4 ms·

I agree that police abuse is a problem, and I also agree that laws like the ones mentioned in the article are an obscene violation of our liberties; however, I'

by WillyF 16y ago

I agree that police abuse is a problem, and I also agree that laws like the ones mentioned in the article are an obscene violation of our liberties; however, I'm starting to see the problems that recording officers can cause. I was recently leaving North Avenue Beach after playing beach volleyball when a gang fight erupted. Hundreds of kids started mobbing each other and causing all kinds of mayhem. I got out of there quickly, so I don't know what exactly went down, but I do know that the day before there was an attack on joggers, fights, arrests, and even a shooting. Here's a story mostly focused on what happened the day before I was there: http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.html http://cbs2chicago.com/local/north.avenue.beach.2.1714897.ht... There hasn't been a ton of news coverage about the recent problems at North Ave Beach beyond the article above, but I was able to find a few videos of the violence on YouTube like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDd5-QfjDXM&has_verified=... It seems to me that the focus of the videos is more on how the cops are treating the criminals than what the criminals are doing (assaulting police officers and acting like idiots in the video above). A lot of comments on the Second City Cop blog - http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com - have indicated that law enforcement officers in Chicago are becoming extremely hesitant to act because they are worried about how their actions may look on camera. Yes, "citizen journalists" with cell phone cameras will help to curb police abuse, but they will also discourage use of force by police officers when it is justified. The video above isn't the best example since the cops do end up using force to restrain some of the perpetrators, but they do seem to show a decent amount of restraint. In the situation that I saw, the cops seemed wary of getting involved. The situation that I witnessed opens up a number of other issues, but my point is that I want the people who are paid to protect me to be fully empowered to do what they need to do to quell situations like a massive gang fight on the beach. I don't think that passing laws prohibiting citizens from recording on-duty officers is the right way to go about this, but I do think that citizens and the media need to be more understanding of the fact that sometimes it is necessary for cops to use force. A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story, yet these types of videos can ruin an officer's career. Social media is a great thing for Democracy. I think that recording police is a good thing. I just think that knee-jerk reactions to news that comes in bits and pieces can be extremely damaging to our society. Our law enforcement officers shouldn't be afraid of making the right decision because an edited video clip will make it look like abuse.

steveklabnik 16y ago
> Our law enforcement officers shouldn't be afraid of making the right decision because an edited video clip will make it look like abuse. I guess this comes down to a difference of opinion. I'd much rather have the police use too little force on occasion than too much force on occasion.
- btilly 16y ago
  I have the same preference. But it is only natural that officers who are putting their lives on the line naturally prefer to err on the side of caution, which means bringing more than sufficient force to bear.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    Of course, since delivering pizzas is a more dangerous job than being a cop, I'm sure it's only natural if they use more than sufficient force on occasion, too.
rlpb 16y ago
> A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story This just provides an incentive for the police to wear their own cameras, no? Wouldn't this solve your problem? What if it became irregular for a policeman to be on the stand retelling events that occurred while he was on duty but not to have video corroboration? In a future world where all police wear cameras while on duty, and the court expects to see all relevant footage, not just the footage picked out by the prosecution or by the defence? Wouldn't this be a good thing?
- hugh3 16y ago
  Mostly, yes, though I can also see downsides. Juries might become overly dependent on this form of evidence, to the detriment of their ability to weigh evidence. For instance, suppose that man A punches man B, and a policeman sees it. But suppose his camera just happened to be turned the wrong way or momentarily obscured at the time so the video footage doesn't actually show the moment where man A punches man B. With this ambiguous footage available, juries might be hesitant to convict, even though multiple witnesses saw it happen, because the jury expected to be able to see it with their own eyes.

by WillyF 16y ago

steveklabnik 16y ago

> Our law enforcement officers shouldn't be afraid of making the right decision because an edited video clip will make it look like abuse. I guess this comes down to a difference of opinion. I'd much rather have the police use too little force on occasion than too much force on occasion.

btilly 16y ago
I have the same preference. But it is only natural that officers who are putting their lives on the line naturally prefer to err on the side of caution, which means bringing more than sufficient force to bear.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  Of course, since delivering pizzas is a more dangerous job than being a cop, I'm sure it's only natural if they use more than sufficient force on occasion, too.

rlpb 16y ago

> A 30 second YouTube clip doesn't always tell the whole story This just provides an incentive for the police to wear their own cameras, no? Wouldn't this solve your problem? What if it became irregular for a policeman to be on the stand retelling events that occurred while he was on duty but not to have video corroboration? In a future world where all police wear cameras while on duty, and the court expects to see all relevant footage, not just the footage picked out by the prosecution or by the defence? Wouldn't this be a good thing?

hugh3 16y ago
Mostly, yes, though I can also see downsides. Juries might become overly dependent on this form of evidence, to the detriment of their ability to weigh evidence. For instance, suppose that man A punches man B, and a policeman sees it. But suppose his camera just happened to be turned the wrong way or momentarily obscured at the time so the video footage doesn't actually show the moment where man A punches man B. With this ambiguous footage available, juries might be hesitant to convict, even though multiple witnesses saw it happen, because the jury expected to be able to see it with their own eyes.