14 ms·

Police Accidentally Record Themselves Conspiring to Fabricate Charges

383 points by _0nac 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago
The police union is going to spend huge amounts of money--money that is going to come ultimately from tax dollars--defending this indefensible conduct. This insanity won't stop until those unions are dismantled.
- imaginenore 10y ago
  Well, that money will come from the city / state budget. Which can be used as a weapon in the next elections. And these can be huge sums of money. For instance, NYC paid out $202M in NYPD-related settlements in 2015. http://cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/nypd-payouts-up,-but-new-lawsuits-down.html http://cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/ny... I don't see unions getting dismantled happening, it's the same wishful thinking as making guns illegal.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- pc86 10y ago
  This isn't a pro-union or anti-union issue. This is a police brutality and police corruption issue.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > This isn't a pro-union or anti-union issue. Only if we ignore the fact that the police unions either condone or vigorously defend the "police brutality and police corruption" every single time. Not once[1] have they censured a member for violating rights. 1. To my knowledge. I'd be happy (well, more like moderately surprised) to be informed otherwise.
  - John23832 10y ago
    Normally I'm pro union and workers rights, but police unions are central to the corruption issue. Police become and stay corrupt because they know they are protected. "Thin Blue Line" and "Blue Wall of Silence" type stuff. Police unions really perpetuate this type of behavior by discouraging actual scrutiny of charges brought against officers. Police unions take a "we'll get you out of this, here's what you say and do" attitude taken towards charges all charges. And if they can't get all the charges outright dropped, the punishment is usually a slap on the wrist. And don't get me started about "administrative paid leave".
    - brainfire 10y ago
      You're describing a problem with the prosecutor's office, not the police union.
      - 1024core 10y ago
        Problem is: the prosecutor's office depends on the cops to do its job. If it starts prosecuting cops, they will stop cooperating, making its job almost impossible. And cops will outright sabotage inquiries into their own conduct. Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed to serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones.
        rayiner 10y ago
        > Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed to serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones. And if they had been Wal-Mart greeters instead of union employees, they would've been fired on the spot.
        jahnu 10y ago
        They should have a separate prosecutor's office for the authorities. Why doesn't I.A. do it?
      - John23832 10y ago
        I am describing a problem where police unions hinder prosecution. And they hinder prosecution in a way that essentially amounts to blackmail. They threaten that the police force will become less cooperative with the prosecutors office. An office that depends of the force to do it's job. A prosecutor should be able to look into charges against a police force without fear of retribution by said force. But they can't. And police unions are the spokespersons/ringleaders of the entire scheme.
  - rbcgerard 10y ago
    Except for that even in cases where there are police chiefs/mayors/city councils that want to do something about the issue they are typically hamstrung from removing problem police officers due to union contracts and associated civil service laws
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    Unions work really hard defending that brutality and corruption though, and they have a lot of resources and political weight.
  - threatofrain 10y ago
    Why does the presence of police corruption make it a non-union issue? Why aren't police unions part of the model of corruption?
- coldtea 10y ago
  >This insanity won't stop until those unions are dismantled. This "insanity" continues just as well in countries without police unions, or where unions are not allowed at all. It's the police, the organization, and/or the government in charge, that does that to save face, not the policemen's union.
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    Right. Maybe the "insanity" will continue as long as we act like people wearing special hats are allowed to use force in a way that isn't okay for the unwashed and unhatted masses.
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Are you seriously suggesting that we get rid of police or that we rid them of their ability to use force to enforce the law?
      - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
        Clearly parent argued opposite. We entrust law enforcement to be the sole provider of legitimate force to uphold the law. But that power must also be checked or else it becomes a blind eye to the illegitimate use of force. I'm all for law enforcement having better weapons, armor, and information networks than any terrorist or criminal, but that doesn't mean they can use it as they wish. The law must apply to the lawmen.
        omginternets 10y ago
        Ah, I misread. Apologies.
      - coldtea 10y ago
        UK cops are not allowed to carry guns. Only special units responding to special calls (like Swat teams) have weaponry. How about that?
- okwhatthe2 10y ago
  Groups of people unified together are rarely intelligent things.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  The Police force is publicly funded, union or not.
tehwalrus 10y ago
Is it possible to bring private prosecutions in the US? In the UK I believe you could criminal-charge these guys yourself with sufficient funds. I am no longer shocked or surprised when I read stories about US cops like this: it seems a massive stain on the USA internationally. I'm sad (but not surprised) that no politicians in the presidential election are making a big deal of it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- talmand 10y ago
