DescentBB

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ferg ... nd_looting

That night, police used smoke bombs, flash grenades, rubber bullets, and tear gas to disperse the crowd. Video footage of the events recorded by KARG Argus Radio shows Ferguson Police firing tear gas into a residential neighborhood and ordering the journalist to cease recording.

Not the first time we've heard this phrase...

I've never really understood it. What is the motivation for this request/order?
What goes through a cop's head when he orders people to stop recording and put away their cameras?

It seems so non-sequitur to me, the cop may as well be telling you to take off your shoes, or order you to do a handstand. Why a concern over specifically cameras?
I mean - obviously it looks bad for the cop - coz what's he got to hide eh? what's he gonna do that he doesn't want to be recorded? It seems very damning, i can't think of any legit reason for a cop to tell someone to stop recording - other than because the cop is doing something they shouldn't and wants to abuse their power to prevent/destroy any video evidence. What other reason is there?
And given this lack of legit reasons, i can't understand why any cop would ever dare to say those words: 'stop recording'. Those words should be said as much as 'i'm giving you a police order to suck my dick', ie: never.

right?

so yeah, what's the go with cops and cameras

You seem to have answered your own question…

But a cop might say, when the reporters stop recording it sends a signal that everything is over, and it’s time to go home.

You do understand media coverage is the main reason people have come from all over the country to “protest”.

The cops said out of all the people arrested only a handful were locals.

So yea, as a cop…I might resent some of the things that help ferment the unrest.

note the "Not the first time we've heard this phrase..." bit. I'm not really talking about this specific instance (could get a bit complex), i'm instead wondering how it's ever been a thing.

In our liberal democracies, sustained and more-or-less kept on the straight-&-narrow by our wonderful media freedoms, I don't understand why cops can even say "stop recording". Why isn't it illegal? Why isn't it already illegal? What possible purpose is there.

So yea, as a cop…I might resent some of the things that help ferment the unrest.

heh. Well as a cop you can go ★■◆● yourself, n'est-ce pas? You're a cop, not a king regent.
A cop shouldn't be abusing their power, telling people to do whatever just coz of their mere WHIMS. No, i don't think that's what going on, it can't be, surely. It would make policing completely unsustainable as an integral part of society, it wouldn't last long at all. Society would fall apart if it couldn't trust it's cops. If cops had the power to say "i don't want to this be recorded", i really can't see how society can function, the implications are just too big. You understand what i mean yes? Crooked cops, croney cops, outright facism. The slope isn't even slippery. As far as "next steps" go: even the most arthritic-hipped grandmother around could reach this particular next-step.

There must be reason to their actions, something that holds up in a court of law. I just... have no idea what it could possibly be (it all seems outright daft to me). help

No need to scream. I was commenting on the example you gave right at the top of your post.

Why would it be illegal, police have a lot of power to control a situation, just the other night there was a disturbance on my block, the cops were telling people to get back in their houses, why isn’t this illegal? (why would watching be any different than recording)

If an officer considers something to be exacerbating the problem, they have a right to act on it.

Look, you asked a question, and I gave you an answer based on the fact that cops are human, and have emotional responses just like the rest of us, and if they think the media is playing a roll in the violence….

I’m going to say this again…you already answered your own question, so what’s the point? You seem to already know the answer, but yet you ask the question.

Freedom of the press is not absolute, much like freedom of speech isn't absolute. A reporter cannot violate the law or disobey police in order to get a story or recording. Now there are cases where the police do not have that authority and the reporter can legally refuse the order. However if an officer has a reasonable belief that the reporter is making the situation worse, then even if they were sued later a court would almost certainly uphold that the order was legal. The officer's first duty is the safety of themselves and others, if a reporter/recording is going to significantly increase the hazards of the situation they can order them away.

So basically an officer can chase a reporter off or even arrest them if they feel the presence of a reporter is going to cause a hazardous situation to deteriorate. But they cannot order a reporter to stop because they are planning on doing something illegal or otherwise exceed the limits of their authority and don't want it on camera. Keep in mind that pretty much all squad cars are equipped with cameras which are recording for as long as the lights are on, so for the most part officers are recorded by default and know it.

I came across this a while back; it's the best compilation of rules regarding police and open recording that I've seen:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7 ... ng-police/

article wrote:The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.

However, all but 2 of these states—Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

Krom wrote:

So basically an officer can chase a reporter off or even arrest them if they feel the presence of a reporter is going to cause a hazardous situation to deteriorate.

So why don't they chase off race baiters like Rev Sharpton on grounds of inciting to riot?

In Russia, it is easier. You have the right to shoot at the camera people in public places, if you see evidence of an offense. Even the police in the performance of their duties, if you see that they are breaking the law. Mobile phone camera can shoot anyone at all, and how much you want. But of course, there is always the risk of getting in the face, if the person you are shooting, do not like it (NOT from the police. They are afraid of this like the plague)

woodchip wrote:So why don't they chase off race baiters like Rev Sharpton on grounds of inciting to riot?

