Cops on Camera - Cato Institute

[DHolder]

I dont like the double standard of the police being able to use their in car cameras, as well as their cell phones to record the moment. The thing is, that they can start recording after they have already violated your rights. Dont try to tell me this stuff dosent happen, it happend to me. I assure you, if I cannot record my time with law enforcement to cover my butt, we arent talking. Dont think for one minute that a LEO wont use what you say against you, and dont be surprised if they twist what you said to suit themselfs. Thats why they dont want you to record what happens. This type of double standards makes my blood boil.

 

[MinuteMan47]

From the picture I'm curious... What "cops" wear only black t-shirts and have no badges?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So would you work under those conditions?

Let's see. Who all works under the bright lights of a rolling camera?

Bankers, Walmart employees, most retail department, food, gas stations. Work in a warehouse or factory? Yeah, you too.

It's not the camera. It's the behavior it captures.

 

[BigMatt]

I dont like the double standard of the police being able to use their in car cameras, as well as their cell phones to record the moment.

That's a good point. Why can the police record the incident and we can't?

I think that cameras protect everyone who is doing right and is proof against anyone doing wrong (for the most part) whether it is the cops or the "offender".

 

[rush176]

I just curious. Is it actually against the law to take video of a cop in public? If not what are the cops yelling at the camera for? So long as the camera person stays out of their way and doesn't do something unsafe how is this different from the paparazzi claiming some first amendment right to take pics of celebs when they are in public? Last I checked if someone wants to take pics at a public event or on the public street there is nothing to stop them.

 

[Fletch]

I just curious. Is it actually against the law to take video of a cop in public? If not what are the cops yelling at the camera for? So long as the camera person stays out of their way and doesn't do something unsafe how is this different from the paparazzi claiming some first amendment right to take pics of celebs when they are in public? Last I checked if someone wants to take pics at a public event or on the public street there is nothing to stop them.

If you dig into the issue, cops in certain states are twisting wiretap laws to cover video taping without consent. It's a specious argument at best, but they've successfully managed to steamroll the issue and the citizenry by tying it up in the courts.

 

[rush176]

If you dig into the issue, cops in certain states are twisting wiretap laws to cover video taping without consent. It's a specious argument at best, but they've successfully managed to steamroll the issue and the citizenry by tying it up in the courts.

Is that true in Indiana? Wiretap laws (without a court order)only apply if both parties don't know of they are being recorded. Obviously the cops know they are being recorded since you are pointing a camera at them. Does this "specious" argument allow them to arrest you?

 

[TopDog]

I have friends that are police officers, not one of them wants to be recorded. Not because they are bad cops that would be violating peoples rights but because they don't want bits of clips being used against them unfairly.

I however think they should be recorded all the time. It would be beneficial for them providing good evidence for them as long as they are doing their jobs properly.

I have had one encounter where a cop abused his position and threatened me, if I had recorded what he said and did and then pushed the issue he would have been in much trouble. Its tuff enough to even get a cop to show up in my neighborhood without giving them more reasons not to respond. That encounter I had made me think the cop was having a really bad day because his actions didn't even make sense, I just let it go. The majority of cops are good people doing a very tuff job. I always give the cop the benefit of the doubt. Also make no mistake there are some bad cops out there, more than you might think.

If you really want to get a feel for what is going on. Request a ride along. You might think you know what cops put up with but you don't really know until you see it first hand. I know the ride alongs I have been on have opened my eyes. To say they put up with more than I could deal with really just does not cover it. However I still think recordings would help them more than hurt them. But then I'm not a cop am I? just an observer.

 

[BigMatt]

I think wiretap laws apply more because the people have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone or in private. If you record a privte party's conversation in public, I don't think they apply at all. You can record anyone, anytime in public, with or without their knowledge.

Is that true in Indiana? Wiretap laws (without a court order)only apply if both parties don't know of they are being recorded. Obviously the cops know they are being recorded since you are pointing a camera at them. Does this "specious" argument allow them to arrest you?

 

[Disposable Heart]

I have friends that are police officers, not one of them wants to be recorded. Not because they are bad cops that would be violating peoples rights but because they don't want bits of clips being used against them unfairly.

That's the consensus amoung the cops I know. Sort of like the USDA woman (can't remember her name) having all hell break loose because some blogger took one clip and ran with it.

Same with the OP pic: We dont know what is going on. The cop in front could be asking them to back up, not necessarily give me the camera. Of couse, the writers will try to run things their way and given the one frame of picture we see, that can be the case. Not saying one way or another, but still, a reference to keep in mind when seeing things like the picture or even the Rodney King smackdown (we only saw a singular viewpoint taken past the point of where the scuffle began).

 

[rambone]

I won't defend cops who deliberately make bad decisions, but in this video-oriented, sound-byte society where we've forgotten that everyone (not just the bad guys) is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", bits of these videos, when published on the web instead of being used as evidence in a trial, serve to tell a slice of the story, not necessarily the totality of the story, and we tend to make judgments based on the "slice" of reality rather than the whole.

You are right... we are making judgments based on a slice of the evidence. The jury will see all the evidence, and their judgment is what matters.

I don't see how extra video evidence entering the courtroom could be harmful to an innocent person's case.

I also don't understand why people get sooo worried about who is making personal opinions about someone's guilt based on a news article. Who cares? The "Court of Public Opinion" doesn't put a man in jail.

 

[Duncan]

How many of you guys would enjoy having someone figuratively "looking over your shoulder" every minute of your working day and second-guessing every decision you had to make.

I won't defend cops who deliberately make bad decisions, but in this video-oriented, sound-byte society where we've forgotten that everyone (not just the bad guys) is "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", bits of these videos, when published on the web instead of being used as evidence in a trial, serve to tell a slice of the story, not necessarily the totality of the story, and we tend to make judgments based on the "slice" of reality rather than the whole.

When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.

THOMAS JEFFERSON, attributed, The Quotable Founding Fathers