“One of the officers asked me whether my phone had audio recording capabilities,’’ Glik, 33, said recently of the incident, which took place in October 2007. Glik acknowledged that it did, and then, he said, “my phone was seized, and I was arrested.’’ [More]Besides, what possible legitimate interest could mere citizens have in overseeing public "Only Ones" activities and conduct? Haven't we learned by now that's private...?
[Via retrotruckman]
5 comments:
The wolves don't want pictures getting out for general circulation, of them raping or killing sheep. (In best Jimmy Cagney accent, " might not look so good".)
I have a really simple solution to this, that will probably never be implemented:
We could install audio and visual recording gear on the the police officer themselves. The data would be collected and stored on a removable memory disk (similar to what you have in a digital camera - except recording all the time). If the cops were honest, this could protect them from lawsuits in court over "he said" arguments & any liability. This could reduce man-hours spent on reporting, and I'm willing to bet the system would pay for it's self.
A 2 megapixel camera (like the ones in cellphones) can be purchased for $10~$20 in bulk, and multiple cameras could be mounted on an officer to ensure (nearly) 360 degree A/V recording. The officer would be required to turn in the memory chip at the end of the day, which would be automatically synchronized with their time-reporting system to verify proper recording length and untampered files. A GPS chip, and wireless emergency notification system (triggered if the officer goes prone or draws their weapon).... The military has been playing with this sort of technology for a while, and it's rumored to be used by recon troops.
I am manufacturing a prototype for my car right now - all of the components (6 cameras, Arduino, SD writer, 8gb SD card, board, wiring, &c...) has cost me less than $200. The computer of my system is the size of my wallet. My next project is to make one for my body to demo infront of city council.
No need to arrest citizens for recording the police, the police should be recording themselves.
Fidelity,
I think you are missing the point. Many patrol cars already record the actions of officers. These recordings go "missing" with an astonishing regularity when attempted to be used as evidence against LEO's. What is required is not more data but a way to rein in the dogs.
Firstly, they have no right to expectation of privacy in public. The courts have held for that concept many, many times over the years, so how the Hell do they suddenly decide a public servant in public has a right to expectation of privacy? The simple answer, they don't believe it themselves. However, they don't think they will be killed for their abuses. And there is the rub.
We are far too peaceable, and naively hopeful these issues can be settled by arguing law, principle, and morality in the venues supposedly appropriate for the application of justice, when what it will take to settle these issues is force. Ugly, deadly, unrelenting force.
Yes, I know that is a cynical outlook and that I have become cynical. But, in my defense, I was not born that way, nor did I grow that way. I was trained that way, and they are the ones who supplied that training.
I do feel very lucky that it has been years since any cop has tried to abuse me, because I do not accept abuse. I won every time before and I won on the street. No one wanted it to go to court or become common public knowledge. Because the difference between then and now, is that then abuse by cop was not a protected activity as it is now. Therefore nobody was willing to push it after the fact because their misdeeds would come to light. Now their misdeeds have been normalized and there is no shame nor consequence due for that abuse. It has since become a protected activity. Ergo, the reason for the necessity of ugly, deadly, and unrelenting force in reasserting our liberty.
In the parlance of today, THAT SUCKS, but is true nonetheless.
We all have only one decision to make. Accept the abuse and become livestock to benefit the herdsmen or reject the abuse and eliminate the abusers. No sane man, and I consider myself one, can find a damn thing about this situation to like, but its unattractiveness does not make it less true.
You will note that charges are dismissed when a defendant has a viable ability to present a defense that can be effective, usually having to do with the defendant's ability to afford such defense attorneys who can be effective.
These charges are not dismissed or vacated because the prosecutors and cops suddenly see they are wrong (they already know that) and want to do the right thing. The charges are dismissed when the prospect of the state winning is in doubt, thereby avoiding precedents that would invalidate earlier convictions and subsequent prosecutions.
They leave us only one possible last resort and fully expect that it will never be used. They are wrong.
Post a Comment