Tweet
It seems like this incident happened a while back, but for some reason it's just now hitting Fark, the wire services, etc.
The YouTube link is here. It's only about three and a half minutes but well worth the watching. Frankly this footage makes my stomach turn. (That's no disrespect to our community members with ties to law enforcement, i recognize how hard it can be on the Job and how often these sorts of incidents are people captured on camera on a particularly bad day.) The fact that this is just some poor little kid is what really gets me. I wasn't a little angel when i was 13 or 14, but if a humongous dude tackled me, started yelling in my face, and made veiled threats on my life, there's a chance i would have had a hard time holding back tears... particularly if they were sporting a badge.
My topic here is this... how do you feel about the role technology plays in monitoring authority figures and protecting citizens' rights? I have some specific questions, too...
1. What do you feel that people's rights should be concerning the recording of authority figures in the performance of their duties? Do you feel there are any boundaries? Under what conditions, circumstances, etc. do you think that recording should not be allowed?
2. How would you react if an authority figure attempted to get you to stop making a recording? Keep in mind, that the hardest part is often walking the line between still documenting vs. getting someone so amped up on a power trip that they confiscate/destroy your camera.
3. If you could wave a magic wand and adjust the laws concerning the recording of law enforcement or other authority figures, what policies would you have put in place?
As per usual, i'll insert my own "ideal world" notions here..
1. I believe the recording of authority figures in the performance of their duties is an essential right of the populace in a modern, free society. I think it is a check on the power of the few and often the only safeguard and tool for the redress of wrongs. There once was a time that someone's testimony against another (even if that other party was an officer, etc) was enough to raise a flag. Now, sadly, most authority figures are given total assumption of accuracy in their statements in court and the justice system is too bogged down to take citizen complaints seriously unless loss of life or major injury happens. Multimedia audio/video recording takes all ambiguity and emotion out of the process. It provides for a near-perfect, indisputable record of happenings and eliminates assertions of bias or faulty recollection later.
The only time I feel that the recording of law enforcement, or other authority figures should be disallowed is when the mere act of recording creates a real and clearly defined public safety interest. Namely, if you are blocking traffic or the ease of movement of people (stopping your car on a street to film out a window, standing in the middle of a sidewalk and not moving) or if you are documenting something with security repercussions (filming at the passport control area of airports is illegal, as well as most places like jails or courthouses. i understand the former more than the latter but accept all these considerations more or less overall)
I feel that citizens should have total permission to film anyone if they are standing in public and not interfering with a situation. If a crowd is told to disperse from somewhere (say, a picket line or a political march is being broken up for failure to have proper permits) I would believe that a person who stands off to the side, or in a doorway, etc. and is filming should be given additional consideration and leeway. If they are not speaking to passers-by or the officers and not attempting to interfere they shouldn't be met with the customary screams of "you, too! turn that fucking camera off and get moving!!"
2. I would react in one of two ways... if i had reasonable belief that the officer wouldn't make a grab for my gear (or if they didn't know they were being recorded) I would keep documenting as much as possible and be as respectful as possible. If i had a fear of being illegally searched and having equipment seized I would likely try to slip the camera into a pocket or bag immediately (but letting it keep rolling) so as to at least have an audio record of the rest of the proceedings. The individual may still attempt to rifle through my belongings and take my possessions, but that crosses a clear line. They can't make the argument as easily that you voluntarily handed them the camera, etc.
3. I hold in my heart a dream that two policies would be mandated either by every state or set as a federal standard...
law one: clear identification - when in regular uniform or especially when in riot gear (which obscures faces, etc) i wish that police were required to have their badge numbers prominently appear on their clothing. i have seen more officers than I can count who place gaffer's tape or other obscuring items over top of their badges and ID name plates when they are out in the streets (this is most commonly seen during protests, marches, strikes, etc)
i would like to see police riot uniforms actually look like goddamn sports jerseys with the officers' badge numbers appearing on each shoulder and in LARGE print across their backs.
failure to equip a department with such uniforms should result in fines upon a community and any officer caught in their uniform at any time with their name or identifying numbers intentionally obscured should face mandatory suspension without pay on a penalty scale that increases per offense.
law two: interfering with the press - I believe that authority figures should be brought up on administrative charges if evidence exists that they improperly harassed either official press or private citizens attempting to document their work in any way. Giving orders to disperse without cause, repeatedly telling a person to "back up" from a scene without specifying the required safe distance, or confiscating someone's equipment or film should be treated with extreme harshness. Anytime film or recording equipment of any kind is confiscated a report should be mandatory and persons should be made to pay severely if the film winds up damaged or erased without explanation. I realize my views are very extreme here, but I would almost like to "interference with documentation" treated about on par with the use of non-lethal force... something that must always be written up in daily logs if it happens and something that can result in disciplinary action if it was done without legal reason.
