Confiscating The First Amendment
Mike Riggs writes at reason about the schizophrenic homeless man who died after being beaten by five cops (see the horrifying before and after photos at the link):
Kelly Thomas' father, a retired Orange County police officer, did not recognize his own son when he went watch him die at the UC Irvine Medical Center after police beat him into a coma on July 5. The officers were responding to a call about vandalized cars when they found Thomas, a homeless schizophrenic, and attempted to search him. Thomas' father says his son may have been off his meds, which would explain why he resisted arrest. Nothing explains the gang-style murder committed by Fullerton cops.
Here's the video. It's particularly heartbreaking when Thomas calls for his dad, "Dad! Dad! Dad!" while they're beating him:
Very related, via Jay J. Hector, "15 Years in Prison For Taping the Cops? How Eavesdropping Laws Are Taking Away Our Best Defense Against Police Brutality," by Rania Khalek, AlterNet:
In at least three states, it is illegal to record any on-duty police officer, even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists. The legal justification is usually based on the warped interpretation of existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited.Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states where all parties must consent for a recording to be legal. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested and charged with a felony. Most all-party consent states (except Illinois and Massachusetts) include a "privacy provision" that says a violation occurs only when the offended party has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. This is meant to protect TV news crews and people who record public meetings -- where it is obvious to all that recording is underway -- from accidentally committing a felony.
Massachusetts and Illinois are the only states that do not recognize an expectation-to-privacy provision to their all-party consent laws. While courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, recording them openly is not. Illinois, on the other hand, is the only state where the legislature specifically amended the state's wiretapping law to make it illegal to record on-duty police officers without their consent, even in public.
...The most pernicious prosecutions to date have taken place in Illinois, where the sentence for recording a police officer is considered a class 1 felony -- on par with a rape charge -- and can land a person behind bars for more than a decade.
It is essential that we be allowed to record all government processes, from police to TSA searches, because this is how we maintain a free society and have openness about abuses of power.
Pretty lame that the death occurred on 7/5 and the LA Times didn't report it until 7/28, after being scooped by a British paper. That's some fine reporter work there, Lou.
Matt at July 29, 2011 8:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/07/29/confiscating_th.html#comment-2386450">comment from MattHeard that yesterday on John and Ken (KFI) as I was driving downtown. Pretty horrible.
Amy Alkon at July 29, 2011 8:22 AM
Horrifying. And increasingly common. Tasers are often used as retribution, as instruments of torture, not as instruments to protect truly endangered people.
Article is slightly out of date on Maryland, though. We just had a court ruling on this not long ago -- a motorcyclist stopped by police (he was, indeed, speeding, which he admits) was arrested for videotaping the encounter. The judge threw out the indictment and issued a ruling saying it was legal for him to record the cops:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-09-27/news/bs-md-recorded-traffic-stop-20100927_1_police-officers-plitt-cell-phones
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 8:22 AM
I read about this yesterday. Saw the photo of the poor guy in the hospital- he was completely beat up. Sick. No reason for so much beating FGS. We must hold the people who do these things accountable!
Melody at July 29, 2011 8:24 AM
To beat someone who has no idea what is and isn't reality, and to listen to him cry for his caregiver, breaks my heart. How can he resist when he's on his stomach and they are on his back?
Cat at July 29, 2011 8:48 AM
The police undoubtedly thought they were doing the world a favor. I'd like to know who gave them the authority to decide who's worth protecting.
And in Illinois, you can get jail time for speeding in a construction zone. I think they just like putting people in jail there. Must have a really strong prison guard union.
brian at July 29, 2011 8:58 AM
Must have a really strong authoritarian streak. Which pretty much describes this whole country.
You can bet that plenty of upstanding Americans are just fine with this kind of beating happening to "criminals" and "scum."
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 9:01 AM
Let's be clearer, if a bit dramatic about this.
A first step to establishing a "secret police" is the restriction on information about their activities.
Police planning needs to be confidential, to avoid tipping off criminals. When action ensues, that needs to be in full daylight.
If you weren't appalled by the first mention of "Homeland Security"...
... you're going to be.
