Your Word Against Theirs
Or your video against their word? There's been a discussion on a blog item about whether suspects should be recorded in interrogations. (It turns out the FBI is only allowed...pen and paper to take down testimony...genius.) I think suspects should have the right to record themselves -- just in case they get interviewed by a bad apple, and so they can prove what was really said. Or what was done. For example:
The story -- "Busted by YouTube: Video seen by 2m proves police officer who claimed cyclist ran into him was LYING" -- in the Daily Mail:
A former police officer faces jail after an internet video exposed his bid to prosecute a cyling protester for allegedly running into him was a lie.Patrick Pogan claimed activist Christopher Long (steered) into him and knocked him down during a demonstration in New York.
But a YouTube video seen by two million people so far has exposed him as a liar.
The video shows Pogan walking over to the cyclist and shoving him to the ground instead.Mr Long was acquitted of assault charges and received a £40,000 payout from the city's police.
...Pogan said he told Mr Long to stop to get ticketed for such infractions as taking his hands off his handlebars.
But the cyclist kept going, and he testified he never heard any instruction to stop.
Pogan initially reported that Mr Long steered into him and knocked him down.
But a tourist's video showed the officer striding over to the cyclist and shoving him off his bike.
From Gothamist's John Del Signore:
His boss tells the Daily News that Long is an Army veteran and "mild-mannered environmental activist." Craig Radhuber, 54, was riding behind Long Friday night and describes incident: "All of a sudden the cop picked this kid out and bodychecked him. I couldn't believe what was going on. [The officer] body-slammed this kid off the bicycle so hard that he went from the lane to the curb."The officer seen in the video, rookie Patrick Pogan - a third-generation cop and the son of a retired New York City detective who worked on the Joint Terrorism Task Force - wrote in his police report that Long was observed "forcing multiple vehicles to stop abruptly or change their direction to avoid a collision." Radhuber, the witness, tells the Times that "there was no traffic behind us - there was no traffic to weave in and out of. The police officer looked to see who he was going to pick off."
According to Officer Pogan, Long rode his bike straight into him, knocking them both down and causing a "laceration" on his arm. This account would seem to contradict the incendiary video, shot by a tourist. Long was arrested for attempted assault, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, and, apparently Officer Pogan wrote in his report that Long told him: "You are pawns in the game. I'm going to have your job."
Bill DiPaola, a director of Time's Up, told the Times he arrived just after Long went down. "He got up and was dazed. They put their knees on top of his head and were smashing him into a phone booth." Long, who was not wearing a helmet, was bruised but not hospitalized, and spent 26 hours in jail. After the video surfaced yesterday, Pogan was stripped of his gun and badge pending an investigation. But his father defended him to the Daily News, saying, "You gotta do what you gotta do to make an arrest." And in discussing the video with the News, an unidentified NYPD source says, "The video is bad - what can you say?"
You mean they aren't automatically recorded? I thought cops nowadays recorded every second of every interaction, to cover their asses. They definately should be-no possibility of "no, I didn't say that" if it's recoded.
momof4 at July 14, 2010 7:33 AM
Shit like this is what gives cops a bad name.
And the State is fucked if the people turn on the cops.
brian at July 14, 2010 8:01 AM
Interesting to observe the behavior of the second cop. She strolls over to help out. She wasn't surprised at all, was she?
Zooko
at July 14, 2010 9:05 AM
the problem with filming the police is that they don't like it, and they can arrest you for it, even though in most places it isn't illegal to film them.
there are a couple of states, though where it isn't legal through some sleazy laws, Maryland, I think for one. You have to be careful.
Oh, and momof4? Just because they have dashcam of the situation, doesn't mean they have to turn that over to YOU if they have done wrong.
Instapundit covers this a lot.
SwissArmyD at July 14, 2010 9:54 AM
Oh! So what you're saying is, there are times when video can be helpful!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 14, 2010 10:31 AM
doesn't mean they have to turn that over to YOU if they have done wrong
No, they have turn it over. You'll have to ask for it, usually by filing suit unless you've been charged with a crime, but there's a phase of a suit called discovery, and you can specify that they will need to turn over all pertinent video recordings, including their dash cams.
That's not to say they'll be cheerful about it, but you can get it out of them.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 14, 2010 11:12 AM
These are the ones I pulled from Insty's site: A href="http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/?s=videotaping+police">Here
I am trying to find the link I saw about a dashcam beatdown where the police wouldn't hand the recording over on discovery, but I may be wrong. Suing them to make it happen isn't really good though...
SwissArmyD at July 14, 2010 12:09 PM
They also should video tape in the family Courts. Since there are no juries, and the court reporters work for the Judges, their is a lot of corruption there.
David M. at July 14, 2010 2:09 PM
In my brother's case, there was an audio recording of the family court hearing. When he requested it (which was as soon as possible), they said they could not find it but it was sure to turn up and when it did he would get a copy at a reduced rate. Talking with some advocate groups, he found out that was a common response. And years later it has yet to turn up.
