ACLU will give cameras to people to film police

[Lynn7]

ACLU will provide cameras to tape police
By Jeremy Kohler
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Saturday, Dec. 31 2005

St. Louis police officers often say they feel as if people are looking over
their shoulders.

That feeling isn't likely to let up this year.

The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, a frequent critic of
the city police, says it plans to arm residents of the city's north side with
video cameras to record officers' dealings with the public.

The activist group says the department often mistreats and unfairly targets
blacks and said it hopes the presence of cameras will act as a deterrent to
police abuse and result in smoother dealings between residents and police.

The group said the cameras will start rolling in the summer, after a series of
workshops near Fairground Park where blacks can learn about how to protect
their rights during dealings with police. The program is called the Racial
Justice Initiative.

ACLU leaders notified Police Chief Joe Mokwa of its plans in meetings during
the fall. Neither the ACLU nor the police knew of any other previous effort
nationally to put officers under private surveillance.

The department has responded with a shrug. While some commanders are leery of
having their officers taped, Mokwa said, "It's legal and there is nothing wrong
with it."

Sgt. Kevin Ahlbrand, president of the St. Louis Police Officers Association,
said: "We don't expect any negative reports to come out of videotaping. Our
members are under the assumption that in today's society, they should assume
that any time they're in public, they may be being videotaped."

Redditt Hudson, who heads the ACLU's racial justice program, said, "It's not
like we needed their clearance."

Mokwa said his officers are used to hearing criticism. On Dec. 22, the chief
said, he rushed to Barnes-Jewish Hospital to visit a rookie officer who had
been just been shot in the neck.

Mokwa said the first words of the officer, Matthew Greco, were, "I didn't do
anything wrong."

But Brenda Jones, the ACLU chapter's executive director, said some criticism of
police is warranted.

"People are being stopped by the police for no particular reason," she said. "A
number who have run-ins have attempted to file complaints but haven't been able
to get to internal affairs."

The group wants to lessen the "tension and potential for violence that has
occurred with police patrolling some of the poor neighborhoods in the city,"
she said.

Mokwa said he hopes the amateur cameramen don't interfere with officers or bait
them with bogus calls. He said he disagrees with the premise of the action - he
feels most people are happy with his officers' service.

The ACLU only hears from the small percentage of people who feel they have been
wronged by police, he said.

He said he thinks most people want police officers to be aggressive in dealing
with troublemakers in their neighborhoods.

Mokwa said he hopes the tapes depict officers acting professionally. If the
videos expose problems, he said, "we'd want to know about those anyway."

__________________________________________________ ___

I guess this sounds like a good thing if the police are being bad but I have a feeling this will not turn out well.

[outsyder]

I expect pawn shops to be very busy soon.

[someguy]

I'll sum this up in four words

Good intention, bad execution

[JohnTheHenchman]

And people wonder why I can't take the ACLU seriously.

[EVILxxx]

The last thing a police officer needs to worry about while detaining a suspect is if his assertion of force going to be video-taped and then taken out of context. The police have a difficult enough job as it is, they don't need to be putting their lives at greater risks, if they start to second guess themselves about pulling their guns when appropriate.

[BubbaStrangelove]

An example of hypocracy?


Monitoring citizens' library records and e-mails to prevent terrorism = "Well if the people aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't have to worry."

Monitoring police action to prevent abuse of power = "Oh, that's so stupid. Blah Blah Blah. Idiots cramping the police's style and shit."

[jeo4]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
An example of hypocracy?


Monitoring citizens' library records and e-mails to prevent terrorism = "Well if the people aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't have to worry."

Monitoring police action to prevent abuse of power = "Oh, that's so stupid. Blah Blah Blah. Idiots cramping the police's style and shit."

The same example flipped:

Viewing e-mail and library records = I don't want you looking at my e-mail and what I've read...you'll find (insert smut here) and that's an invasion of my privacy.

Filming police = "Yeah! Catch these dirty pigs breaking the law! That's all they do anyway! They beat people and they don't care! They SAY they're 'doing their job'...but WE ALL know they just want their bust!"