Radwaste at July 29, 2011 9:17 AM
Our future (actually, our present):
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2009/09/pittsburgh-police-test-sonic-weapons-on.html
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 9:17 AM
Police, given the ability to use deadly force, must also be held to a higher standard.
But, cities must understand, this means actually budgeting money for training police officers how to handle violent situations ... and themselves in those situations.
Malcolm Gladwell had an interesting piece in his book Blink about stress, tunnel vision and how such factors affect police officers, and how steps can be taken to reduce the effects.
[He also had an interesting bit on the lessons from Warren G. Harding about tall, good looking candidates "seeming" more presidential that could be applied to Obama today, but that's for another post.]
California's three strikes law is the toughest (and most ridiculous) in the country. It counts even non-violent felonies in the the three strikes.
Guess what the biggest obstacle to getting that law changed is ... the prison guard union.
Conan the Grammarian at July 29, 2011 9:27 AM
And guess who runs most prisons in this country? For-profit corporations.
It's a shameful development and it speaks volumes about our supposed ideals and supposed respect for the rule of law.
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 9:41 AM
So.
If they're more efficient and they're not violating the prisoners' rights....
And I'm a little leary of your "runs most prisons" comment.
According to Wikipedia, there are only 264 private prisons in this country. The federal government alone has something like 120 public prisons. Add 50 states with a few prisons each and you don't get "most" prisons being private.
But I don't have figures for publicly-owned / privately-run, so.... Some figures to back it up (and an authoritative cite) would be good.
=========================
Why shameful?
Having the government run something doesn't by default make it better. Having community or social services provided by a private company isn't a black mark against civilization.
"A study was performed using three comparable Louisiana medium security prisons, two of which were privately run by different corporations and the third was publicly run. The authors report the data from this study suggests the privately run prisons operated more cost effectively without sacrificing the safety of inmates and staff. They conclude the privately run prisons had a lower cost per inmate, fewer critical incidents, safer environment for employees and inmates, and a higher proportional rate of inmates who complete basic education, literacy, and vocational training courses. However, the publicly run prison outperformed the privately run prisons in areas such as less escape attempts, better at controlling substance abuse through testing, offered a wider range of educational and vocational courses, and provided a broader range of treatment, recreation, social services, and habilitative services." Cite: Archambeault, William G.; Donald R. Deis Jr. (1997/1998). "Cost Effectiveness Comparisons of Private Versus Public Prisons in Louisiana: A Comprehensive Analysis of Allen, Avoyelles, and Winn Correction Centers". Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium 4.
Conan the Grammarian at July 29, 2011 10:24 AM
Voters, and non-voters, have, over the years, put people in the position of power that do not have a moral compass worthy of safeguarding a gold fish bowl.
My head hurts, my eyes are weak, and I still need to finish late tax returns. But, I think it has something to do with what Amy pointed out awhile back about too many people in our groups so our behavior is deteriorating.
Dave B at July 29, 2011 10:44 AM
"And guess who runs most prisons in this country? For-profit corporations."
Oh come off of it Lisa. You're trying to change the subject to your pet peeve the same way BOTU does. Corporations haven't got a damn thing to do with this.
Now where was I...
I will throw out this one tidbit: Schizophrenics can be very dangerous, because their behavior is so random. Depending on what they perceive at the time, they can be shaking your hand one moment and at your throat the next. Having said that: The first rule of arrest has to be that once you have the suspect restrained, stop. Damn it. Yes, I know you're all charged with adrenalin from the fight or the high-speed chase or whatever you were just doing. You're police. You have to deal with it.
Second thing: Taping of police activity (or any other activity) that occurs in public cannot possibly be in any way, shape, or form construed as wiretapping, as long as words still have meanings in the English language. Let's review: Wiretapping is when two parties, who are communicating using some form of electronic medium where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, have their conversation intercepted by an unauthorized third party. That's what the word means. Let's find all the ways in which this taping does not fit the definition: (1) it's passive recording; there is no conversation taking place; (2) the "communication" is occurring over free air rather than an electronic medium; (3) there is no third party intercepting the communication, and (4) there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, legal language-twisting aside.
