there's a reason police in Mexico wear masks to hide their identity.
Tough.
Only if you condone the killing of police officers, at which point have fun with no protection. That's a nice car, your wife looks pretty, now they are mine, bitch.
Identifying arresting officers or undercover officers puts them in real danger. A person taping the cops may have no idea. But in the past cops have been taped for the specific purpose of tracking down specific officers.
Though this is a typical "I'm pro killing cops, soldiers, federal agents, and all of that" attitude that is far to common in this country.
Actually, the police are under no legal obligation to protect you at all, and courts around the nation have upheld this as proper.
See: Warren V District of Columbia
If they're under no obligation to protect me and mine, I see no pressing obligation to protect the anonymity of any officer of the law.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In special instances when police are not sufficient to meet a need the military can have a hand yes. We are talking about the general rule, not the exceptions. You can hardly use an outlier like the LA riots as evidence of the norm.
Police are not meant to serve and restore order during a widespread breakdown in public order and things are hell. That is the point of martial law. The role of the police is to maintain order and going to hell.
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. Or your crazy-ass ex husband who IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF MURDERING YOUR KIDS.
All they had to do was stop choking down pastries and find this dude. Instead they let three kids get murdered while sitting around.
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.
Posts
Well, there's no expression in the act of video taping--but is prohibiting it prior restraint on speech? Preventing people from criticizing police?
Of course I do.
How long before we get Thanatos in here with all the statistics saying being part of a police force is actually one of the safer jobs in the US?
The idea of cops and their families being targeted based on their occupation primarily resides in movies, and in deep undercover operations. Neither of which involve a beat cop beating up a kid for skateboarding.
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.
hitting hot metal with hammers
Not that these laws are in any way okay, but there are officers that work undercover that will occasionally still work traffic beats. They have a vested and legitimate reason for not being recorded.
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.
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.
Yes.
Though I would not have a problem with you being liable for the results.
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.
there's a million good reasons why it shouldn't be illegal, but in the majority of cases it is. i think a really bad law isn't as bad as police enforcing a law that doesn't exist, especially when they're literally unreasonably seizing your shit.
hitting hot metal with hammers
a lot of cops are very haughty about their anonymity.
Only if you condone the killing of police officers, at which point have fun with no protection. That's a nice car, your wife looks pretty, now they are mine, bitch.
Identifying arresting officers or undercover officers puts them in real danger. A person taping the cops may have no idea. But in the past cops have been taped for the specific purpose of tracking down specific officers.
Though this is a typical "I'm pro killing cops, soldiers, federal agents, and all of that" attitude that is far to common in this country.
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.
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?
o_O
Nobody has said it's okay to kill them. Just that it's okay to document their actions.
First off, if an undercover cop is being videotaped with the intent of harming him, well, they know who he is anyway and he isn't really undercover. So what's the big deal with videotaping cops who aren't undercover? Are they afraid that people will know that they are cops? Then why did they take the job?
Being a cop isn't even as dangerous as being a pizza delivery driver. When pizza boys get protection from any and all surveillance, then I guess we can talk about protecting cops as well.
knowing a cop's name is the same as giving away military positions?
really?
hitting hot metal with hammers
I didn't say anything about the undercover cop being taped committing any illegal or abusive act.
Personally, I think the restraint on that sort of thing should properly be on the person who is the leak themselves.
Once information makes it to the press, I don't think there should be any legal restraint on what they can or cannot publish. Besides, the existing moral restraints have worked so far. Newspapers and other media have never had a problem sitting on stories where publishing them would have been harmful to national security. There have obviously been some lapses, like Geraldo drawing maps in the sand, but I think that overall the press has been good about holding back on things when the government asks them to.
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.
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.
That's where the burden of restraint currently is. It's illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA agent. But since Robert Novak's not in jail, it apparently isn't illegal to repeat that information.
However, with the videotaper we're dealing with a primary source. The equivalent of Novak would be Reddit's moderator, I suppose.
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.
so it follows logically that you don't think a police officer shouldn't have to give you his badge number if you ask for it, because later on you might want to get back at him for pulling you over.
hitting hot metal with hammers
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.
hitting hot metal with hammers
Actually, the police are under no legal obligation to protect you at all, and courts around the nation have upheld this as proper.
See: Warren V District of Columbia
If they're under no obligation to protect me and mine, I see no pressing obligation to protect the anonymity of any officer of the law.
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.
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.
In special instances when police are not sufficient to meet a need the military can have a hand yes. We are talking about the general rule, not the exceptions. You can hardly use an outlier like the LA riots as evidence of the norm.
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
Internally overseen investigation units for anything are generally crap.
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. Or your crazy-ass ex husband who IS CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF MURDERING YOUR KIDS.
All they had to do was stop choking down pastries and find this dude. Instead they let three kids get murdered while sitting around.
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.