Hypocrisy goes both ways.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by jeo4
The same example flipped:

Viewing e-mail and library records = I don't want you looking at my e-mail and what I've read...you'll find (insert smut here) and that's an invasion of my privacy.

Filming police = "Yeah! Catch these dirty pigs breaking the law! That's all they do anyway! They beat people and they don't care! They SAY they're 'doing their job'...but WE ALL know they just want their bust!"

Hypocrisy goes both ways.


No doubt. It just happens that the time line of events works in favor of my example. This could have gone the other way as well with the only exception being that there is a difference between private citizens and an employee of the state. I'm sure the ACLU wouldn't want people video taping police officers who are off-duty.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
An example of hypocracy?


Monitoring citizens' library records and e-mails to prevent terrorism = "Well if the people aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't have to worry."

Monitoring police action to prevent abuse of power = "Oh, that's so stupid. Blah Blah Blah. Idiots cramping the police's style and shit."

I don't think most people have a problem with the public keeping an eye on police in their own ways, but this has bad news written all over it. More often than not when police force is in question the officer is in the write no matter what camera angles are shown. Do we really want this to turn into little camera crews following cops as they make their rounds?

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
I don't think most people have a problem with the public keeping an eye on police in their own ways, but this has bad news written all over it. More often than not when police force is in question the officer is in the write no matter what camera angles are shown. Do we really want this to turn into little camera crews following cops as they make their rounds?


Totally agree. I was just proposing one scenario.

Well, almost totally agree - It seems like whenever cameras are involved, the cops end up being guilty. Maybe it's just what gets reported, but I can think of examples all day long where the cop's screwed up, but not as many where they were let off.

In Tampa, off the top of my head, I can think of several cases where cameras were bad news for BAD COPS (good police officers are cool!) - One instance where they maced a 4 year old girl at a parade, a two seperate cases where the polices own cameras captured wrong-doing (once from the car's camera, once from holding cell cameras) -- There was even a case in Fort Myeres were these two jackasses sexually molested some guy with a night stick - right in front of the police station's cameras. Then you have the gang-styl beating from New Orleans last year.

I can't see filming of the cops doing any real harm in the big scheme of things. They are already filming us in most major metropolitian cities, and everytime we get pulled over for doing 55 in a 54. This seems only fair to me - a level playing field.

Sure, it's not cool for everyone to need and walk on egg shells, but hell man - they have been doing it to us for years. I'm a brown haired, blue-eyed white guy and I've even been harrassed by cops -- instances where when I was a pedestrian, doing absolutely nothing wrong. Once, I was riding my bike home and "Didn't look right in the neighborhood." (Wearing a tie and slacks) - got held for about a half hour while they ran my ID. The other time, I got held for over an hour, about 20 feet in front of my house, because I was walking to get a newspaper without my ID. Being detained in front of your home, and not being allowed to just take the cops in your house to get the ID, in lieu of getting a runaround --- That's like text book case harrassment.

However, do you know how much illegal shit I've done in front of cops while filming? Blocking traffic, running through traffic, filming without permits, putting up illegal blockades to close sidewalks, etc, etc.... They leave you alone when you have cameras, and tend to just stop and watch what you're doing. I even once had a police man put on his lights for me, so I could get the colored lights reflecting off the buildings!!!! It's just strange for me -- interacting with the police under these two vastly difference scenarios.

I like cameras, but I"m not 100% sold that the ACLU will be giving them to the right people, or if this plan will work totally work the way they want it too. However, from experience, whether it be drunks on the streets of Ybor City, or police officers with nothing better to do --- video cameras make people behave.

Well, everyone except college girls....

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Totally agree. I was just proposing one scenario.

Well, almost totally agree - It seems like whenever cameras are involved, the cops end up being guilty. Maybe it's just what gets reported, but I can think of examples all day long where the cop's screwed up, but not as many where they were let off.