  I'm not shocked at reports of corrupt police officers anywhere in the world; why is it any different to you because you hear of it in the US?
  - tehwalrus 10y ago
    Because they kill people at an astonishing rate compared to the rest of the developed world: more people in a day than the UK in a year (and only having about 6x the population). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-...
    - talmand 10y ago
      That's a completely different topic and problem though. There are several reasons as to why such a difference happens. It's not that every police shooting is because of police corruption. edit: thank you for the link, it was an interesting article. Although, I think many of the comparisons with the US are inherently flawed. It's still interesting to see the stats.
      - Gustomaximus 10y ago
        Worth noting even if a shooting is 'justified' it doesn't mean you have to do it. This also explains the gap, not just illegal shootings. The US police appear to have a zero risk tolerence or desire to de-escalate.
coldtea 10y ago
For the naive people who think such things never happen because there is no recorded evidence (as if there would be official statements on such cases). Well, here is some, even inadvertently recorded. Any European from England and Germany to France and Spain and Greece knows this kind of thing has been going on all the time -- and was especially hot during the cold war, late 60s student protests, etc, but all the way up to now. Because of more militant opposition parliament parties we've also had several documented cases and even some getting to court (usually for a slap on the wrist). No reason to think the US would be better in this regard.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Any system will be abused. You balance the risk of that abuse against the downside of letting criminals do what they want. There are lots of countries were the police don't really control the streets--that's not pleasant either. The problem here isn't that abuse happens--it's that even when there is hard evidence of it it can't be successfully addressed and the offenders punished. What keeps abuse of the system to acceptable levels is the social norms and deterrent effect created by the law. Both are eviscerated when clear-cut abuses go unpunished.
  - specialist 10y ago
    "Any system will be abused." I'm a big fan of checks and balances. Alas, I can't (yet) imagine what that'd look like here.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      How about all cops required to carry video and audio recorders during all times they are on duty, and the videos to be made available at any request of a defendant's lawyer, plus occasionally analysed by independent groups? Also, for any such public cases, they should immediately fire the policemen responsible, no questions asked, not even a trial. In the same way a company owner would fire an employee that doesn't make the company look good and there would be no trials, ifs and buts about it. Policemen fired in such a way should be prohibited to seek work in any private law enforcing, security, etc capacity too. "Missing" hours of recording should also be regarded the same as a lost gun, and punished accordingly, including with firing the person for a repeat offense, or when the missing hours are related to a case that was brought to court.
gr3yh47 10y ago
Please share this as much as you can on facebook, twitter, et al. While many of us on HN are not surprised that this kind of thing happens, it's generally hard to convince the public at large i.e. the crowd that gets all their news from mainstream media. This is the kind of thing that could 'wake up' another small slice of the population that i.e. has 'nothing to hide' wrt NSA data collection etc.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  The fact he was carrying a gun, and trying to act out against police in the first place, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large. Illegal or legal - someone carrying a gun in public trying to prod cops is creating problems, not solving them. If this guy was holding a sign out of a nuclear plant saying 'no more nukes' and was unarmed, then it would be a different story I think. In terms of public perception, I don't think this guy is going to win any points among regular people.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    > The fact he was carrying a gun, and trying to act out against police in the first place, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large. Corrected: The fact he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights, and trying to inform citizens that their 4th amendment rights were about to be violated, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large.
  - gr3yh47 10y ago
    This mentality about gun carry - it's demonization and the gradual, continual encroachment of laws against our second amendment rights - leads to very low carry percentage among the general public. This in turn leads to one person being able to cause 100+ casualties in a club with over 300 people in it - without being neutralized by a responsible carry citizen (Pulse) if even 5% of the population carried I imagine the casualties would have been MUCH lower
finid 10y ago
“Let’s give him something,” one trooper declared. Another suggested, “we can hit him with creating a public disturbance.” “Gotta cover our ass,” remarked a third. That doesn't sound like it's the first time they've had that type of discussion. I wonder how many innocent citizens are in jail right now because of those cops.
- oftenwrong 10y ago
  I doubt that these troopers are the only ones in their department who feel comfortable committing illegal acts. This could be an indication of a widespread issue.
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    That it is talked about so openly suggests that troopers who are not comfortable with this kind of abuse of justice are part of small, powerless minority.
- a3n 10y ago
  Note that one of those cops was a supervisor. He also supervises other cops. Leadership!
