• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

You have NO EXPECTATION of privacy on public property. NONE. You may not like it, but you don't have it. Especially at a protest held on a courtyard at a PUBLIC, GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED university. Thank you Founding Fathers.
 
Junebug said:
A cop would have every incentive not to do this, knowing that if the situation went south he'd be accused of steering it in that direction and avoiding creating a record. The cameras are for the cops' protection too, and for the protection of the department's funds in the event there is a lawsuit.

Department policy should be that every encounter with the public is captured on camera. If a cop turns his camera off during an encounter, he should be disciplined. Period.
Click to expand...

Agree totally. People tend to forget that the cities where body cams have been implemented have also seen a decrease in the number of complaints filed against officers while also adding credence to legitimate claims. The sword cuts both ways with body cams by adding increased accountability to both the police and citizens. In no scenario would a cop be incentivized to turn off a body camera if they are operating within the bounds of the law.
 
Junebug said:
A cop would have every incentive not to do this, knowing that if the situation went south he'd be accused of steering it in that direction and avoiding creating a record. The cameras are for the cops' protection too, and for the protection of the department's funds in the event there is a lawsuit.

Department policy should be that every encounter with the public is captured on camera. If a cop turns his camera off during an encounter, he should be disciplined. Period.
Click to expand...

Noble concept that would be disastrous if actually applied. No profession/job should be recorded all the time. It would be great, for instance, if all doctors were recorded to see if they commit medical malpractice (as opposed to relying on medical records prepared by the doctors after the fact). Similar for other professions. But, no one is fallible - even on a day-to-day basis. If you record everything a cop does, you are going to have extraordinary costs relating to litigation, hiring/firing, administrative leave, etc., that is going to cost way too much money and cause way more harm to the public than perhaps preventing isolated incidences of severe police misconduct.

I am fine with a default of having body cameras, and think that is a good idea. But, auto discipline if it is turned off during any encounter with the public is a gross overreach.
 
But if you don't have anything to hide, why hide?

I would like it if people recorded my interactions with patients. Half the time they ignore what I say and then act surprised when what they decided to do on their own didn't work.
 
BacktoBack said:
But if you don't have anything to hide, why hide?

I would like it if people recorded my interactions with patients. Half the time they ignore what I say and then act surprised when what they decided to do on their own didn't work.
Click to expand...

Sounds like me with my students.
 
Junebug said:
A cop would have every incentive not to do this, knowing that if the situation went south he'd be accused of steering it in that direction and avoiding creating a record. The cameras are for the cops' protection too, and for the protection of the department's funds in the event there is a lawsuit.

Department policy should be that every encounter with the public is captured on camera. If a cop turns his camera off during an encounter, he should be disciplined. Period.
Click to expand...

It's a good idea in theory but a terrible idea in practice. Police also need the trust of the community when investigating violent crimes in bad neighborhoods. I can think of a lot of situations in today's climate where witnesses wouldn't talk to police out of fear for their safety if the conversation were recorded. Taking away an officer's discretion to turn off the camera absolutely would have a chilling effect on people helping police. It's not hard to envision a situation where someone gives a cop a tip on solving a homicide, the defense attorney subpoenas the recording, and the tipster ends up dead. On the other hand, that might mean one less person in jail, amirite?

Edit to add: The suggestion that the officer should have discretion to turn off the camera but that there should be a presumption against the officer if things go south is a far better one.

RicoSuave said:
This was a First Amendment violation. A person in a position of authority whose compensation is paid by the State (the Professor at the end of the video) took action to prevent the news media from photographing newsworthy events occurring on public property. First Amendment rights aren't there to protect journalists; they're there to protect the public's right to know. The comments highlighted above imply that its OK to violate a fundamental right of the public as long as the media doesn't press the issue or fight back. I couldn't disagree more.
Click to expand...

It's a huge stretch to find government action from these facts. Are you suggesting the professor was exerting authority - not influence, authority - over the protesters to get them to act as he ordered?
 