Cousin Dave at July 29, 2011 12:36 PM
I really cannot recommend Michael Earley's book Crazy enough for understanding the links between police, the mentally ill, and jails.
Michael Earley, a journalist and author, wrote the book after his son Michael Jr. was arrested in Fairfax County for breaking and entering while he was in the throes of a psychotic break (his son was later diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia - no history of it in the family, no drug/alcohol abuse, etc. It just showed up when he was in his early 20s).
After going through the trial process in which Earley was simultaneously prevented from getting any treatment for Mike because Mike was an adult but held responsible for what would happen to him and what he did, Earley began investigating why so many mentally ill people have extensive arrest records or are in and out of jail. He ended up in Miami Dade county, which has the highest proportion of mentally ill prisoners of anywhere in the US. His book does a very thorough, readable job of explaining how the confluence of the change of laws about treating the mentally ill in the 1970s, the closing of state-run institutions, and the way the court system works, have all contributed/created the problem of a permanent class of mentally ill prisoners.
Choika at July 29, 2011 12:57 PM
The real issue here in not the length of time imposed by recording/photography laws, but the fundamental First Amendment issue of freedom of the press in this era of the "Citizen Journalist." The "Citizen Journalist" is leading to the death of the old press and poor/inaccurate reporting, but at the same time it, thankfully, is throwing a monkey-wrench into the cozy relationship between the press and government that has developed since the Constitution was written. Remember that the Constitution does not create or grant any rights at all. We have all rights by virtue of birth on this planet, and governments have and will always attempt to restrict our natural rights.
The First Amendment is supposed to protect the right of the press, and the press is not just big media but includes the lowest individual blogger or writer, including Amy (not saying she's low of course) and this blog. As far as I know, only in the USA can one be a reporter/journalist by virtue of saying they are and doing the job regardless of what media they represent (and the individual as media is the same as CBS/CNN etc.) In other countries the government issues a press/journalist card in order for someone to act as a journalist. Why? It's an issue of control of the press by the governments. The press cards usually include benefits like special tax rates and the like, which can be taken away if you report something the government doesn't like, or even lead to prosecution for reporting truth that a journalist discovers. At the same time the press card then fosters a too cozy relationship between those who need to be watched and the watchers themselves. It's very hard to control information if every person can act as a journalist whether the government likes it or not. I worked as an American journalist in France and a press card was constantly demanded from me, but I would explain that there is no such thing in the USA and if I say I am a journalist I am -- of course I could provide them with enough proof to shut them up. Here I don't need a press card but I still have to fight for the right to report nonetheless, as the issue of control continues. Reporter Shield Laws still really don't cover the lone wolf journalist in the USA (and especially the citizen journalist/online journalist), when they should as what used to be somewhat rare is now the order of the day. Connecticut, when attempting to writing their Shield Law, tried to exclude internet journalists unless they had a degree in journalism. The various Shield Laws are a mess and meant to restrict press freedom rather than protect it. Read the report linked below. Regarding the excerpt, the problem for me is that what the person was functioning as at the time of an incident might not qualify as reporting news, but then becomes news later, so therefore no protection?
STATE SHIELD LAWS: AN OVERVIEW
By Justin Silverman of the Citizen Media Law Project
http://www.justinsilverman.com/shieldlaws.pdf
I can't post the link to this as I would be spammed-out of this post, but here is an excerpt from . . .
REPORT ON THE CONNECTICUT SHIELD LAW SUMMIT
IV. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Following the presentations of William Dunlop and Paul Janensch, Ms. Dalglish moderated an open discussion. Rather than describe the comments raised during the discussion in chronological fashion, this report organizes the comments into discrete categories.
1. Who is a journalist? Without question, the most vexing issue discussed during the summit was how to define who is a journalist for the purpose of defining the scope of a shield law. Participants were unified in their position that the government should not be in the business of licensing journalists. Although there was general agreement that any shield law should cover traditional journalists, there were significant questions about how a shield law would be drafted so as to protect freelancers and, particularly, bloggers.