Also, part of this second law would be an affirmative defense for private citizens against charges of "disturbing the peace" or "failure to comply with an officer's command" if the circumstances show that they were not interfering and making a recording of an authority figure in the performance of duties.
as i say, my views are extreme... and i recognize that. but i simply know so many people who have been beaten, harassed, abused, etc. etc. and in the process have had their cameras and such just smashed on the street right in front of them.
for every video that hits YouTube (casing the department's brass to issue a Mea Culpa and assign the person involved to desk duty with pay for a week) there are a dozen incidents that go unnoticed because no one had a camera rolling, or because they were discovered to be filming and were beaten more severely and had their recording destroyed.
UPDATE: my absolute dream of how authority figures should handle themselves can be seen in a famous internet video where a man goes absolutely berserk -- screaming and carrying on -- but the officer, who is totally secure in the knowledge that he has all the power and control of the situation, stays totally calm, collected, and professional. The officer doesn't budge and inch and even makes the man get out and pick up ripped pieces of one ticket (telling him that he'd be written up for littering otherwise) and lets the guy go on his way. I'd buy that officer a beer every day of the week and twice on sunday. He handles himself with total decorum and does not escalate the situation because he knows that it would be totally unnecessary to do so. The officer is going to get his way no matter what, and there is no reason to cause a larger incident just because someone is having a bad day.
Again, i recognize that i'll never know the pressures and demands of being on the job. If i had to deal with all the fuckheads that are out there in the general public on a day to day basis i'd likely need counseling. But, my position on the matter of how police should interact with those who record them remains.
UPDATE TWO: oh, forgot to mention... i feel that wiretapping laws should have no application at all when it comes to making audio recordings of authorities. as Bruce Schneier pointed out, the power imbalance between citizens and authority figures makes something appropriate in one direction but an abuse of power in the other.
A Baltimore police officer was suspended yesterday after a YouTube video surfaced on the Internet showing him berating and manhandling a teenage skateboarder at the Inner Harbor.
On the video, the officer, Salvatore Rivieri, puts the boy in a headlock, pushes him to the ground, questions his upbringing, threatens to "smack" him and repeatedly accuses the youngster of showing disrespect because the youth refers to the officer as "man" and "dude."
On the video, the officer, Salvatore Rivieri, puts the boy in a headlock, pushes him to the ground, questions his upbringing, threatens to "smack" him and repeatedly accuses the youngster of showing disrespect because the youth refers to the officer as "man" and "dude."
My topic here is this... how do you feel about the role technology plays in monitoring authority figures and protecting citizens' rights? I have some specific questions, too...
1. What do you feel that people's rights should be concerning the recording of authority figures in the performance of their duties? Do you feel there are any boundaries? Under what conditions, circumstances, etc. do you think that recording should not be allowed?
2. How would you react if an authority figure attempted to get you to stop making a recording? Keep in mind, that the hardest part is often walking the line between still documenting vs. getting someone so amped up on a power trip that they confiscate/destroy your camera.
3. If you could wave a magic wand and adjust the laws concerning the recording of law enforcement or other authority figures, what policies would you have put in place?
As per usual, i'll insert my own "ideal world" notions here..
1. I believe the recording of authority figures in the performance of their duties is an essential right of the populace in a modern, free society. I think it is a check on the power of the few and often the only safeguard and tool for the redress of wrongs. There once was a time that someone's testimony against another (even if that other party was an officer, etc) was enough to raise a flag. Now, sadly, most authority figures are given total assumption of accuracy in their statements in court and the justice system is too bogged down to take citizen complaints seriously unless loss of life or major injury happens. Multimedia audio/video recording takes all ambiguity and emotion out of the process. It provides for a near-perfect, indisputable record of happenings and eliminates assertions of bias or faulty recollection later.