For body cams, there's also the issue of victims who do not want to be recorded. The ACLU's model policy requires that police officers ask if people want them to turn off the camera when talking to a victim, entering a private residence, or talking to someone that wants to report something anonymously.
 
avalon said:
For body cams, there's also the issue of victims who do not want to be recorded. The ACLU's model policy requires that police officers ask if people want them to turn off the camera when talking to a victim, entering a private residence, or talking to someone that wants to report something anonymously.
Click to expand...

This post and Mike's point about anonymous reporting make sense to me as valid exceptions to the "camera on" policy. If the police are requested to turn the camera off, they should be permitted to do so without repercussion, and without any negative inference drawn, assuming the request was captured on camera.
 
the witness point is an interesting one. I think we can all agree that the cameras should be turned on at all traffic stops as well as any stop police are making pursuant to suspicion that the individual being questioned or stopped committed an offense. The latter would have some overlap with asking witnesses questions though I would imagine.
 
Junebug said:
This post and Mike's point about anonymous reporting make sense to me as valid exceptions to the "camera on" policy. If the police are requested to turn the camera off, they should be permitted to do so without repercussion, and without any negative inference drawn, assuming the request was captured on camera.
Click to expand...

Even that could arguably be discoverable material in a criminal trial. So, the criminals would still know who's talking to the police.

Wakeforest22890 said:
the witness point is an interesting one. I think we can all agree that the cameras should be turned on at all traffic stops as well as any stop police are making pursuant to suspicion that the individual being questioned or stopped committed an offense. The latter would have some overlap with asking witnesses questions though I would imagine.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and I don't think it would be too hard to craft a policy that allows officers to distinguish between talking to suspects and witnesses.
 
Not really. Though to be honest, I had heard about the conflict with the media before any video came out and saw some media acting whiney on Twitter overnight. So video of some of the students acting toolish to a photographer probably wasn't going to change my mind about the students' actions as a whole. I think the overall actions came from a place of empathy.
 
avalon said:
Not really. Though to be honest, I had heard about the conflict with the media before any video came out and saw some media acting whiney on Twitter overnight. So video of some of the students acting toolish to a photographer probably wasn't going to change my mind about the students' actions as a whole. I think the overall actions came from a place of empathy.
Click to expand...

I do think it is important to add to this that the photographer was in fact a student himself, and it wasn't students that were acting toolishly, but a member of staff (the lady from Greek Life). Click didn't act particularly professionally either. I didn't really have a problem with the behavior of any of the students.

I agree with your last bit.
 
I agree that it is important that he was a student, especially in the light of the actions of the faculty members / school employees. But he was also working for ESPN. (I have no idea what / if he was getting paid, though.)

The reporters whining in Twitter were grown-ass adults. I wonder if the reaction would have been different if it was and older person on film.

BTW, based solely on their Twitter feeds, I'm a fan of the photographer. The film-er seems pretty insufferable, though.
 
avalon said:
BTW, based solely on their Twitter feeds, I'm a fan of the photographer. The film-er seems pretty insufferable, though.
Click to expand...

I don't have the twitter, but the photographer seemed a stand-up guy in his response(s) to physical bullying and a barrage of verbal insults. The film dude seemed like kind of a dick, who was just wandering around sticking his camera in people's faces without saying a word.
 
wakephan09 said:
I assume you mean quite the opposite?


Avalon, have you changed your mind about the behavior of the protestors after watching the videos?
Click to expand...

Yes, typo. Good thing that my typing that wasn't videotaped. I'd of been fired on the spot.
 
MysteryMen said:
You just can't run far enough away from your original comments, huh? Tell me what was "liberal" about the protest at Mizzou other than the fact that they were protesting racism

Something beyond the fact that one of the people involved with it is a "liberal"
Click to expand...

I am not sure you are reading my posts to your question. I told you the professor is a liberal. The one that said I need some muscle. I do not know how else to help you on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top