Ms. Dalglish explained that certain court cases have recognized a “function” test. Instead of looking to the status of an individual (e.g., full-time reporter for daily newspaper), these cases focus on the function that the individual was performing at the time in question. If the individual acquired information from a source and represented at the time that she was gathering news to disseminate to the public, the individual would be considered a journalist for privilege purposes, even if the individual was not employed by a traditional media organization.
Jay J. Hector at July 29, 2011 1:00 PM
Seconding Choika's comment. And since we can leave only one a link at a time, here's the first:
Prison Economics
by Laura Sullivan
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 1:07 PM
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
by Michelle Alexander
Publisher: New Press, The; 1 edition (January 5, 2010)
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 1:15 PM
"The First Amendment is supposed to protect the right of the press, and the press is not just big media but includes the lowest individual blogger or writer..."
I've found that it is a common conceit in the mainstream journalism business that the First Amendment grants them, and only them, special privileges. I've actually had a newspaper reporter tell me that they had a right to trespass on private property in order to get a story.
I think a lot of them would, if they were being honest, say that they're just fine with licensing of journalists as long as they get to control the licensing process. After all, a bunch of them are quietly lobbying for government subsidies, which will have pretty much the same effect.
Cousin Dave at July 29, 2011 1:18 PM
Judges Plead Guilty in Scheme to Jail Youths for Profit
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 1:19 PM
Some of you will hate this site on sight, but it links back to a lot of sources you can check out for yourselves. And it certainly presents some eye-opening $$ figures:
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/who-is-in-prison-who-profits/
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 1:24 PM
I wouldn't trust the gov't to run a prison any better than a corporation. Less, in fact. Corporations can, with enough bad press, be forced out of business. Government can not. So guess which one has more incentive to work halfway decently?
momof4 at July 29, 2011 1:25 PM
Prisons for Profit
. . . The Crowley prison made headlines back in 2004 after a major prison riot caused overwhelmed staff to run away from the facility. Outside law enforcement had to come in to put down the uprising.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/419/
Lisa Simeone at July 29, 2011 1:27 PM
So we need someone from Illinois to sue the police for recording them during a traffic stop. The wiretapping and two-party consent laws need to work both ways or they should be summarily thrown out for just this reason.
Make sure you begin your conversation with 'I do NOT consent to being recorded.'
DrCos at July 29, 2011 1:56 PM
My dad works for a state prison, private prisons try and poach him. He refuses even when offered better retirement and +25% pay.
Private prisons do run more cost effectivly for a few reasons.
1. government programs who fail to spend their budgets get them cut. So in order to secure funding for the next year his prison spent some unused money(close to three grand) on a popcorn machine and trolly - some lifer puts around the cell blocks handing out bags of popcorn
2. substandard training, fewer gaurds per prisoner ratio, and more bed per square foot ratio.
My father showed me an article detail most prisoner abuse and escaps happend from privatly run facilites
Dont know who wrote it or if they had an agenda so feel free to take it with a grain of salt
lujlp at July 29, 2011 2:20 PM
are lisa and BOTU one in the same? Lisa is on every liberal crusade she can sign on for. I guarantee she is a doe eyed recent college grad that cannot find work. Lisa, this cop beating has absolutely ZILCH to do with the prison and court system. Tasing a dude who is subdued is pathetic, I hope these weasals lose their careers, but there is no vast conspiracy here, just one moment in time caught on tape. Bad things happen, even to good families. Years ago my brother had his arm broken by a baton, guess what, he was completely shit faced and resisted the police, we told him he was lucky he was not shot. I fell for this dude, but it was admitted he was off meds. Does that excuse being tased five times, probably not, but get the emotion out before you make stupid comments.
ronc at July 29, 2011 2:22 PM
Freedom of the Press was freedom of the printing Press, not some credentialed group of lazy reporters. The writers of tracts and pamphlets could only get the message out by way of the Press, not by way of Walter Duranty. The Internet is the latest version of the Press.
The Press is not the Press, if you get my drift. Unfortunately, we've had some really ignorant Justices who don't know the difference.
Ariel at July 29, 2011 5:17 PM
Are mugshots illegal in Illinois if the accused withholds consent?
MarkD at July 29, 2011 5:22 PM
The longer I live, the more I believe that zero the government does needs to be secret or unrecorded, except for a very, very few bona-fide military secrets.