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  There is nothing necessarily immoral or legal about what those cops did. They were in an incident and were deciding what charges to lay. It's a tricky thing laying charges. Laying charges is not abuse of power. Now - if the cops were inventing or fabricating evidence - saying the person did something he did not do - then this would be definitely abuse, but it's not clear that happened. But if someone standing in the street with a gun is doing something a cop can feasibly consider 'public nuisance' - and it's within their right to charge someone with 'public nuisance' - then the issue here is not the cops, it's the loose definition of 'public nuisance' and the cops ability to arbitrarily apply it. The article is mostly quotes from the ACLU, so it's only one side of the story and selected information, it would be interesting to know more.
  - 10y ago
jasonkostempski 10y ago
Another good argument for mandatory recordings of cops during arrests. I think even just audio would be a really good start and is a lot easier to capture and store in the field than video. Sure, it's a lot easier to edit and fake too but I'm sure a reasonably tamper proof device exists. Every company I've worked for records phone calls, this shouldn't be any different.
- FilterSweep 10y ago
  > Another good argument for mandatory recordings of cops during arrests. Unfortunately, even when dash cams are mandated, the footage is often corrupted or lost[0] [0]"80% of CPD dash cam videos are missing audio" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intentional-destruction/?utm_term=.c20971deb828 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/...
  - hx87 10y ago
    If that is indeed the case, then missing evidence should count as evidence against the officer.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      It should generally result in a mis-trial. Is there a punishment for "loss of evidence" by a cop? If so, that should apply as well
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Compare the audio to the chopper video in the one below then tell me that. Warning: graphic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZlxJqT6wgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZlxJqT6wgE They also have a trend of faking entire conversations to make it seem like suspect is resisting enough to deserve a beating. I had, but lost, a bookmark where police submitted audio to court, defense requested video, and it showed non-resisting black guy being jerked through a window and beat by the cops who were faking fight commentary. Here's a recent one that's just verbal testimony: https://hdp.press/to-the-4-white-male-policemen-who-beat-me-for-checking-the-health-of-a-sick-black-man-in-their-8d77789fb24d#.f4129orat https://hdp.press/to-the-4-white-male-policemen-who-beat-me-...
John23832 10y ago
Without the ability to actually prosecute police for crimes committed, and to give scrutiny to the stories told by officers, none of this will stop.
talmand 10y ago
"The second count is a Fourth Amendment claim: the seizure of Michael’s camera without probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime, or a warrant for its seizure. The police cannot grab people’s property and confiscate it on a whim." You would think the ACLU knows that this is not true at all. Police regularly confiscate property on a daily basis with no cause. They have laws that allow them to do this. It's usually cash but they have been known to take whatever isn't nailed down. Some police departments apparently plan their budgets around it.
- sk5t 10y ago
  It's a real stretch to argue that taking a camera has any connection to do with asset forfeiture, horrible and unconstitutional as both are.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree. I'm just saying that it is likely their local laws would allow them to do so under the pretense of some unknown reason. It happens all the time. Personally I'm hoping something like the ACLU takes it to the Supreme Court to get the nonsense stopped.
- John23832 10y ago
  I think the ACLU has done their due diligence...
  - talmand 10y ago
    Apparently not, because it happens every day.
- mstade 10y ago
  It looks like you were being down voted, but what you're saying isn't false. Here's a WaPo article backing you up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st... > Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008. And also: > A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.
CaliforniaKarl 10y ago
There's something that confuses me: If a lawsuit has actually been filed, then there should be some sort of tracking number (case number, docket number, etc.) associated with it. Why didn't the article have that number, so that interested people could track the status of the case on their own?
cryoshon 10y ago
Let's see some prosecutions of the police for harassment, false imprisonment, destruction of property, assault, battery, conspiracy to commit a felony, creating a disturbance, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, and obstruction of the law. Let's see them go to prison for abusing the citizens. This is a clear cut case of police attempting to fabricate charges in order to put away someone who is guilty only of contempt of cop. Set a course for confrontation with the police union; it's necessary. Liquidate police by firing and prosecuting as necessary to effect a clean department that won't brutalize the public. There will always be more people to sign up to join the police, so we may as well get rid of the shitty ones. Cleaning house is long overdue, and we need to start realistically expecting to have to fire significant proportions of a lot of different police departments. Believe me, law and order won't simply break down overnight if we start holding the police accountable. The only way we as the public are going to render comeuppance to the police is if we get political momentum going for harsh legal/criminal consequences when they abuse the public.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Maybe overkill? Was there any reason to suppose this was more than some guys talking tough? Any credible reason to suppose they were going to go through with it?