In Tampa, off the top of my head, I can think of several cases where cameras were bad news for BAD COPS (good police officers are cool!) - One instance where they maced a 4 year old girl at a parade, a two seperate cases where the polices own cameras captured wrong-doing (once from the car's camera, once from holding cell cameras) -- There was even a case in Fort Myeres were these two jackasses sexually molested some guy with a night stick - right in front of the police station's cameras. Then you have the gang-styl beating from New Orleans last year.

I can't see filming of the cops doing any real harm in the big scheme of things. They are already filming us in most major metropolitian cities, and everytime we get pulled over for doing 55 in a 54. This seems only fair to me - a level playing field.

Sure, it's not cool for everyone to need and walk on egg shells, but hell man - they have been doing it to us for years. I'm a brown haired, blue-eyed white guy and I've even been harrassed by cops -- instances where when I was a pedestrian, doing absolutely nothing wrong. Once, I was riding my bike home and "Didn't look right in the neighborhood." (Wearing a tie and slacks) - got held for about a half hour while they ran my ID. The other time, I got held for over an hour, about 20 feet in front of my house, because I was walking to get a newspaper without my ID. Being detained in front of your home, and not being allowed to just take the cops in your house to get the ID, in lieu of getting a runaround --- That's like text book case harrassment.

However, do you know how much illegal shit I've done in front of cops while filming? Blocking traffic, running through traffic, filming without permits, putting up illegal blockades to close sidewalks, etc, etc.... They leave you alone when you have cameras, and tend to just stop and watch what you're doing. I even once had a police man put on his lights for me, so I could get the colored lights reflecting off the buildings!!!! It's just strange for me -- interacting with the police under these two vastly difference scenarios.

I like cameras, but I"m not 100% sold that the ACLU will be giving them to the right people, or if this plan will work totally work the way they want it too. However, from experience, whether it be drunks on the streets of Ybor City, or police officers with nothing better to do --- video cameras make people behave.

Well, everyone except college girls....

Well the only reason why a video-taped arrest would make the news is because it looks like the cops used excessive force. You can see a myriad of footage on shows like "Wild Police Videos" and the like, although I am aware that they wouldn't show cops using unnecessary force on such a pro-cop show. As far as your personal experiances go that does suck, but what are you gonna do, some cops are dicks some aren't. I just can't stand the ACLU.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
As far as your personal experiances go that does suck, but what are you gonna do, some cops are dicks some aren't. I just can't stand the ACLU.


Well, the way I see it, you have cops, and you have police officers. Cops are cops, but police officers are to be respected. This goes back to a mind-set of the 40s and 50s that it is rude to call a policeman a "cop".

And forget the ACLU - I just don't like lawyers in general. Everytime I'm ripping the child proof hardware off a lighter, I'm cursing a lawyer in my head. Everytime I'm told I can't bring my camera somewhere because of liability issues, I'm cursing a lawyer. And when I'm throwing out the multiple, duplicate sets of warnings, instructions, insets, and all the paperwork that comes with safety items - You got it!

[JohnTheHenchman]

I don't agree with any sort of filming in general. I live in a pretty small town and recently we spotted a camera atop a traffic light.

Ugh.

[BubbaStrangelove]

If you are talking about the cameras that flash a picture if you run a red light -- Those things are pretty shitty, IMO. They are very fallable. Basically if its sensor detects you going through the light when its red, they snap a picture, and a while later you get a ticket in your mailbox. The idiocy of them was revealed in the twin cities a few months back when someone had to fight something like 30 traffic tickets all given within a few minutes of one another. The cause: their car stalled out in an intersection, and the camera just kept snapping pictures of their license. .

I don't mind the cameras they have monitoring the sidewalks - to film muggings and the sort --- Those have been used for a lot of good in catching vandals, muggers, and drug dealers. Those are mostly just used for investigation purposes, which I think should be the sole function of any surveilance.

However, back in Tampa, they installed software that takes a picture of everyone passing by, and matches features against a "known suspect" database. The result: Lots of people detained for looking similar to another human, via a computer program. Some people were positive about it, while most were just pissed off.

In short, I think computer guided surveilance should be used to solve crimes, not to detect potential crimes - in general. There are exceptions like video cameras that are manned by someone at a monitor -- real humans who can tell the difference between a criminal and polygons.