Probably because there is a reasonable expectation that doing so would also incite a riot.

I'm divided about this. I've been voicing a lot of support for the police offices in particular the Sheriff's. An elected official with Constitutional authority. They are enforcers of the Law and if one gets passed by a legislator that doesn't fit the 'bill', the Sheriff has authority to un-enforce it. Not many that can make that claim. I think there are about 5000 of them in this country, so I feel pretty secure as long as the office of Sheriff holds that authority. Don't get me wrong, I do think they have become victim to "line-veto's....etc) and the like and I would love to see a reversal of that somehow. To get the police out from under the influence of legislators. Move that headship to the court maybe but even that poses more problems I think. So, in my opinion, police that abuse power are of the worst sort. They undermine the very authority they possess by circumventing and disrespecting it. Only thing I think that could be done to improve that is to make the local police chiefs an elected office too, but somebody got there before me! So, to sum it up. I think with things kept in proper perspective, the People have no greater advocate than the Sheriff. The problem is voting in scum and then not voting them back out and the fact that politicians have steered that office under submission by being in control of budgets.....etc. I remember the Sheriff's around here were legendary. I imagine the reason they are not now is because of those abuses we were talking about and they undermining themselves out of a job.

woodchip wrote:

Krom wrote:

So basically an officer can chase a reporter off or even arrest them if they feel the presence of a reporter is going to cause a hazardous situation to deteriorate.

So why don't they chase off race baiters like Rev Sharpton on grounds of inciting to riot?

then the militarized riot cops should be arresting eachother/themselves

the answer is simple.

Cops lie.

But they can't lie when the evidence is against them.

Spidey wrote:The cops said out of all the people arrested only a handful were locals.

This comment was actually shown to be false; most of the people arrested at the protest were locals.

Top Gun wrote:

Spidey wrote:The cops said out of all the people arrested only a handful were locals.

This comment was actually shown to be false; most of the people arrested at the protest were locals.

Where is the evidence that was shown to be false? Numerous media outlets have been consistently reporting the out of town agitators arrested are out numbering locals by a ratio of around 4:1 ...20:1 on one night...

I do believe the cops were defining “locals” as Ferguson residents, and I have seen conflicting reports stating most were from “Missouri”.

So yes, I guess it depends on the definition of “local”.

Why not create a new "Autonomous Republic of Blacks" (ARB) in the southern United States? In this autonomous province negros will set their own laws on the basis of their behaviors, ethnic, moral and cultural values​​. Give Blacks complete freedom! Needless to say, negros will not be able to scream racism every time they steal from the store in the rest of the United States. Because of Negro criminals will simply be deported back home to their "Autonomous Republic of Blacks." The very concept of racism to disappear in the United States in this case. If the Negro wants to live and work in the United States, be kind to comply with the laws of the United States. If not, go back to your "Autonomous Republic of of Blacks". In my opinion, it would be fair.

Kinda like your Gulags eh sigma.

woodchip wrote:Kinda like your Gulags eh sigma.

I am once again amazed at how Americans like to use words that they had seen in the American press, and thoughtfully to talk about Russia, but at the same time, you do not even bother to read at least one line of "The Gulag Archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn...

Aw sigma, you're kinda cute when your true ignorance shines through. You might be surprised what American colleges require you to read. Not only Gulag Archipelago, but the Brothers Karamazov I've read (though it was 40 years ago that I did read them). Do try and troll less as you keep embarrassing yourself.

Sigma is trying to imply Russia doesn’t have Gulags anymore.

But Woody’s point is still valid, even if it refers to something in the past. As in....the mindset still persists.

woodchip wrote:Aw sigma, you're kinda cute when your true ignorance shines through. You might be surprised what American colleges require you to read. Not only Gulag Archipelago, but the Brothers Karamazov I've read (though it was 40 years ago that I did read them). Do try and troll less as you keep embarrassing yourself.

You mean the brochures, where the "War and Peace" fit on 10 pages? Therefore, it is clear that you do not see the difference between the autonomous republic and the Gulag.

Ferno wrote:the answer is simple.

Cops lie.

But they can't lie when the evidence is against them.

Lawbreakers lie too. That's why the idea of cops wearing personal cameras during interactions with the public is gaining traction amongst police agencies.

sigma wrote:

woodchip wrote:Aw sigma, you're kinda cute when your true ignorance shines through. You might be surprised what American colleges require you to read. Not only Gulag Archipelago, but the Brothers Karamazov I've read (though it was 40 years ago that I did read them). Do try and troll less as you keep embarrassing yourself.

You mean the brochures, where the "War and Peace" fit on 10 pages? Therefore, it is clear that you do not see the difference between the autonomous republic and the Gulag.

Just because your approved govt. version of the books only allows you a 10 page condensed version, don't think that applies in America or the rest of the world.

woodchip wrote:

sigma wrote:

woodchip wrote:Aw sigma, you're kinda cute when your true ignorance shines through. You might be surprised what American colleges require you to read. Not only Gulag Archipelago, but the Brothers Karamazov I've read (though it was 40 years ago that I did read them). Do try and troll less as you keep embarrassing yourself.