The Former Banker at July 14, 2010 2:58 PM
"The video is bad - what can you say?"
I watched it at the time. The video is "bad"? It looked pretty clear to me. I've seen plenty of videos that leave you hanging as to what happened before the beatdown, and I've seen others that make it clear as to why the cops are so pissed.
This one shows a cop zeroing in on a bicyclist and knocking him down, apparently without provocation.
It ain't the video that's bad.
Pricklypear at July 14, 2010 3:26 PM
When the cop does have a dash camera on, it doesn't mean you'll get to see it. There's been far too many cases of "The tape was damaged/unreadable/lost" when someone requested it.
Can't remember the details but a lawyer on one of the gunboards said he'd learned to request the tape through the city(in his area) instead of the police department, because the office he went through would get the tape without the PD knowing who it was for; he'd had too many "We can't find it" responses and looked for a way around. Once requested a copy after the workaround had already gotten him a copy, to see what would happen; the police response was "The tape was accidentally destroyed, no copies." They apparently got real upset in court when he produced the copy and asked "Then how did I get this?"
Firehand at July 14, 2010 7:26 PM
Im surprised the cops didnt beat up the guy who was video taping them. I guess they didnt notice him.
Suvorov at July 14, 2010 9:59 PM
Wow, I've heard that some of the Critical Mass groups can get out of hand and mess up the flow of traffic, but this is obviously an a-hole move by the officer. Video technology for the win.
They also should video tape in the family Courts
That seems like a good idea. It reminds me of the video that caught an Arizona sheriff taking a document from the defense lawyer's folder while the lawyer was talking to the judge. Crazy.
Jason S. at July 14, 2010 10:39 PM
That seems like a good idea. It reminds me of the video that caught an Arizona sheriff taking a document from the defense lawyer's folder while the lawyer was talking to the judge. Crazy.
Posted by: Jason S
Thats just the smallest tip of a very large iceberg in that department
lujlp at July 15, 2010 5:00 AM
> They also should video tape in the family Courts.
Guys, this is LUNACY... LOOOOOONN-NUUHH-SEEEE
Family courts are private because they involve some of the most personal things that can happen to a person, specifically a CHILD. There are secrets in there that no child will have the strength to defend for years to come.
This is EXACTLY, EXACTLY what's going on in that other thread with CB.
About three generations of Americans have done nothing with their lives but hone their taste in TV show plots. So now, they want all the world's problems reduced to TV shows. They don't want to have to vote for judges, they don't want to have to think about the cops their taxes are paying for, they just want to watch some footage and go thumbs up or down like Roger Ebert.
"I don't know Gene, I thought that was some pretty good testimony..."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 15, 2010 12:10 PM
Guys, this is LUNACY... LOOOOOONN-NUUHH-SEEEE
I forgot about that.
Jason S. at July 15, 2010 8:08 PM
How the fuck is it illegal to film public activity on public property as a private citizen?
And sense when are public servants entitled to privacy in a public place?
No. I'd be challenging those laws to no end.
Robert at July 15, 2010 9:11 PM
Family courts are private because they involve some of the most personal things that can happen to a person, specifically a CHILD. There are secrets in there that no child will have the strength to defend for years to come.
Posted by: Crid
And yet when those kids are grow you expect them to get over everything in just one day.
As a child of divorce I'd have loved to have been able to see just what was said by whom. I went to the trouble of getting a copy of all records in y parents divorce and custody hearings and lo and behold when the 50 pound box arrived not one page had transcripts detail given testimony.
Record everything I say and turn it over to the kid when their 18
lujlp at July 16, 2010 11:59 AM
> you expect them to get over
> everything in just one day.
Well I expect people not to burden others with their personal freight, if that's what you mean. How much flexibility will you demand of others for your own misjudgments?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 16, 2010 8:17 PM
Right, cause it was my fault a 30yr old woman 3 times my size beat me as a child.
And you seriously wonder why you made no headway on the abuse thread?
lujlp at July 17, 2010 6:07 PM
No headway? No headway? I ROOLED in there, dood! I Kicked ASS! I took NAMES!
Hell, EVERYONE knows that I, like, TOTALLY aced that thing. I gotta fucking email from Tim Berners-Lee the other night saying how proud he was that the internet was finally being put to good use by proficient, convincing personalities such as myself.
(Someone, I'm not sure who, sent flowers to the office.)
The only commenters who thought I made no headway were the ones who don't want to believer that anyone else has more interpersonal skills than they do....
You know who I mean... The kind of people who expect someone to be flexible. (Though they'll never say who.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 17, 2010 8:58 PM
You, crid, I expect you to flex your inflexables stance that abuse victims seek out and invite it.
Unless you'd care to explain to me how I as a 7yr old and my sister as a five yr old deserved what we got for being dumb enough to sek it out
lujlp at July 19, 2010 4:43 PM
Leave a comment