I'm Not a Cop but...

[rockquarry]

It's about choices.

Nobody forced public servants to act the way they act.
Nobody forced them to deny service because he has a camera
Nobody forced them to call LE over a guy with camera - because they are "uncomfortable" or the guy is "creepy" of if he doesn't answer their questions.
Nobody forced them to lie to dispatch - which comes out in the 911 calls
Nobody forced the cops to act the way they act.
Then when multiple cops show up over a guy with a camera, nobody forced them all to stay when there's no crime.
Nobody forced them to solicit trespass
Nobody forced them to violate rights by arresting for a lawful activity.
They made those choices
It all comes out w/the release of the body cams with the conspiracies to get him arrested.

If they leave him alone, he has no content to post, no lawsuits to file. They, without fail, give him everything

Then, when all charges are dropped - that's when he goes after them.

Tell me, again who is wasting public resources - the guy with a camera or the folks who made the initial call.

But, see, there IS a choice on how LE/public servants act when they can no longer hide behind qualified immunity. They seem to be VERY nice and accommodating. Strange, isn't it.

I'm all for flexing rights through lawful activity.

The true test for freedom is the right to test it.

Certainly it was your intent to depict your own objective, neutral stance toward judging law enforcement folks but it may not appear that way to some. Perhaps the YouDupe photo goobers have the same attitude when they do their amateur filming that may not (conveniently) show everything a less-than-bright but "objective" viewer may use to make a (possibly less-than-informed) assessment of what he sees.

The mental strain and anxiety of being photographed by a self-anointed activist ( quite often a synonym for "troublemaker") may cause a law enforcement officer to make a mistake or even turn an innocuous situation into a violent one, potentially endangering the officer and others.

You might reconsider your preconceived notions of law enforcement. You will likely find most of them are fine people attempting to do a good job, but they prefer to do that job without the added stress of being photographed by some vengeance-seeking agitator.

 

[Rule3]

I see it as a double-edged sword. With the public videoing seemingly all police interactions these days, it at least will capture the events leading up to the incident, and one hopes show WHY the officer reacted the way he did. Nowadays, most of the time, it seems the videos captured by the public only start at the point where the officer is forced to get aggressive, and never show what led up to that.

If you put together all the videos in the Floyd case, you can see what led up to the final event. None of that seemed to have mattered. All people see is the final minutes

 

[Ματθιας]

Certainly it was your intent to depict your own objective, neutral stance toward judging law enforcement folks but it may not appear that way to some. Perhaps the YouDupe photo goobers have the same attitude when they do their amateur filming that may not (conveniently) show everything a less-than-bright but "objective" viewer may use to make a (possibly less-than-informed) assessment of what he sees.

The mental strain and anxiety of being photographed by a self-anointed activist ( quite often a synonym for "troublemaker") may cause a law enforcement officer to make a mistake or even turn an innocuous situation into a violent one, potentially endangering the officer and others.

You might reconsider your preconceived notions of law enforcement. You will likely find most of them are fine people attempting to do a good job, but they prefer to do that job without the added stress of being photographed by some vengeance-seeking agitator.

Please, don't make excuses. The camera doesn't make people act badly, people act badly.

I'm on camera everywhere I go. Everywhere.
I act like it.
Nobody makes me act or react.
I'm responsible for my own actions.
There are no excuses for my actions.
I'm judged by my actions and held accountable.

LE SHOULD be no different.

On some of these vids, LE sometimes say, "You're trying to make us look bad." No, their actions make them look bad.

I think the problem is that some .gov workers, LE included, are not used to folks telling them "NO" when they are trying to impose their will. Then, there's a guy who comes along and plays their game with their rules and defies them. Their ego won't tolerate it.

As I said in an earlier post, if folks wouldn't react, just left him alone, let him record, he'd have no content, none.

Then, there are the cops who have come out and said "What you're doing is legal, carry on." Then they had to explain to the people who called that the camera man has the right to do what he's are doing. And usually the folks who call insist that it's against the law.

Both sides get posted - most of the time, admittedly.

I have considered my perceived notions of law enforcement. It comes from dealing with them while living in New Mexico. I just turn on the local news and see the decades of corruption with the current DWI scandal - That's just the latest. See, I'm a cynic. I look at LE the same way they look at regular civilians, like me.

I'm not a member of the cop watch community. I just know a couple of them long before they started doing this. They're willing to go to jail, I'm not. And I don't have the temperament for it.

Again, I'm all for folks flexing their rights and freedoms, legally. But, I guess, freedom is too scary for some.

I can post YouTube videos to prove my point - there are hundreds of them.

 

[Goldstar225]

My agency started using dash mounted cameras in the mid 90's and I was in favor of it from the start as a lowly patrolman. In my experience it was a benefit for the officers and the public. For the officer it provided objective impartial evidence both for criminal prosecution and response to BS complaints. For the public it allowed accountability for those occasions that an officer crossed the line. As far as micromanaging, trust me, those supervisors existed well before dash or body cameras existed.

 

[The Last Standing Knight]

As someone who had to wear a personally owned body cam...

...I can echo a lot of the comments here that wearing one is a double edged sword. I can also say that it saved my backside more than once and paid for itself the first week I wore it.

Unfortunately, working in private security they mean very little unless you go to court and you in that case will be "on your own". Many clients and security agencies forbid their employees from having them as it "defeats the purpose of having a security officer...." (i.e. take the blame).

Police have used them for a good bit of time now, but they are starting to make inroads into private security. One of my colleagues had one concealed and recorded an "incident" he was involved in. It saved him...his actions were correct and within his job description, but he lost his job with the client telling him his evidence "didn't matter". His company fired him for some obscure "violation of company policy" even though nothing (in that time) was in the company regs covering them.

No doubt the same thing can happen to anyone (and probably has) in law enforcement. Having people armchair quarterback an officer's cam footage will come to no good for anyone except lawyers and the media.

 

[GaryS]

People can debate this all they want, but it won't change the law. Unless someone who is recording is also interfering with police, fire, or EMS it is completely legal. There is case law in at least one federal circuit that states that there are both First and Fourth Amendment protections in place. At least in public places, private property owners aren't bound by that and can toss someone out for any reason.

That's also why I can film TSA at an airport. They may not like it, but they can't stop it nor can they prohibit someone from flying merely because someone is filming them.

The big buzzword in law enforcement these days seems to be "transparency." Which at some agencies seems like them posing with kids on FB. But, ,that's a whole different story, perhaps for another day.

Politicians and bureaucrats like being filmed even less than some police officers. THEY should be required to wear body cams, but again that's a story for another day.

For the record I was at some very high profile EMS incidents and also knew a lot of still and video photographers. It never bothered me that they were there filming something that I was involved in and was of public interest.

Reporters were a different story though.

 

[Ματθιας]

Two completely different interactions from the same poster:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QpXTtSB1CA[/ame]


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYmM0aFJt6s[/ame]

 

[LVSteve]

...I can echo a lot of the comments here that wearing one is a double edged sword. I can also say that it saved my backside more than once and paid for itself the first week I wore it.

Unfortunately, working in private security they mean very little unless you go to court and you in that case will be "on your own". Many clients and security agencies forbid their employees from having them as it "defeats the purpose of having a security officer...." (i.e. take the blame).

Police have used them for a good bit of time now, but they are starting to make inroads into private security. One of my colleagues had one concealed and recorded an "incident" he was involved in. It saved him...his actions were correct and within his job description, but he lost his job with the client telling him his evidence "didn't matter". His company fired him for some obscure "violation of company policy" even though nothing (in that time) was in the company regs covering them.

No doubt the same thing can happen to anyone (and probably has) in law enforcement. Having people armchair quarterback an officer's cam footage will come to no good for anyone except lawyers and the media.

Sounds like private security is a career field to avoid if it is that bent.

 

[lrrifleman]

Sorry, I have a major issue with livestreaming an incident. I'm a retired teacher, so I'm looking at it from a teacher's perspective. (Note: in NJ, an administrator only has to have 3 years of classroom experience. )

It's one thing to have dashcams and bodycams that are reviewed after the fact and document what happened. It's a whole different can of worms when the cameras become interactive.

What happens when a superior that either lacks the streetsmarts or the experience, or is lawsuit-shy intervenes and countermands the actions of the on-site officer? Sounds like the potential of either terminating officers for insubordination or an officer experiencing unnecessary risks. I can see liberal and inexperienced administrators using this as a weapon in order to go after staff they don't like. Each profession has superiors like that.

 

[biku324]

Beyond that, the people with whom police or gov officials are dealing did not volunteer to be part of some attention-prostitute's 'look at me' display.

 

[S-W4EVER]

While I have never experienced it (fortunately) I don’t like the idea of Reality TV cameras in courtrooms. I believe they make a farce out of the Criminal Justice system.

 

[Ματθιας]

Thanks to body cams and open records we get to see this:

Dispute Between Sheriff And Police Turns Physical

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmLXwlmxRyA[/ame]

It's like two rival gangs.

Imagine what would happen if a civilian put hands on them.

 

[GaryS]

As you likely know better than do I, if it's a public area they have no choice on the matter. Private property is different, but on a public street or in a park, there is no expectation of privacy.

That's not likely to change.

Beyond that, the people with whom police or gov officials are dealing did not volunteer to be part of some attention-prostitute's 'look at me' display.

 

[Ματθιας]

I can't post the full body cam video due to language.

But here's local media:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Z9OmaXoBc[/ame]

Wrong car.
Wrong driver.
Wrong plate.

Dude was lucky an acorn didn't fall on the roof.


"The plates match, but two of them are off." Then, the plates don't match.

 

[Ματθιας]

As you likely know better than do I, if it's a public area they have no choice on the matter. Private property is different, but on a public street or in a park, there is no expectation of privacy.

That's not likely to change.

If I can see it from a public place, I can record it - private property or not. Can't trespass my eyes.

If you, (the general "you") don't want to be recorded, don't leave the house.

 

[biku324]

As you likely know better than do I, if it's a public area they have no choice on the matter. Private property is different, but on a public street or in a park, there is no expectation of privacy.

That's not likely to change.

What is not public are their identifiable interactions, those that do not result in arrest or don't occur in court or government building, with officials for someone's private profit (e.g. put on YouTube by an influencer or aspiring such) without the person's express approval.

 

[Kiwi cop]

Meanwhile in Kiwiland......

A couple of things from New Zealand policing that are maybe relevant here.

Number 1. Around 15 or so years ago NZ police adopted Tasers. Some politicians were not in favour of it, citing misuse, until cameras mounted to the battery were mandated. Our first two generation tasers issued had these. The current issue (we are presently in transition to the X10) do not have cameras at all, as they are no longer manufactured. Those same politicians are still claiming possible misuse, even though it has never been a real problem.

Number 2. The last time I deployed (presented) a taser, the supervisor who reviewed the footage called me in. He said it was the first time that he had viewed a taser deployment where the officer did not use a fair amount of swearing. He asked me how I managed to keep my cool. Told him I can use every swear word ever invented but was raised to consider it crude to do so in public.

Number 3. A few years ago an app, called DAS, was added to our police issued cellphones to allow us to "see" where our nearby colleagues were. it was to help us make deployment decisions based on what backup was (or was not) available. The policy on use of this app clearly stated that it was not to be used to monitor staff movements/performance etc. In the first few months two supervisors were subject to disciplinary action for using the app to monitor staff and use the information for performance "management", which had been featured in the association monthly magazine recently.

One day I was working an early shift (0700-1600). Early on I had been called to a motor vehicle crash that tied me up for almost 3 hours, with the highway down to only one lane for travel both ways.. I was passing through a small city usually about 45 minutes drive from my base just after 10:30 am, and decided to call into my "LGS" for my 10 minute break, which in my workgroup management had mandated after 2 1/2 hours on duty to avoid fatigue. Even if we were in the middle of no-where we were required to stop and get out of the car to "recharge".

I had barely been there for 2 or 3 minutes when my supervisor called me. "You won't stop many cars there" were his opening comment. Now at the time I was having some issues with this supervisor, who was filling in for my regular one who was off on long term sick leave. He had a reputation for building his career development on "staff performance" issues, and was attempting to micromanage me at the time. He didn't like the fact that I would push back when he did so and that I had been around long enough to know most of the rules.

"How long have I been on duty today"? I asked him.

"Since 7 am".

"Where have I been for the last 3 hours"?

"At the crash".

"Did you send someone to relieve me to take my mandated rest break after 2 1/2 hours on duty"?

"There wasn't anyone to send".

"Are you putting restrictions on when and where I can take my breaks"?

Silence.

"Did you read about the those supervisors facing code of conduct investigation for misuse of DAS"?

Hang up.

Not long after this I got called in to my workgroup mangers office and asked about the phone call. Turns out he had been with one of his toadies from his usual work group when making the call on speaker, and the word had got back to my workgroup management. As a result he rotated back to his usual workgroup early.

Monitoring technology can be a two edged sword.

 

[Golddollar]

The reporters would probably fall asleep at our planning commission meetings.

 

[Ματθιας]

What is not public are their identifiable interactions, those that do not result in arrest or don't occur in court or government building, with officials for someone's private profit (e.g. put on YouTube by an influencer or aspiring such) without the person's express approval.

It's obvious you don't know nor understand public photography laws.

If a person is filmed, in public, and posted online without that person's express approval, what's going to happen? Are they going to get LE involved? What laws would be broken? Are they going to sue the poster? Sue them for what?

What are they going to do, sue the folks who post stuff on their ring cams or dash cams because they didn't get consent of a person who's on cam?

If I go to, say Disneyland and film, do I have to get consent of all folks I get on camera? How about if I film a police situation in and/or around Disneyland, do I have to get consent everyone I film? Of course not. I'd be impossible.

Do want me to post vids of people who walked right up the camera guy and told them they didn't want to be filmed and then called the cops? How about videos of folks filming outside a jail, outside a court house, or even inside a courthouse? Or even in and around a police station?

Yet they keep posting videos. Why? Because in public, everyone is fair game. Everyone. And there's nothing the public or LE can do. Nothing. LE can't even ID, the photographer, try as they might, because no crime has been committed. They can't even trespass them. They might try to bully and/or intimidate them, but, there's nothing they can do.

You know you can film federal facilities and even inside a post office, right?

Again, if you don't want to be recorded, stay in your house.

 

[biku324]

Good luck in court.