  - timv 10y ago
    > Any credible reason to suppose they were going to go through with it? You mean, other than the fact that they did? From the article: In the end they decide on two criminal infractions [...] The tickets they gave him started a criminal prosecution in the Connecticut superior court They didn't like what he was doing, so they gave him bogus tickets. They weren't "some guys talking tough" they were police abusing their power.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Ok. Reprehensible.
- googletazer 10y ago
transfire 10y ago
We really have crossed over into the USSA.
burrows 10y ago
At 2.15 in the video the cops realize that camera was on during their discussion. Why did they not confiscate the tape?
- 7Z7 10y ago
  It's a DSLR, so when they noted that it was "still on", they probably just assumed it was a stills camera, switched on (as in ready-to-take-pictures).
peeters 10y ago
Every charge ever laid by these three officers now needs to be reevaluated, with the benefit of the doubt given to the defendants. This could cost millions of taxpayer dollars, as well as have guilty people go free because of the doubt thrown on the process. I don't understand how other officers could ever defend colleagues who do this type of activity. It's so anti-justice it should make them crawl in their skin.
- harryh 10y ago
  It's not that hard to understand. This guy was preventing cops from doing their jobs effectively. A job they felt was important. It's easy to see him as a trouble maker that is enabling other people to more easily break the law without punishment. So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. I'm not saying what they did was OK. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why it happens.
  - bo1024 10y ago
    The fact that it's easy to understand why it happens ... makes it hard to understand why police departments don't work harder to prevent it.
  - fisherjeff 10y ago
    Not sure why the downvotes here - I'm pretty sure this mentality is spot-on among those who are willing to look the other way when things like this happen. It's just much easier to rationalize it away than it is to stand up against injustice.
    - harryh 10y ago
      People downvote because they think that "understanding a bad thing" is the same thing as "approving of a bad thing." It's dumb....but also an understandable facet of human nature. ;-)
      - EdHominem 10y ago
1024core 10y ago
I read somewhere that, at any given time as you go about your daily business, you are guilty of breaking a couple of laws. This gives the police the power to haul you away if they want to. The police look at it as a "weapon", just like their baton or taser, to be used when the need arises. But unfortunately, not everyone in blue is above reproach; there are plenty of bad apples, and the situation is rife with abuse. The sad part is: if you try to do away with these silly laws, the police unions will be up in arms about it.
h4nkoslo 10y ago
This is incredibly common, much more so than shooting someone or even a serious beating. The logic is: - I just slapped the phone out of their hand / threw them against the pavement / committed some other sort of assault, usually because they somehow affronted my honor (eg, by asking what law they were breaking). - If I just walk away, it's clear that that was unjustified. - So I fabricate a resisting arrest / obstructing an investigation / disturbing the peace / assault on an officer claim for them to fight, so it devolves into he said / she said, where I win by virtue of my reputation as a cop & the lack of AV evidence. That's what the "we have to cover our ass" discussion is about.
- plandis 10y ago
  This might sound counterintuitive but let's say the cop admitted to some mistake? Say, slapping a cellphone out of the hand of some random person. What's the outcome? Punishment? More education? Basically I'm wondering what is so bad for the cop afterward that they would rather try to cover up a simple mistake?
  - oppositelock 10y ago
    Cops have near impenetrable immunity (qualified immunity), so there's little legal harm to them in walking away when they're wrong, unless they did something grossly illegal and it's on camera somewhere. I think it's human nature - they're in a position of power, their victim must comply with all their requests and any resistance is punishable severely, so they turn into bullies.
  - h4nkoslo 10y ago
    The most proximate risk is that your colleagues will no longer trust you to "cover their asses". That usually results in you being driven out of the department or worse. You're usually not talking about a "mistake" (although that happens too, eg, cops arresting someone after accidentally hitting them in a crosswalk), you're talking about an intentional on-street retaliation for affronting their honor.
  - leepowers 10y ago
    Best case scenario, civil liability for the police department. Which makes the employee (police officer) and his chain of command appear as a "problem" within the police department. These guys are protecting their reputations and their careers. They are also trying to protect their department. Shameful.
spiraldancing 10y ago
The thing to keep in mind, while reading this, is how many times does this happen on a day-to-day basis, before you just happen to run into cops that are too stupid to realize they are recording themselves while they do this?
dahart 10y ago
A lot of photographers I know carry the Photographer's Rights pamphlet FBO any security guards or police that don't seem to know the law. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
gravypod 10y ago
I'd love if the judge throws out the evidence since they weren't in a single-party recording state or that they weren't read their rights or something. Would be funny.
pklausler 10y ago
I'm surprised that the thugs gave the camera back to the victim. Lesson 1: smarter cops don't get caught. Lesson 2: record the cops straight to the cloud. ADDENDUM: For those in the US, consider installing your state's edition of the ACLU Mobile Justice app on your smartphone.
JDiculous 10y ago
The cops should be stripped of their badges and in jail on felony charges.

