Should it be illegal to film police officers?
LiptonCambell: What do you think? Should police officers be made accountable for their actions? Or does these kinds of things only irritate police officers, and escalate the situation?
Are police officers held accountable for their actions when they break the law?
chronology: There is an old Chinese saying; 'When somebody tells you Gossip about somebody, do not think about the Gossip, but ask yourself 'why' that person is telling you the Gossip'.
It is the same with these vulgar videos of Police Officers about their work, I always ask myself 'why is this person distributing these videos', I very rarely watch them.
I suggest that anyone who videos Police at work, should automatically be placed on a list of people who can be videod by the Police when they are at work in in Public places. In other words, if you investigate the Police, which such videos are doing, then you should yourself be investigated.
The most notorious example of vigilante videos was the Rodney King video. It led to the deaths of over 40 people and hundreds of millions of dollars in riot damage. Most people familiar with Rodney's arrest agree it was simply a 'rough arrest' that Rodney had instigated himself by first trying to escape, then resisted the Officers persistent offer of simply walking to the LAPD Car, he chose that style of arrest, not the Officers who took him into custody, but that is not how it looks does it?.
A fine Police woman in the U.S. a few years ago found herself being watched by hundreds of thousands of people on YouTube as she used her Night Stick to restrain a violent suspect. The Officer was in fact bravely defending a fellow Officer who was wrestling with the man resisting arrest. But to most people watching that is not how it looks does it?
LiptonCambell: >>>In other words, if you investigate the Police, which such videos are doing, then you should yourself be investigated.
These are people, when seeing an arrest, flip open their phone and start recording. They are not running around with the police, following them around when they go about their business, with a great big camera on their shoulder. These are the general population, when faced with police, want to prove if any unnecessary force is used.
chronology: 'Unnecessary force', a man was just shot dead in Fergeson Mo who attempted to snatch an Officers hand gun it is reported. Reaching for the Officers gun is exactly the same as reaching for a gun of his own, he was shot as a result. In every country in the world, if you attempt to snatch a Police Officers gun, or Soldiers gun during operational duties you will be shot dead. But most people would protest 'he was unarmed' that makes no defence if he attempted to grab the Policeman or Soldiers weapon.
LiptonCambell: Oh, im not saying these are not dangerous people. but did you watch the video? They had police officers kicking a punching a man who was thrown from a mini van crash. Is he a criminal? Absolutely. But not every circumstance calls for a beating.
If nothing else, people videotaping caps forces them to stay within the law.
chronology: Lipton, the Police are often dealing with people who act totally unpredictable. Take a look at the YouTube Video of two Swedish twin sisters who suddenly jump up and run into a Motorway in England. Both of them are run over, one by a 30 ton truck, the other woman throws herself into the path of a car and is run over.
Personally I still have trouble believing the video is showing what happened, it seems incredible a woman can be run over by a 30 ton truck and get up again. But this shows what happens all the time when Police are dealing with people. people are unpredictable. In no way am I criticising the Police, I was not there so have no idea what happened, but maybe if the Police had been a little more generous with their Billyclubs the women would not have gone off throwing themselves into trucks and cars.
Maybe if some folks in the U.S. being arrested had run into traffic people would be complaining Officers did not Billyclub them to prevent such incidents. If the U.S. Police do become restricted more in arresting methods, maybe you will be seeing videos like the two Swedish women deliberately running into traffic.
Edit. Lipton, can you please post the YouTube video 'two Swedish sisters run into motorway' on this page. it will give others a chance to see what we are discussing. I hope those two poor women recovered from whatever madness was making them do such a thing.
(Edited by chronology)
LiptonCambell: I think you are avoiding the topic this thread is about.
This thread is about how police officers should be accountable- it's the discussion on whether or not it should be legal to record arrests and other actions of police officers.
You, rather, seem to be defending police brutality- which is a factor in this discussion, but not what this issue is about.