Wikileaks is great, and I wish them the best of success.
We pay the taxes; we deserve to know everything that is done with out taxes. If a government official claims he needs secrey, I think the answer is, "Not on our dime."
BOTU at July 29, 2011 6:16 PM
So, Enigma/Ultra, the Navajo Code Talker code, the breaking of the Japanese military code, etc., should have been revealed as early as possible so you'd be happy with how your money was spent? Yamamoto would have liked you.
Ariel at July 29, 2011 7:47 PM
Ignore Bunghole, he has the IQ of an earthworm. Wikileaks is all about the ego of one man and has done 10 times more harm than any good that asswipe could ever do for humanity. Much like Bunghole, I hope assange dies a slow painful death
ronc at July 29, 2011 10:34 PM
And any moron that advocates 12 or 13 year old girls should be having sex with adult males is one sick son of a birch, I rest my case on the value of bungholes life, which is worth zilch
ronc at July 29, 2011 10:59 PM
http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/151837
Lisa Simeone at July 30, 2011 9:34 AM
"are lisa and BOTU one in the same? Lisa is on every liberal crusade she can sign on for. I guarantee she is a doe eyed recent college grad that cannot find work."
Love you, too, ronc!
Sorry to disappoint. Though I'm still doe-eyed (as an accident of birth), I'm 54 and graduated from college over 30 years ago. Have been gainfully employed since I was 16, like most kids from working class families who have to help out with expenses. Because I've been so successful in my career, I now make my own hours, decide my own schedule, and command my own salary. That leaves me a lot of time to do other things, such as reading, writing, playing, watching 'So You Think You Can Dance' and 'Lark Rise to Candleford,' drinking great rosé (with which I am rather obsessed these days, to the exclusion of my former beloved reds), enjoying glam outfits, and political organizing. I used to travel a lot, but the TSA has put a stop to that.
I'm not liberal, certainly not as it's understood in this country; I consider myself a democratic socialist (I know -- the horror!). I'm busy working on several causes at the moment, one of which I frequently write about here, another of which is linked at my name. I enjoy working with people from all over the political spectrum and have learned a lot from them.
And yes, I think Julian Assange and Bradley Manning have more courage in their little fingers than most Americans do in their entire bodies (though it does pain me to have to agree with BOTU on anything; then again, strange bedfellows, as you know . . . and as Amy and I can both attest).
Since I love to laugh, I often read comments at blogs. My sad, sorry existence is thereby immeasurably enriched.
Lisa Simeone at July 30, 2011 10:03 AM
Well Lisa, I stand corrected. But, I do think your idealism certainly gets in the way of your thought processes and blurs your view of reality. There's the way things are, and the way things ought to be. Until the minority us ready to take back this country through any means necessary, these protests are just meaningless vents. Uh oh, bungholio better report me to the FBI as a radical patriot, you know, like the founding fathers
ronc at July 30, 2011 1:39 PM
> to the exclusion of my former beloved reds
Bitch.
Don't look me in the eye... Avert your gaze as I approach, evermore.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 30, 2011 2:51 PM
Crid,
Dying laughing here!
Used to be my wine-drinking was heavily influenced by the weather -- in winter, all I wanted was reds; as the weather warmed, I gravitated to whites. Then, several years ago, when fabulous rosés started becoming available, I kind of went nuts. Kept trying different ones, and now there are so many that are so good. My taste for them has carried over into the colder weather (well, when they're available -- obviously they get harder to find).
It's not that I dislike reds, not by any means. And with certain foods, of course, a red still goes better. But I'm just not as gaga about them as I used to be.
Don't know what happened -- could it have been menopause?! :>) It seemed to coincide with an obsession with animal prints, as well . . . my closets are now full of leopard, tiger, zebra . . . .
Lisa Simeone at July 30, 2011 4:11 PM
Whites just always seem like drinking perfume. And then nice people sometimes serve them and say "No, this one is different, you'll see! I think you're really going to like it!" What are you supposed to say?
And them Roses are just fence-sitters.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 30, 2011 9:00 PM
Leave a comment