383 points by _0nac 10y ago

The police union is going to spend huge amounts of money--money that is going to come ultimately from tax dollars--defending this indefensible conduct. This insanity won't stop until those unions are dismantled.

imaginenore 10y ago
Well, that money will come from the city / state budget. Which can be used as a weapon in the next elections. And these can be huge sums of money. For instance, NYC paid out $202M in NYPD-related settlements in 2015. http://cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/nypd-payouts-up,-but-new-lawsuits-down.html http://cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/ny... I don't see unions getting dismantled happening, it's the same wishful thinking as making guns illegal.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
pc86 10y ago
This isn't a pro-union or anti-union issue. This is a police brutality and police corruption issue.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > This isn't a pro-union or anti-union issue. Only if we ignore the fact that the police unions either condone or vigorously defend the "police brutality and police corruption" every single time. Not once[1] have they censured a member for violating rights. 1. To my knowledge. I'd be happy (well, more like moderately surprised) to be informed otherwise.
- John23832 10y ago
  Normally I'm pro union and workers rights, but police unions are central to the corruption issue. Police become and stay corrupt because they know they are protected. "Thin Blue Line" and "Blue Wall of Silence" type stuff. Police unions really perpetuate this type of behavior by discouraging actual scrutiny of charges brought against officers. Police unions take a "we'll get you out of this, here's what you say and do" attitude taken towards charges all charges. And if they can't get all the charges outright dropped, the punishment is usually a slap on the wrist. And don't get me started about "administrative paid leave".
  - brainfire 10y ago
    You're describing a problem with the prosecutor's office, not the police union.
    - 1024core 10y ago
      Problem is: the prosecutor's office depends on the cops to do its job. If it starts prosecuting cops, they will stop cooperating, making its job almost impossible. And cops will outright sabotage inquiries into their own conduct. Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed to serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        > Case in point: in the Freddie Gray case in Baltimore, the police had failed to serve search warrants for the officers’ personal cellphones. And if they had been Wal-Mart greeters instead of union employees, they would've been fired on the spot.
      - jahnu 10y ago
        They should have a separate prosecutor's office for the authorities. Why doesn't I.A. do it?
    - John23832 10y ago
      I am describing a problem where police unions hinder prosecution. And they hinder prosecution in a way that essentially amounts to blackmail. They threaten that the police force will become less cooperative with the prosecutors office. An office that depends of the force to do it's job. A prosecutor should be able to look into charges against a police force without fear of retribution by said force. But they can't. And police unions are the spokespersons/ringleaders of the entire scheme.
- rbcgerard 10y ago
  Except for that even in cases where there are police chiefs/mayors/city councils that want to do something about the issue they are typically hamstrung from removing problem police officers due to union contracts and associated civil service laws
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Unions work really hard defending that brutality and corruption though, and they have a lot of resources and political weight.
- threatofrain 10y ago
  Why does the presence of police corruption make it a non-union issue? Why aren't police unions part of the model of corruption?
coldtea 10y ago
>This insanity won't stop until those unions are dismantled. This "insanity" continues just as well in countries without police unions, or where unions are not allowed at all. It's the police, the organization, and/or the government in charge, that does that to save face, not the policemen's union.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  Right. Maybe the "insanity" will continue as long as we act like people wearing special hats are allowed to use force in a way that isn't okay for the unwashed and unhatted masses.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that we get rid of police or that we rid them of their ability to use force to enforce the law?
    - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
      Clearly parent argued opposite. We entrust law enforcement to be the sole provider of legitimate force to uphold the law. But that power must also be checked or else it becomes a blind eye to the illegitimate use of force. I'm all for law enforcement having better weapons, armor, and information networks than any terrorist or criminal, but that doesn't mean they can use it as they wish. The law must apply to the lawmen.
      - omginternets 10y ago
        Ah, I misread. Apologies.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      UK cops are not allowed to carry guns. Only special units responding to special calls (like Swat teams) have weaponry. How about that?
okwhatthe2 10y ago
Groups of people unified together are rarely intelligent things.
forgetsusername 10y ago
The Police force is publicly funded, union or not.

tehwalrus 10y ago

Is it possible to bring private prosecutions in the US? In the UK I believe you could criminal-charge these guys yourself with sufficient funds. I am no longer shocked or surprised when I read stories about US cops like this: it seems a massive stain on the USA internationally. I'm sad (but not surprised) that no politicians in the presidential election are making a big deal of it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
talmand 10y ago
I'm not shocked at reports of corrupt police officers anywhere in the world; why is it any different to you because you hear of it in the US?
- tehwalrus 10y ago
  Because they kill people at an astonishing rate compared to the rest of the developed world: more people in a day than the UK in a year (and only having about 6x the population). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-...
  - talmand 10y ago
    That's a completely different topic and problem though. There are several reasons as to why such a difference happens. It's not that every police shooting is because of police corruption. edit: thank you for the link, it was an interesting article. Although, I think many of the comparisons with the US are inherently flawed. It's still interesting to see the stats.
    - Gustomaximus 10y ago
      Worth noting even if a shooting is 'justified' it doesn't mean you have to do it. This also explains the gap, not just illegal shootings. The US police appear to have a zero risk tolerence or desire to de-escalate.