Are there circumstances that police need to take extreme force? Of course. But not all circumstances require it. And the best way to make that distinction is to have officers be recorded
chronology: Thanks for Posting the video Lipton. I think I said I do not agree with the public videoing Police.
Owen49: I have no problem with people videoing police. Too many police get away with too much & if they're caught with a camera, there's evidence to prove their misconduct. After all, aren't they there to enforce a code of conduct on the rest of us? Don't they use video against us? Why shouldn't we be allowed to use the same tools against them?
Adrienne____: I firmly agree that the police should be video taped. the only, thing that bother's me is the violence that comes afterwards.
LiptonCambell: >>>I think I said I do not agree with the public videoing Police.
If the police are acting in fair conduct, they have nothing to fear from these videos. It's the officers that break the law that have something to fear.
I've read that police officers who have cameras clipped to their shirts have less complaints filed against them, commit less brutality against citizens, and are more relevant in court cases.
Where is the downside? What possible reason could you have behind opposing this?
LiptonCambell: To address officer misconduct allegations and racial profiling concerns, San Diego police want to make a number of reforms. The most visible one is outfitting nearly 1,000 SDPD patrol officers with body cameras to record their interactions with citizens.
Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman went to sell the camera plan, which could cost $2 million, to a City Council committee last week. A stat from her presentation, which she repeated in media interviews afterward, stood out.
“In the discussions that we’re having with other police agencies, those that have the cameras are finding that in some cases complaints against officers have dropped by 80 percent,” Zimmerman said.
Many 'Risk Management Departments' in a number of police jurisdictions have their Police Officers wired with video and sound on their bodies their entire shift.
They expect the officers to act as we all expect them to act.
It also allows these 'risk managers' to hold the officer personally accountable for his actions. The liability is significantly reduced for the jurisdiction when these cases go to court as they always do.
davesdatahut: As long as someone is not interfering with a police officer doing his or her job, people absolutely, positively, without question, should be able to shoot video of police activity, especially in public places.
The reason is simple: the police are employees of the public. The public pays their salaries and, therefore, has a right to witness and record their actions, whether through audio or video recordings, or notes.
If the prospect of being recorded might reduce police brutality and the change the condescending, arrogant way some officers treat the public, that's a good thing. But it is not the reason why the public should be able to do this.
They work for us. Therefore, we have every right to record what they do.
(Edited by davesdatahut)
Captain Canada: As anybody ever videotaped a police officer performing his/her duties to the best of their abilities or go beyond to service the public?????
Owen49: @ Captain Canada: I've seen videos on YouTube & internet news articles with videos people took of police performing admirably. Usually, it's the opposite.
How many police car dash-cams record...
Officer: Hello sir...Your license, registration, and proof of insurance please...
Driver: Eat shit you fucking asshole.
Officer: Thank you sir. Can I see your license, registration, and proof of insurance please...
Driver: Suck my dick you booted racist.
Officer: Thank you sir, please step out of the car.
Driver: Why..so you can beat my ass!
...or something like that.
LiptonCambell: Captain_Canada, it`s like good news- it absolutely happens, but it rarely gets reported on, and rarely gets attention.
davesdatahut: Good cop deeds, bad cop deeds, the point remains the same: They are employees of the public. We pay them with our tax dollars. Therefore, the public has a right to watch and record what they do, good, bad or otherwise.
With a population of 320 million people, if just 2% of the population come into contact with the police, this means millions of people everyday come into contact with the police.
And how many instances gets attention from the media? A couple of instances?
How about the TENS OF MILLIONS of satisfied customers? How come that does not make it in the liberal news media? Hum????
davesdatahut: Because when police officers do their jobs on a daily basis, it's not news, except in unusual cases. When an officer does something heroic, like rescuing someone from a perilous situation, or cracks a big case, or makes a big arrest, or gets killed or seriously injured, that's news. And it gets reported, in local newspapers every day, and sometimes in the national press.
Otherwise, it's them doing their jobs, which is not news.