RSS
Minneapolis Police Filming Their Own Work To Show Critics
from the good-move dept
We've had tons of stories about police arresting people for filming them. And we've seen plenty of other stories about mobile phone cameras being used to document and share evidence of police overreacting (especially at various protest scenes). However, the folks at On The Media had a great story recently about how the police in Minnesota are filming themselves when they deal with protests and then releasing the raw video footage in response to footage from others.
In the case above, it involved Occupy protestors using video footage of police arresting journalists. However, the police's own footage put the situation in a bit more context, including showing the police clearly reading out warnings to the crowd that if they don't help police remove obstructions in the plaza, that they will need to take enforcement action. Does this absolve the actions of the police? Perhaps not, though it may depend on where you sit. However, it is a really interesting strategy, and one that I think actually reflects a very positive development. Rather than hiding from cameras, the police can (and should) use cameras to their own advantage as well.
Amusingly, however, in the story, the police chief notes that the film in question was done by crime scene videographers, who are a little too focused on closeup shots, not knowing quite how to take wide shots that might show the scene in a bit more detail to provide additional context.
Of course, the police chief, Janee Harteau, isn't fully enlightened. While she does say that officers should always assume they're being filmed (and mentions permanent cameras in the city, as well as squad car cameras), she still complains that people with mobile phone cameras sometimes "interfere with an officer's ability to do their job." She doesn't really elaborate, beyond saying that police have a job to do in protecting the public. She does say that "the officer's word doesn't mean as much as it used to" if there isn't a video. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. If there isn't more evidence, isn't it only proper to give the testimony less weight? Either way, I do think the overall idea of police filming themselves (and releasing that video) is a definite step in the right direction, and one that I hope other police departments start using.
In the case above, it involved Occupy protestors using video footage of police arresting journalists. However, the police's own footage put the situation in a bit more context, including showing the police clearly reading out warnings to the crowd that if they don't help police remove obstructions in the plaza, that they will need to take enforcement action. Does this absolve the actions of the police? Perhaps not, though it may depend on where you sit. However, it is a really interesting strategy, and one that I think actually reflects a very positive development. Rather than hiding from cameras, the police can (and should) use cameras to their own advantage as well.
Amusingly, however, in the story, the police chief notes that the film in question was done by crime scene videographers, who are a little too focused on closeup shots, not knowing quite how to take wide shots that might show the scene in a bit more detail to provide additional context.
Of course, the police chief, Janee Harteau, isn't fully enlightened. While she does say that officers should always assume they're being filmed (and mentions permanent cameras in the city, as well as squad car cameras), she still complains that people with mobile phone cameras sometimes "interfere with an officer's ability to do their job." She doesn't really elaborate, beyond saying that police have a job to do in protecting the public. She does say that "the officer's word doesn't mean as much as it used to" if there isn't a video. I'm not sure why that's a bad thing. If there isn't more evidence, isn't it only proper to give the testimony less weight? Either way, I do think the overall idea of police filming themselves (and releasing that video) is a definite step in the right direction, and one that I hope other police departments start using.
I have an app...
App Developer Conversations: What Does The iPad Mini Mean For The App Economy?
How My First Game Made $28,623
I have an idea...
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
5 Things You Should Know About Crowdfunding For Startups
I have a business...
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
Why and How Developers Use Mobile Payments: Infographic
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Too Often
I will treat police video the same as any other propaganda--they'll only show what makes them look good. (eg cherry-picking/torturing the scientific data.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too Often
It's amazing, the punishment for assaulting a regular citizen is less than the punishment for assaulting a police officer.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, we need to think of reasons...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Too Often
But, I do agree with the fact that police should still be citizens and shouldn't be getting special treatment. I''m mostly annoyed by police dogs though. You get charged for killing a police officer if you kill a police dog because it attacked you. I'm just wondering if they'd charge a person for the same thing if it was a human police officer?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too Often
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Either way, I do think the overall idea of police filming themselves (and releasing that video) is a definite step in the right direction, and one that I hope other police departments start using.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Either way, I do think the overall idea of police filming themselves (and releasing that video) is a definite step in the right direction, and one that I hope other police departments start using.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Then what's the point of a police officer, especially, ones who are on patrol and regularly intervene in situations where their word is the only evidence? I agree that dishonest and abusive police officers is a huge problem that needs to be fixed, but saying that police testimony should hold less weight absent of any other evidence undermines their entire role in society and is going too far in the opposite direction.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Police officer testimony is particularly critical because people do tend to trust it; in many cases, it can make the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. In many ways, police testimony is held on a higher level than that of ordinary citizens, or even elected officials. (I mean, seriously...if a congressman is giving testimony in a legal case, does anyone assume that they're telling the truth?) Given that some percentage of police officers are dishonest and abusive, I think it's also a huge problem that their testimony is taken so seriously.
In a perfect world, we'd have a much higher level of oversight and accountability for police officers, but we don't live in a perfect world. If there's no evidence for something beyond the word of a police officer, then no...I don't think we should give their word much weight. Or, if we continue to give more weight to police testimony, we should take stronger steps to ensure that police officers who lie in court are never given the chance to lie again, or even necessarily to work as police.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is the proper response to police dishonesty. To give their testimony less weight would undermine the entire role of the police. They should be held to a higher standard of integrity as a result, yes, but the testimony itself cannot be treated the same as any other individuals. While I can see that idea being effective in a few, high-profile cases, it would render the police completely ineffective in dealing with crimes whereupon they are the only available witness. Why bother driving safely when you can just say that the police officer who booked you is lying?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
x1 + y = x2, therefore x1 < x2.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is probably not true for everyone, but in all of my dealings with the police they have been power hungry, lying sacks of shit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not so sure about being filmed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm not so sure about being filmed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm not so sure about being filmed
You've been trolled. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm not so sure about being filmed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, duh? Police used to be have better names for themselves and have more respect from the general public.
And who's the one ruining the good name of polices? According to the police, it's those darn layperson equipped with smart phones and the digital cameras that's recklessly endangering life of police officers and interfere with their jobs on public property by exposing their incompetence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why I don't trust people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I wasn't aware it was within the power of the police to order people to help them remove obstructions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment