Recording The Police is a Dangerous but Necessary Thing todo

Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:18 pm » by **Germanpils**

I hate to post this and im not feeling good sharing this cause this just shows
what power some humans, like you and me have and get away with shit like this

:bang;

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:03 pm » by **E6722maj**

nice collection of scumbags (the cops) in action :vomit:

.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:18 pm » by **Dead7**

Well im not in america but we can be sure that soon americans will have anothe of this.the law wont help them as they are the law. If they keep pushing and pushing too far then i think it wont be long till the cops will be getting fake calls to get them out in the open and they will be gunned down just like they do to others. What goes around comes around......
:hell:

Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:21 pm » by **Basecampchris**

"The only person to hate a soldier has never needed a soldier"

While I fully agree that we certainly have some heavy handed police officers I also feel that respect for the uniform is being lost. I am sure if most people were on the wrong side of the tracks at the wrong time of the day and being mugged they would want to see nothing BUT a police officer.

The guy who was shot, shot himself when he turned on the police with a crow bar. End of, he was told to drop it, decided he was big enough to take on the law and ten bullets later he discovered he lost.

There is no audio in any of these videos except the tool on the bike who I notice was not chastised by the maker of the video for his reckless riding. The cop TOLD him "state police" and holstered the gun. Well done that officer. What do you want? Idiots like this to be allowed to ride like maniacs until they kill someone?

Do I agree with uniformed people abusing civil trust? Hell no, but to judge from afar is also wrong. This is a well edited bit of work which leans to one side of the argument only, lets have the background on each and every case and both sides of the story before we rush to judgement.

Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:59 pm » by **Torofamily**

Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:15 am » by **FullDisclosure**

Appeals Court unanimously affirms right to videotape police
http://aclum.org/news_release_8.29.11

BOSTON -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled unanimously late Friday that Simon Glik had a right to videotape police in action on Boston Common. Mr. Glik sued three police officers and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights after police arrested him and charged him with illegal wiretapping, aiding the escape of a prisoner, and disturbing the peace--all for merely holding up his cell phone and openly recording Boston police officers who were punching another man on Boston Common in October 2007. As a defense, the police argued the law was not clear, but the Court decisively rejected their claim of immunity from being sued.

"This is a resounding victory for the First Amendment right to openly record police officers carrying out their duties in a public place," said Sarah Wunsch, ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney. "It will be influential around the country in other cases where people have been arrested for videotaping the conduct of the police," said Wunsch.

"Police officers must be trained to respect the right of people to openly record their actions in public," said David Milton, a Boston attorney representing Mr. Glik for the ACLU in the civil rights suit. "Simon did what we hope any engaged citizen would do, which was documenting what he thought looked like an improper use of force, and his action in no way interfered with the police."

"This case is significant not only for members of the public who use cell phone cameras to document police conduct. It is equally important for members of the media, since reporters and the public have the same right of access to information," said attorney Milton. The court noted that changes in technology have made it hard to draw a line between a private citizen and a journalist. This ruling applies to recording of all public officials. The Court noted the particular importance of recording police officers because they have "substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties."

Massachusetts wiretap statute (Ch. 272, Sec. 99) prohibits willful interception--in secret--of any oral communication, without having obtained the prior authorization of those taking part. However, the statute does not require "consent," it only requires that the recording not be secret. Since Mr. Glik was openly recording the police by holding up his cell phone, there was no reason to believe he was violating the statute. The police therefore also violated Glik's Fourth Amendment right to not be arrested without probable cause, as well as his First Amendment right to observe and gather information about what the police were doing in a public place.

At the time of his arrest, Simon Glik was a lawyer who had finished a clerkship with the Probate Court. He was looking for a permanent job as an attorney. Instead, for four months, he became a criminal defendant facing a felony charge.

During the incident, Mr. Glik stood about ten feet away from the officers while they were making an arrest. He did not interfere. Mr. Glik did not speak to the police officers nor did they speak to him until the suspect was in handcuffs. The police officers were identified later as John Cunniffe, Peter J. Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster. They are defendants in the civil rights case along with the City of Boston, which the suit argues is responsible for inadequately training, supervising, and disciplining officers who arrest people under the wiretap statute for openly recording the police carrying out their duties in public.

Shortly after Mr. Glik's arrest, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office dropped the "aiding the escape of a prisoner" charge but pursued the wiretap charge (a felony) and disturbing the peace. After a judge of the Boston Municipal Court threw out those charges, the ACLU of Massachusetts brought a civil rights suit on Mr. Glik's behalf, charging that the police officers and the City had violated his rights.

All of the police officers asked the U.S. District Court to throw out the case against them on the grounds of "qualified immunity", which protects government officials from the burdens of a lawsuit only if the allegations of the complaint do not show a constitutional violation, or, if they do constitute a violation of a constitutional right, the right was not clearly established, and a reasonable police officer would not have known about it.

In June 2010, U.S. District Court Judge William Young denied the police officers' request to have the case against them dismissed, stating that the law is clearly established that the First Amendment protects Simon Glik's conduct, and refused to grant them qualified immunity from suit.

The police officers appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments on June 8, 2011. The claims against the City of Boston for failing to train and supervise police officers about the right of Americans to observe and openly record the conduct of the police in public is not subject to qualified immunity and have continued in U.S. District Court.

David Milton of the Boston firm Law Offices of Howard Friedman is the cooperating attorney for the ACLU of Massachusetts and argued for Simon Glik, asking the First Circuit to affirm Judge Young's ruling. He, his colleague Howard Friedman, and ACLU of Massachusetts staff attorney Sarah Wunsch have been representing Mr. Glik on the civil rights lawsuit.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:36 am » by **Hansom**

basecampchris wrote:The guy who was shot, shot himself when he turned on the police with a crow bar. End of, he was told to drop it, decided he was big enough to take on the law and ten bullets later he discovered he lost.

