Photographing the police

I’m all for beating the government up about things they have done, but the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 has one of its purposes listed as “to provide for the freezing of assets”, which is separate from the anti-terror purposes. They weren’t branding the Icelandic banks as terrorist organisations. More at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism,_Crime_and_Security_Act_2001#Usage_against_Iceland

“They weren’t branding the Icelandic banks as terrorist organisations.”, but they were using provisions of the “Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001”. Right, weasel out on technicalities and prove my point at the same time.

Pete: the phrase ‘throw it out as evidence’ implies a trial. There ain’t gonna be any trial – policemen who kill people are not tried in this country.There will not even be any disciplinary process – the policemen will be found not to be identifiable.

There will not even be any disciplinary process – the policemen will be found not to be identifiable.

This is hardly always the case – uk police officers get sacked for various types of misbehaviour on a fairly regular basis. 44 in 4 years for NI (excluding junior/probationary officers) and plenty of examples from other forces (couldn’t easily find any stats though) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry Chris, I am not sure how I missed your link in the post…

Of course, in reality the police will seize film first and then act later.

“Sorry sir – but your camera fell down the stairs and repeatedly jumped into a cup of coffee”

These violent by Police problems become a major issues in my country Indonesia lately.
The violent act happened not only by a police to a society, but also happened among themselves.
Best Regard

Some people have said it’s not about photographing police as such , but only when it involves the War on Terror. But that’s the problem. It should be clear now the War on Terror can be whatever governments want it to be.

As more and more of these events pile up, I increasingly think that ALL police should be videotaped at ALL times when on duty. Here in Canada the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are under fire for, essentially, murdering a Polish immigrant in the Vancouver airport. They tasered him to death and then began the usual cover-up. A recent inquiry found that the officers’ accounts of what happened are contradicted by a video taken by another passenger. Without that video, the RCMP would have skated by on its lies; unfortunately even with the video, we can expect little in the way of justice. I’m with deliasmith: the police usually do get away with murder.

When the misery of the crisis hits the streets for real the very same secretary will be so very quick to point out that with rioting going on in the streets ‘one unfortunately can’t but speak of a condition of terrorism’. Even worse: if delivered with good propagandist timing he’ll be able to get thousands of votes out of it. The only chance we have is to go and raise hell about it now because by the time it is too late it will be too late.

Coincidentally someone taking photos of a police officer carrying secret documents in open view has forced the police to arrest 10 people today. I would imagine this is going to botch up quite a few cases involved having to move so pre-emptively (wouldn’t be surprised if most or even all of the 10 arrested have to be let go, whether or not they really are guilty of anything). Doesn’t really relate to this law I guess (except in the most paranoid versions), but was a weird bit of synchronicity I thought.

I find the vast varieties interpretation possible for the phrase “responsible journalism” especially chilling. It dose not likely mean simply having a press pass, not that it would take the edge off much if it did.

From the Act:
(1) A person commits an offence who— elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been— (i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces, (ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or (iii) a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

It could be argued any evidence of police brutality or misconduct is automatically “likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism,” because its dissemination may weaken popular support for the state and is therefore useful in propaganda.

So, I think any attempt to use this law to cover up police brutality would hinge on the interpretation of “reasonable excuse” — but frankly, it seems reasonable to suppose that Chris is right, as “reasonable excuse” ought to be broad enough to justify photographs of police that either are incidental (as Eszter mentioned) or are documenting an event (as in the case of police misconduct).

Coincidentally, in Philadelphia just now there’s video-related controversy over a police raid on a convenience store. The police stormed in on an apparent pretext and cut the wires to all eight of the store’s security cameras (as, in fact, the cameras recorded them doing). They hauled the owner away, and then the officers allegedly robbed the place of $10,000 in cash, cigarettes, and snacks.

Such stories are legion:

Charges dropped against CT priest who taped police
By DAVE COLLINS

HARTFORD, Conn. Connecticut prosecutors on Thursday dropped charges against a Roman Catholic priest who was arrested while videotaping East Haven police officers in an attempt to document alleged harassment of Hispanics.

Parishioners of the Rev. James Manship’s church also announced Thursday that they filed a complaint with the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division seeking an investigation of East Haven police for alleged brutality and racial profiling of Hispanics.

Hugh Keefe, a lawyer for the police department, declined to comment on Thursday’s events. He said he wanted to see the complaint first.

Earlier this month, Keefe accused Manship of “creating a controversy where none needed to be,” and he said there never had been a formal complaint accusing town officers of harassing Hispanics. If a complaint was brought forward, he said, town officials would look into it and take it seriously.

Manship, pastor at St. Rose of Lima Church in New Haven, was charged Feb. 19 with disorderly conduct and interfering with police. He was videotaping two officers who were removing what they called illegal license plates from a wall of a food store owned by a Hispanic couple, who said the plates were for decoration.

The officers said in their reports that Manship was holding an “unknown shiny silver object” and struggled with one of the officers who tried to take it from him.

But a 15-second video released by Manship’s attorneys earlier this month shows one of the officers, before the arrest, asking the pastor, “Is there a reason you have a camera on me?” Manship denied struggling with police. The video goes blank just as Officer David Cari approaches Manship.

Or this:

South Florida model jailed overnight for videotaping police officers
March 6th, 2009

Update: Charges dropped against South Florida model arrested for filming cops.

Update II: After hurdles and barricades, police say they will now return camera to model.

By Carlos Miller
A South Florida woman was thrown in jail overnight and charged with an “eavesdropping” felony after she videotaped police officers with their knowledge in a movie theater parking lot Saturday night.

Although a judge dropped the felony charge against her the following morning, leaving her with a misdemeanor resisting arrest without violence charge, Boynton Beach Police have yet to return her camera, insisting that they still need it for “evidence.”

Adding insult to injury, she believes one of the arresting officers sent her an email bordering on sexual harassment, if not surpassing it, insinuating that she had lesbian sex with other inmates during her incarceration.

[snip]

But the officers seemed mainly concerned about the camera.

“They said ‘you can’t record people without letting them know’,” she said.

“So I said, ‘Ok, Tasha Ford is recording you’ and I continued filming them.

“I was filming them for my own protection,” said the mother of two who recently moved to South Florida from Washington DC. “I’ve seen the way cops interact with civilians down here.”

She said one of the officers, Robert Kellman, pictured right, was extremely antagonistic towards her and told her son, “since your mother is such a fucking asshole, I’m going to arrest you for trespassing’.”

or this in my part of the country:

Missouri: Police Threaten, Detain Motorist for Parking After Hours
A St. George, Missouri police officer is caught on tape threatening to invent charges to arrest a motorist for parking after hours.

Brett Darrow videoA motorist who refused to discuss his personal business with a St. George, Missouri police officer was threatened with arrest last Friday. Brett Darrow, 20, no stranger to unconventional encounters with police, caught a St. George Police Sergeant James Kuehnlein stating that he had the power to invent charges that would put Darrow behind bars. Update: Sergeant Kuehnlein was placed on unpaid leave Monday pending an investigation.

“Try and talk back… to me again,” yelled Sergeant Kuehnlein. “I bet I could say you resisted arrest or something. You want to come up with something? I come up with nine things.”

The incident began at around 2am. Darrow was to meet a friend who was working late and was going to pick him up. Darrow headed toward a 24-hour commuter parking lot in an unincorporated part of Saint Louis County in his 1997 Nissan Maxima. He put on his turn signal and entered the lot which, aside from Kuehnlein’s cruiser, was essentially vacant. After stopping the car, the police officer approached and began questioning Darrow about what he was doing. When Darrow declined to discuss his personal business, the police sergeant exploded. Although the video clearly shows Darrow driving properly and using his turn signal, the police officer insisted that Darrow had broken the law.

“Oh, while you were coming towards me you were swerving back and forth within the roadway,” Sergeant Kuehnlein said. “I might give you a ticket for that. You want me to come up with some more? When you turned in, you failed to use your turn signal, your right turn signal.”

Without the video, Darrow tells TheNewspaper that he would have stood no chance disproving the officer’s word in court. Twenty-eight percent of the St. George municipal budget comes from traffic citations. Darrow wonders how many of the tickets were legitimate.

“Looking into this guys eyes, he was crazy,” Darrow said. “I was really scared he was going to assault me. I just wonder how many other people have been arrested on these charges.”

After ordering Darrow against the car and searching him, Sergeant Kuehnlein released the motorist. Update: Website used by Saint Louis police contained threats of harassment and bodily harm against Darrow in June.

View video of incident below. Warning: Police officer uses graphic language.

The police of course were ashamed of this incident. Well, maybe not:

In the course of researching the incident, TheNewspaper learned from an inside source about a CopTalk posting dated June 29, 2007. A user calling himself “STL_FINEST” wrote the following item, presented unedited and in full:

in reply to “Who is this terd?”
I hope this little POS punk bastard tries his little video stunt with me when I pull him over alone- and I WILL pull him over – because I will see “his gun” and place a hunk of hot lead right where it belongs.

My apologies for the length of excerpted quotes. These stories have a personal significance for me because many years ago I was rather sympathetic to libertarianism. But unlike today’s flavor, back then in the mid-70’s this was the sort of issue that libertarians in my general circle of acquaintances considered important.

And I take it you have some useful contribution?