The only time I feel that the recording of law enforcement, or other authority figures should be disallowed is when the mere act of recording creates a real and clearly defined public safety interest. Namely, if you are blocking traffic or the ease of movement of people (stopping your car on a street to film out a window, standing in the middle of a sidewalk and not moving) or if you are documenting something with security repercussions (filming at the passport control area of airports is illegal, as well as most places like jails or courthouses. i understand the former more than the latter but accept all these considerations more or less overall)
I feel that citizens should have total permission to film anyone if they are standing in public and not interfering with a situation. If a crowd is told to disperse from somewhere (say, a picket line or a political march is being broken up for failure to have proper permits) I would believe that a person who stands off to the side, or in a doorway, etc. and is filming should be given additional consideration and leeway. If they are not speaking to passers-by or the officers and not attempting to interfere they shouldn't be met with the customary screams of "you, too! turn that fucking camera off and get moving!!"
2. I would react in one of two ways... if i had reasonable belief that the officer wouldn't make a grab for my gear (or if they didn't know they were being recorded) I would keep documenting as much as possible and be as respectful as possible. If i had a fear of being illegally searched and having equipment seized I would likely try to slip the camera into a pocket or bag immediately (but letting it keep rolling) so as to at least have an audio record of the rest of the proceedings. The individual may still attempt to rifle through my belongings and take my possessions, but that crosses a clear line. They can't make the argument as easily that you voluntarily handed them the camera, etc.
3. I hold in my heart a dream that two policies would be mandated either by every state or set as a federal standard...
law one: clear identification - when in regular uniform or especially when in riot gear (which obscures faces, etc) i wish that police were required to have their badge numbers prominently appear on their clothing. i have seen more officers than I can count who place gaffer's tape or other obscuring items over top of their badges and ID name plates when they are out in the streets (this is most commonly seen during protests, marches, strikes, etc)
i would like to see police riot uniforms actually look like goddamn sports jerseys with the officers' badge numbers appearing on each shoulder and in LARGE print across their backs.
failure to equip a department with such uniforms should result in fines upon a community and any officer caught in their uniform at any time with their name or identifying numbers intentionally obscured should face mandatory suspension without pay on a penalty scale that increases per offense.
law two: interfering with the press - I believe that authority figures should be brought up on administrative charges if evidence exists that they improperly harassed either official press or private citizens attempting to document their work in any way. Giving orders to disperse without cause, repeatedly telling a person to "back up" from a scene without specifying the required safe distance, or confiscating someone's equipment or film should be treated with extreme harshness. Anytime film or recording equipment of any kind is confiscated a report should be mandatory and persons should be made to pay severely if the film winds up damaged or erased without explanation. I realize my views are very extreme here, but I would almost like to "interference with documentation" treated about on par with the use of non-lethal force... something that must always be written up in daily logs if it happens and something that can result in disciplinary action if it was done without legal reason.
Also, part of this second law would be an affirmative defense for private citizens against charges of "disturbing the peace" or "failure to comply with an officer's command" if the circumstances show that they were not interfering and making a recording of an authority figure in the performance of duties.
as i say, my views are extreme... and i recognize that. but i simply know so many people who have been beaten, harassed, abused, etc. etc. and in the process have had their cameras and such just smashed on the street right in front of them.
for every video that hits YouTube (casing the department's brass to issue a Mea Culpa and assign the person involved to desk duty with pay for a week) there are a dozen incidents that go unnoticed because no one had a camera rolling, or because they were discovered to be filming and were beaten more severely and had their recording destroyed.
UPDATE: my absolute dream of how authority figures should handle themselves can be seen in a famous internet video where a man goes absolutely berserk -- screaming and carrying on -- but the officer, who is totally secure in the knowledge that he has all the power and control of the situation, stays totally calm, collected, and professional. The officer doesn't budge and inch and even makes the man get out and pick up ripped pieces of one ticket (telling him that he'd be written up for littering otherwise) and lets the guy go on his way. I'd buy that officer a beer every day of the week and twice on sunday. He handles himself with total decorum and does not escalate the situation because he knows that it would be totally unnecessary to do so. The officer is going to get his way no matter what, and there is no reason to cause a larger incident just because someone is having a bad day.
Again, i recognize that i'll never know the pressures and demands of being on the job. If i had to deal with all the fuckheads that are out there in the general public on a day to day basis i'd likely need counseling. But, my position on the matter of how police should interact with those who record them remains.
UPDATE TWO: oh, forgot to mention... i feel that wiretapping laws should have no application at all when it comes to making audio recordings of authorities. as Bruce Schneier pointed out, the power imbalance between citizens and authority figures makes something appropriate in one direction but an abuse of power in the other.
Comment