You mean the brochures, where the "War and Peace" fit on 10 pages? Therefore, it is clear that you do not see the difference between the autonomous republic and the Gulag.

Just because your approved govt. version of the books only allows you a 10 page condensed version, don't think that applies in America or the rest of the world.

sigma wrote:

Indeed

Indeed, you understand yourself, what you wrote in your previous post?

I understand but I wonder if you do.

Krom wrote:Freedom of the press is not absolute, much like freedom of speech isn't absolute. A reporter cannot violate the law or disobey police in order to get a story or recording. Now there are cases where the police do not have that authority and the reporter can legally refuse the order.

Ok, so you refuse.
What does your hypothetical cop do now, walk away?

Krom (cont...) wrote:...However if an officer has a reasonable belief that the reporter is making the situation worse, then even if they were sued later a court would almost certainly uphold that the order was legal. The officer's first duty is the safety of themselves and others, if a reporter/recording is going to significantly increase the hazards of the situation they can order them away.

So basically an officer can chase a reporter off or even arrest them if they feel the presence of a reporter is going to cause a hazardous situation to deteriorate. But they cannot order a reporter to stop because they are planning on doing something illegal or otherwise exceed the limits of their authority and don't want it on camera. Keep in mind that pretty much all squad cars are equipped with cameras which are recording for as long as the lights are on, so for the most part officers are recorded by default and know it.

To me, this sounds a lot like: "Stop recording, it's politically harmful to the Status Quo".
"We've been repressing you for generations, please remain peaceful so that this may continue."
"We murdered your friend in cold blood, please stop shouting about it, there is no need to be upset."
"We will continue to murder you and get away with it, it is nice and peaceful, please remain calm."
"Society remains peaceful by your continued apathetic response to the cold blooded murder of your friends".
"If you have a problem with this, then you are a problem to society, and i will arrest and/or possibly murder you".
"Remain calm. Stop resisting. Please stand still while i shoot you, stray bullets inflate our budget".
"Stop recording. People learning about our continued cold blooded murders, is really inflaming the situation. It makes people complain more and more! It's terrible"

When cops are murdering people without recompense, i'm not sure there's any valid response which doesn't inflame that particular fucked-up situation. It sure sounds like a situation which needs to be inflamed, no? It doesn't sound like a situation that should remain as-is. That status quo better ★■◆●ing cycle out.

Foil wrote:I came across this a while back; it's the best compilation of rules regarding police and open recording that I've seen:

http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/05/7 ... ng-police/

article wrote:The law in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation.

However, all but 2 of these states—Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police.

i don't get this. Official actions from the state should have a transparent trail of officialism (generally paperwork) that can be traced. Can you imagine if a judge was like "ok i'm sentencing you to death, but lets just keep this case off the records"? Judicial Transparency is what separates capital punishment from murder, separates incarceration from slavery, and separates COPS from GOONS.

If a cop wants to perform an official action, but leave no evidence trail? WTF! How do you even know the cop is performing an official action?! What way would you have to back-check such a thing? What is stopping cops from doing whatever they ★■◆●ing want with no recompense?

If a situation can be inflamed merely by A CAMERA SHOWING WHAT'S GOING ON TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD, then that situation is unsustainable, and should be allowed to die. There should be no such laws propping up such a corrupt system which can't even survive the illuminating gaze of a camera.

Well Roid, I think you've asked some complicated questions which are not as simply answered as you imply, because you like to see the world through your favored lense, which itself leaves details out. Suffice to say, that to offer oneself up on the alter of good-faith and understanding in a world of misunderstanding and self-interest is a fools errand, and it does not come naturally to anyone, police included. What I'm suggesting is that police are not the only ones at fault, and if they are supposed to hold to a higher standard than the average citizen (you), then I would like to know what the motivation should be. In this world, truth and justice will always be a struggle, and it could never be the norm for very long because it comes at a hefty price which is well beyond what most would even value it at in their struggle to get the most for themselves at the least cost. Truth and justice is also a double-edged sword, which most people will ultimately relinquish to spare themselves.

the Sarge makes some very valid points! Anytime one looks for quick, easy answers, one is likely to be disappointed.

roid wrote:There should be no such laws propping up such a corrupt system which can't even survive the illuminating gaze of a camera.

I'm not sure I follow. Per the article we both quoted, 48 of the 50 U.S. states do allow citizens to openly record police actions.

So are you referring to the two states (Massachusetts & Illinois) that don't? Or am I missing something?

So it's a fun day when a Cracked article liberally-sprinkled with videos of people farting happens to be an amazingly-comprehensive summary of everything that's shitty about the Ferguson situation. Seriously, ★■◆● these police, and any others out there who act like them.

aww he deleted my post.

Some people need a reality check and they need to learn the difference between honesty and cruelty. They tell me to get some skin and then when I do, I find out I'm surrounded by people who act like children.