coldtea 10y ago

For the naive people who think such things never happen because there is no recorded evidence (as if there would be official statements on such cases). Well, here is some, even inadvertently recorded. Any European from England and Germany to France and Spain and Greece knows this kind of thing has been going on all the time -- and was especially hot during the cold war, late 60s student protests, etc, but all the way up to now. Because of more militant opposition parliament parties we've also had several documented cases and even some getting to court (usually for a slap on the wrist). No reason to think the US would be better in this regard.

rayiner 10y ago
Any system will be abused. You balance the risk of that abuse against the downside of letting criminals do what they want. There are lots of countries were the police don't really control the streets--that's not pleasant either. The problem here isn't that abuse happens--it's that even when there is hard evidence of it it can't be successfully addressed and the offenders punished. What keeps abuse of the system to acceptable levels is the social norms and deterrent effect created by the law. Both are eviscerated when clear-cut abuses go unpunished.
- specialist 10y ago
  "Any system will be abused." I'm a big fan of checks and balances. Alas, I can't (yet) imagine what that'd look like here.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    How about all cops required to carry video and audio recorders during all times they are on duty, and the videos to be made available at any request of a defendant's lawyer, plus occasionally analysed by independent groups? Also, for any such public cases, they should immediately fire the policemen responsible, no questions asked, not even a trial. In the same way a company owner would fire an employee that doesn't make the company look good and there would be no trials, ifs and buts about it. Policemen fired in such a way should be prohibited to seek work in any private law enforcing, security, etc capacity too. "Missing" hours of recording should also be regarded the same as a lost gun, and punished accordingly, including with firing the person for a repeat offense, or when the missing hours are related to a case that was brought to court.

gr3yh47 10y ago

Please share this as much as you can on facebook, twitter, et al. While many of us on HN are not surprised that this kind of thing happens, it's generally hard to convince the public at large i.e. the crowd that gets all their news from mainstream media. This is the kind of thing that could 'wake up' another small slice of the population that i.e. has 'nothing to hide' wrt NSA data collection etc.

jomamaxx 10y ago
The fact he was carrying a gun, and trying to act out against police in the first place, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large. Illegal or legal - someone carrying a gun in public trying to prod cops is creating problems, not solving them. If this guy was holding a sign out of a nuclear plant saying 'no more nukes' and was unarmed, then it would be a different story I think. In terms of public perception, I don't think this guy is going to win any points among regular people.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  > The fact he was carrying a gun, and trying to act out against police in the first place, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large. Corrected: The fact he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights, and trying to inform citizens that their 4th amendment rights were about to be violated, is not going to engender him any sympathy in the public at large.
- gr3yh47 10y ago
  This mentality about gun carry - it's demonization and the gradual, continual encroachment of laws against our second amendment rights - leads to very low carry percentage among the general public. This in turn leads to one person being able to cause 100+ casualties in a club with over 300 people in it - without being neutralized by a responsible carry citizen (Pulse) if even 5% of the population carried I imagine the casualties would have been MUCH lower

finid 10y ago

“Let’s give him something,” one trooper declared. Another suggested, “we can hit him with creating a public disturbance.” “Gotta cover our ass,” remarked a third. That doesn't sound like it's the first time they've had that type of discussion. I wonder how many innocent citizens are in jail right now because of those cops.

oftenwrong 10y ago
I doubt that these troopers are the only ones in their department who feel comfortable committing illegal acts. This could be an indication of a widespread issue.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  That it is talked about so openly suggests that troopers who are not comfortable with this kind of abuse of justice are part of small, powerless minority.
a3n 10y ago
Note that one of those cops was a supervisor. He also supervises other cops. Leadership!
jomamaxx 10y ago
There is nothing necessarily immoral or legal about what those cops did. They were in an incident and were deciding what charges to lay. It's a tricky thing laying charges. Laying charges is not abuse of power. Now - if the cops were inventing or fabricating evidence - saying the person did something he did not do - then this would be definitely abuse, but it's not clear that happened. But if someone standing in the street with a gun is doing something a cop can feasibly consider 'public nuisance' - and it's within their right to charge someone with 'public nuisance' - then the issue here is not the cops, it's the loose definition of 'public nuisance' and the cops ability to arbitrarily apply it. The article is mostly quotes from the ACLU, so it's only one side of the story and selected information, it would be interesting to know more.
- 10y ago

jasonkostempski 10y ago

Another good argument for mandatory recordings of cops during arrests. I think even just audio would be a really good start and is a lot easier to capture and store in the field than video. Sure, it's a lot easier to edit and fake too but I'm sure a reasonably tamper proof device exists. Every company I've worked for records phone calls, this shouldn't be any different.