Don't you think ten bullets is a bit excessive, he only had a crow bar.
Surely a bullet to the knee cap would have incapacitated him, if not take out the other knee cap.
If he continues after that, take out his shoulders one at a time.
You could argue that it is a highly volatile situation and there isn't time to think.
In that case why waste tax payers money training them.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 3:17 am » by **Truthdefender**

basecampchris wrote:"The only person to hate a soldier has never needed a soldier"

While I fully agree that we certainly have some heavy handed police officers I also feel that respect for the uniform is being lost. I am sure if most people were on the wrong side of the tracks at the wrong time of the day and being mugged they would want to see nothing BUT a police officer.

The guy who was shot, shot himself when he turned on the police with a crow bar. End of, he was told to drop it, decided he was big enough to take on the law and ten bullets later he discovered he lost.

There is no audio in any of these videos except the tool on the bike who I notice was not chastised by the maker of the video for his reckless riding. The cop TOLD him "state police" and holstered the gun. Well done that officer. What do you want? Idiots like this to be allowed to ride like maniacs until they kill someone?

Do I agree with uniformed people abusing civil trust? Hell no, but to judge from afar is also wrong. This is a well edited bit of work which leans to one side of the argument only, lets have the background on each and every case and both sides of the story before we rush to judgement.

This is the 2nd time/thread I have seen you defend brutality. The first one may have been warranted, but your comments here betray you. You have no idea by this vid what the person on the bike was doing before the pull over. Maybe you've seen the longer version I don't know But I can say that there is an epidemic of untouchable elitist ideology circulating through the law enforcement system. Yes people have become disrespectful and resistant, this does not give the cops the right to beat a man unconscious while he is already cuffed, or mob a man just thrown from a vehicle. We are witnessing the precursor to the formation of a totalitarian oppression the likes of which will make you and society at large beg for the good ol' days of isolated police brutality. With each victory over prosecution the cops get more brazen and heartless. If a common citizen was to beat a man half as bad as what we see everyday in these vids, he would get 10 years in prison (trust me I know), yet they do it with impunity. If the law abiding citizens are not willing to stand up for the rights of those who have transgressed the law, who is going to stand up for you when the cops are on your doorstep unwarranted. Good luck in the NWO :top:

Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:02 am » by **Basecampchris**

First. "shot to the kneecap, then the shoulder"

Obviously you can handle a 9mm better than I can. In theory I am with you on this but the chance of a missed shot hitting someone else is too great for this method to be employed. Centre mass and aim to kill, thats the way things stand right now.

Second, yes I guess it may seem as if I am defending the brutal actions of some of these officers. I am not, I do feel you are correct in as much as beating a handcuffed suspect is simply wrong. I have NO sympathy for police officers who beat suspects who are already restrained. None.

I also do not agree with simply hating the police for the sake of hating them, I was a firefighter, we dislike them more than you guys do :-)

BUT, I have met and worked with hundreds of them who trully are great people.

If it seems that I support the abuse of power I do not. A simple request to identify yourself is not abuse of that power (previous thread). Beating a cuffed suspect most certainly is and if my reply seemed like I support that I am sorry and will choose my words with a little more care in future.

Again "the only people to hate a soldier have never needed a soldier" Police officers, when WE are the victims of crime are for most people a welcome sight. I fear a mass aversion to the police and the role they perform through carefully edited multi-media posts on the internet. Thats all. Bad officers are as bad as criminals and belong in the same prisons.

Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:52 am » by **Truthdefender**

[quote="basecampchris"]First. "shot to the kneecap, then the shoulder"

Obviously you can handle a 9mm better than I can. In theory I am with you on this but the chance of a missed shot hitting someone else is too great for this method to be employed. Centre mass and aim to kill, thats the way things stand right now.

Second, yes I guess it may seem as if I am defending the brutal actions of some of these officers. I am not, I do feel you are correct in as much as beating a handcuffed suspect is simply wrong. I have NO sympathy for police officers who beat suspects who are already restrained. None.

I also do not agree with simply hating the police for the sake of hating them, I was a firefighter, we dislike them more than you guys do :-)

BUT, I have met and worked with hundreds of them who trully are great people.

If it seems that I support the abuse of power I do not. A simple request to identify yourself is not abuse of that power (previous thread). Beating a cuffed suspect most certainly is and if my reply seemed like I support that I am sorry and will choose my words with a little more care in future.

Again "the only people to hate a soldier have never needed a soldier" Police officers, when WE are the victims of crime are for most people a welcome sight. I fear a mass aversion to the police and the role they perform through carefully edited multi-media posts on the internet. Thats all. Bad officers are as bad as criminals and belong in the same prisons.[/quote]

Agreed, be a crook or be a cop, but a crooked cop is the lowest. Let me be honest and say that I have spent years in prison. But I do not blame the police upholding the law in my case. And I can empathize with their over zealous attitudes due to the danger they face. I also believe in the role they play in society. Who else is going to protect our sisters and mothers when we are not around. Again, however, the degredation of society is causing them to overreact and abuse those who they are employed to protect. Look at the TSA, if those individuals had police badges, God help you flying home for Christmas. Abuse of power is the problem, the causes of which finds root in the moral decay of America. Basically what I am saying is that beat cops our the first line of defense for the shady shot callers in our governemental system. If they are not willing to defend the Constitution because of their misguided loyalty to the 'system,' then the 'system' will continue to degrade and they will only become more corrupt--eventually becoming America's version of the Gastapo.