FilterSweep 10y ago
> Another good argument for mandatory recordings of cops during arrests. Unfortunately, even when dash cams are mandated, the footage is often corrupted or lost[0] [0]"80% of CPD dash cam videos are missing audio" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/80-percent-of-chicago-pd-dash-cam-videos-are-missing-audio-due-to-officer-error-or-intentional-destruction/?utm_term=.c20971deb828 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/01/29/...
- hx87 10y ago
  If that is indeed the case, then missing evidence should count as evidence against the officer.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    It should generally result in a mis-trial. Is there a punishment for "loss of evidence" by a cop? If so, that should apply as well
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Compare the audio to the chopper video in the one below then tell me that. Warning: graphic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZlxJqT6wgE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZlxJqT6wgE They also have a trend of faking entire conversations to make it seem like suspect is resisting enough to deserve a beating. I had, but lost, a bookmark where police submitted audio to court, defense requested video, and it showed non-resisting black guy being jerked through a window and beat by the cops who were faking fight commentary. Here's a recent one that's just verbal testimony: https://hdp.press/to-the-4-white-male-policemen-who-beat-me-for-checking-the-health-of-a-sick-black-man-in-their-8d77789fb24d#.f4129orat https://hdp.press/to-the-4-white-male-policemen-who-beat-me-...

John23832 10y ago

Without the ability to actually prosecute police for crimes committed, and to give scrutiny to the stories told by officers, none of this will stop.

talmand 10y ago

"The second count is a Fourth Amendment claim: the seizure of Michael’s camera without probable cause to believe that it contained evidence of a crime, or a warrant for its seizure. The police cannot grab people’s property and confiscate it on a whim." You would think the ACLU knows that this is not true at all. Police regularly confiscate property on a daily basis with no cause. They have laws that allow them to do this. It's usually cash but they have been known to take whatever isn't nailed down. Some police departments apparently plan their budgets around it.

sk5t 10y ago
It's a real stretch to argue that taking a camera has any connection to do with asset forfeiture, horrible and unconstitutional as both are.
- talmand 10y ago
  Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully agree. I'm just saying that it is likely their local laws would allow them to do so under the pretense of some unknown reason. It happens all the time. Personally I'm hoping something like the ACLU takes it to the Supreme Court to get the nonsense stopped.
John23832 10y ago
I think the ACLU has done their due diligence...
- talmand 10y ago
  Apparently not, because it happens every day.
mstade 10y ago
It looks like you were being down voted, but what you're saying isn't false. Here's a WaPo article backing you up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st... > Hundreds of state and local departments and drug task forces appear to rely on seized cash, despite a federal ban on the money to pay salaries or otherwise support budgets. The Post found that 298 departments and 210 task forces have seized the equivalent of 20 percent or more of their annual budgets since 2008. And also: > A thriving subculture of road officers on the network now competes to see who can seize the most cash and contraband, describing their exploits in the network’s chat rooms and sharing “trophy shots” of money and drugs. Some police advocate highway interdiction as a way of raising revenue for cash-strapped municipalities.

CaliforniaKarl 10y ago

There's something that confuses me: If a lawsuit has actually been filed, then there should be some sort of tracking number (case number, docket number, etc.) associated with it. Why didn't the article have that number, so that interested people could track the status of the case on their own?

cryoshon 10y ago

Let's see some prosecutions of the police for harassment, false imprisonment, destruction of property, assault, battery, conspiracy to commit a felony, creating a disturbance, conduct unbecoming of a public servant, and obstruction of the law. Let's see them go to prison for abusing the citizens. This is a clear cut case of police attempting to fabricate charges in order to put away someone who is guilty only of contempt of cop. Set a course for confrontation with the police union; it's necessary. Liquidate police by firing and prosecuting as necessary to effect a clean department that won't brutalize the public. There will always be more people to sign up to join the police, so we may as well get rid of the shitty ones. Cleaning house is long overdue, and we need to start realistically expecting to have to fire significant proportions of a lot of different police departments. Believe me, law and order won't simply break down overnight if we start holding the police accountable. The only way we as the public are going to render comeuppance to the police is if we get political momentum going for harsh legal/criminal consequences when they abuse the public.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Maybe overkill? Was there any reason to suppose this was more than some guys talking tough? Any credible reason to suppose they were going to go through with it?
- timv 10y ago
  > Any credible reason to suppose they were going to go through with it? You mean, other than the fact that they did? From the article: In the end they decide on two criminal infractions [...] The tickets they gave him started a criminal prosecution in the Connecticut superior court They didn't like what he was doing, so they gave him bogus tickets. They weren't "some guys talking tough" they were police abusing their power.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    Ok. Reprehensible.
googletazer 10y ago

transfire 10y ago

We really have crossed over into the USSA.

burrows 10y ago

At 2.15 in the video the cops realize that camera was on during their discussion. Why did they not confiscate the tape?

7Z7 10y ago
It's a DSLR, so when they noted that it was "still on", they probably just assumed it was a stills camera, switched on (as in ready-to-take-pictures).

peeters 10y ago

Every charge ever laid by these three officers now needs to be reevaluated, with the benefit of the doubt given to the defendants. This could cost millions of taxpayer dollars, as well as have guilty people go free because of the doubt thrown on the process. I don't understand how other officers could ever defend colleagues who do this type of activity. It's so anti-justice it should make them crawl in their skin.

harryh 10y ago
It's not that hard to understand. This guy was preventing cops from doing their jobs effectively. A job they felt was important. It's easy to see him as a trouble maker that is enabling other people to more easily break the law without punishment. So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. I'm not saying what they did was OK. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why it happens.
- bo1024 10y ago
  The fact that it's easy to understand why it happens ... makes it hard to understand why police departments don't work harder to prevent it.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  Not sure why the downvotes here - I'm pretty sure this mentality is spot-on among those who are willing to look the other way when things like this happen. It's just much easier to rationalize it away than it is to stand up against injustice.
  - harryh 10y ago
    People downvote because they think that "understanding a bad thing" is the same thing as "approving of a bad thing." It's dumb....but also an understandable facet of human nature. ;-)
    - EdHominem 10y ago

1024core 10y ago

I read somewhere that, at any given time as you go about your daily business, you are guilty of breaking a couple of laws. This gives the police the power to haul you away if they want to. The police look at it as a "weapon", just like their baton or taser, to be used when the need arises. But unfortunately, not everyone in blue is above reproach; there are plenty of bad apples, and the situation is rife with abuse. The sad part is: if you try to do away with these silly laws, the police unions will be up in arms about it.

h4nkoslo 10y ago

This is incredibly common, much more so than shooting someone or even a serious beating. The logic is: - I just slapped the phone out of their hand / threw them against the pavement / committed some other sort of assault, usually because they somehow affronted my honor (eg, by asking what law they were breaking). - If I just walk away, it's clear that that was unjustified. - So I fabricate a resisting arrest / obstructing an investigation / disturbing the peace / assault on an officer claim for them to fight, so it devolves into he said / she said, where I win by virtue of my reputation as a cop & the lack of AV evidence. That's what the "we have to cover our ass" discussion is about.

plandis 10y ago
This might sound counterintuitive but let's say the cop admitted to some mistake? Say, slapping a cellphone out of the hand of some random person. What's the outcome? Punishment? More education? Basically I'm wondering what is so bad for the cop afterward that they would rather try to cover up a simple mistake?
- oppositelock 10y ago
  Cops have near impenetrable immunity (qualified immunity), so there's little legal harm to them in walking away when they're wrong, unless they did something grossly illegal and it's on camera somewhere. I think it's human nature - they're in a position of power, their victim must comply with all their requests and any resistance is punishable severely, so they turn into bullies.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  The most proximate risk is that your colleagues will no longer trust you to "cover their asses". That usually results in you being driven out of the department or worse. You're usually not talking about a "mistake" (although that happens too, eg, cops arresting someone after accidentally hitting them in a crosswalk), you're talking about an intentional on-street retaliation for affronting their honor.
- leepowers 10y ago
  Best case scenario, civil liability for the police department. Which makes the employee (police officer) and his chain of command appear as a "problem" within the police department. These guys are protecting their reputations and their careers. They are also trying to protect their department. Shameful.

spiraldancing 10y ago

The thing to keep in mind, while reading this, is how many times does this happen on a day-to-day basis, before you just happen to run into cops that are too stupid to realize they are recording themselves while they do this?

dahart 10y ago

A lot of photographers I know carry the Photographer's Rights pamphlet FBO any security guards or police that don't seem to know the law. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

gravypod 10y ago

I'd love if the judge throws out the evidence since they weren't in a single-party recording state or that they weren't read their rights or something. Would be funny.

pklausler 10y ago

I'm surprised that the thugs gave the camera back to the victim. Lesson 1: smarter cops don't get caught. Lesson 2: record the cops straight to the cloud. ADDENDUM: For those in the US, consider installing your state's edition of the ACLU Mobile Justice app on your smartphone.

JDiculous 10y ago

The cops should be stripped of their badges and in jail on felony charges.