Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'

from the those-aren't-the-chilling-effects-you're-thinking-of dept

There isn’t a ton of new information in this NPR piece on how police still can’t stand the fact that people record them with cameras and cameraphones, but it’s one of the first articles on the subject that has actually laid out an argument for why police think it’s bad that people out in public can film them:

“They need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be,” says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.

“We feel that anything that’s going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving — an apprehension that he’s being videotaped and may be made to look bad — could cost him or some citizen their life,” Pasco says, “or some serious bodily harm.”

Frankly, this makes absolutely no sense. Why would a police officer think twice about doing his or her job if there are legitimate reasons to do what’s being done? The only time I could see a “chilling effect” on the actions of officers, is if what they’re doing is not legal.

Meanwhile, the article does show the real chilling effect of officers intimidating people who are filming them. The article tells the story of a teenager who tried filming police in Newark, New Jersey last year, and for her troubles, was handcuffed, put in the back of a squad car, and had the videos deleted off the phone. She was released two hours later and no charges were filed (though, she’s now suing the Newark Police Department). Still, when asked, the woman, Khaliah Fitchette, says that she probably wouldn’t film police in Newark again:

Khaliah Fitchette’s lawyers in New Jersey say her detention was illegal. But Fitchette still says she’d think twice before filming police in Newark again.

“It would have to be important enough to get myself in trouble for, I guess,” she says.

She has this attitude, Fitchette says, because she thinks she could get in trouble again, even though her detention was allegedly unlawful.

Now that is a chilling effect.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It’s basically an admission that some police officers may not have the necessary training and competence to act in a publicly acceptable manner and so we are better off giving them the option of not acting in a publicly acceptable manner because forcing them to act in a publicly acceptable manner could cause them not to act under certain circumstances and such inaction could be bad for the public. Better to allow them to act in a not so publicly acceptable manner than for them not to act.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

More specifically

If a police officer is sensitive/easily distracted enough to allow something as minor as video camera use to prevent him/her from properly doing his job then the police officer is probably not mentally capable of doing his/her job to begin with (regardless of video camera use). Police officers are supposed to be mentally and physically equipped to properly handle situations that are far worse than simply being recorded, they should be trained to be able to work well under pressure. If the minor added pressure of a video camera is enough to prevent them from properly doing their job then they clearly aren’t cut out to be cops (regardless of the presence of a video camera). The police officer either needs additional training or he/she needs to find another job and be replaced by someone who is more capable of handling stressful situations.

Outlawing video camera use on police officers because it retards their performance is also self contradictory. Police officers are supposed to be able to perform well under situations where people break the law. If it’s against the law for people to use video cameras because video camera use prevents police officers from performing well then that’s a law that the police officers can’t perform well under when broken, which kinda negates the whole idea that police officers are supposed to work well in situations where people break laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

So then it’s unfair to put a criminal in jail for robbing a bank because you are putting him in jail for his actions committed during his worst possible light. The footage of him robbing the bank is selective in nature, you are selecting the moments of his life that portray the bank robber in the worst possible light. You are not considering the other aspects of the bank robbers life.

They say people are judged by the worst thing they’ve done (ie: an otherwise nice person murders someone and gets put to jail for life). So why should cops be any different? If anything, those who are responsible for upholding the law should be held to a higher moral and legal standard than the rest of us (at least while on duty). The real question here is not, “why is the footage editing out all the good things that the officer does” it’s, “why is the officer doing bad things in the first place”.

As far as being taken out of context, I don’t buy the argument that the public is too incompetent to understand the different contextual possibilities that a camera could be drawing its information from and therefore no footage should ever be permitted at all. Under that pretext, we can argue that all cameras that record the public should be abolished because there is no way of knowing whether or not they are simply taking footage out of context. Why does the “if you’re not doing anything wrong then you wouldn’t mind them watching you” only apply to citizens and not police?

and why should we simply assume that the police are less likely to edit footage than a regular citizen, just because the police say so? Citizens are guilty until proven innocent while police are innocent until proven guilty, but we must deny citizens the means to prove those police guilty (but police get access to the means to prove citizens guilty)?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The answer is that people are able to extrapolate the different contextual possibilities that the camera could be drawing its information from.

All footage is taken outside of the context of what’s not being recorded, so all footage is taken out of context to some extent, but that’s no excuse to disallow the existence and distribution of any piece of footage.

Aaron Von Gauss (profile) says:

While I think people (for non-profit purposes, i.e. not TV camera crews) should be able to film whatever or whoever in public, let’s be real, throw a camera in someone’s face and we all react a bit differently.

On a (un)related note, how did the US become a society where you need to blur out every product image in regular TV? Thats just insane.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So your point is that police make mistakes too because they’re people too? They’re corruptible too? Isn’t that kinda the point? They can be corrupt and so we should be allowed to record their behavior to curtail their corruption through exposure.

Why should we assume that police are superhuman non corruptable entities that should simply be assumed to be immune to corruption and hence not publicly monitored? But regular non-cops are subject to corruption and so cameras everyone need to watch our every move?

Bruce Ediger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Already happened

Hey, cameras already appear everywhere. Pay attention!

In the 2.5 blocks between bus stop and my building, I counted 16 cameras that probably could see me. These aren’t special blocks with a federal building on them, either. So, yes, cameras everywhere, and cops shouldn’t get special dispensation. It’s something of an open secret that they abuse their position already anyway.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Absolutely, and as long as they do their job with due diligence, professionalism, and realise that whislt on duty as public servants they have no expectation to privacy whatsoever (no matter whether in the USA, UK, CAN, or AUS/NZ) then all will be fine. Off duty though, an LEO has the same privacy available to them as anyone else no matter what they are doing.

When they start spouting out comments that basically boil down to “Filming me means I have to stop and think to Cover My Arse” then their is a major problem and it is not with the public.

RadialSkid (profile) says:

Re: Re:

On a (un)related note, how did the US become a society where you need to blur out every product image in regular TV? Thats just insane.

Commercial television doesn’t have to blur out product logos, but many times they elect to as to not provide free advertising. Apart from the obvious money-grubbing, it can potentially lead to situations such as, say, Honda being less likely to purchase advertising on a program where the protagonist drives a Chevrolet with a prominently placed emblem.

Wise (profile) says:

Video-taping anyone in candid has a “chilling effect” on the person being recorded. I agree with Mr. Pasco in that regard, however there are no legal bounds that say you can’t film them. However, I draw the line in some of the videos wherein the police ask the man to leave them alone to their business and the camera-man takes the juvenile stance basically saying, “Make me!” while spouting their right to film.

Kyote (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I think we should take this even further. We should put web cam’s in ALL public job locations, except the bathroom. Imagine the improved work performance of public employee’s if they knew not only the public was watching them but that their supervisor/boss might be too. Mayor’s Office? Camera it! DMV facility? Camera it! Police Department? Camera it! etc…

Although I have not thought out all the in’s and out’s. It seems it would help in many ways. Sexual harassment? Not while your being monitored and your spouse/employer might be watching.

RD says:

East Coast Cop Scum

True story. A friend of mine spent 6 months in the hospital, and over a year out of work, after being “restrained” and arrested by NJ (cesspool of the nation) cops. His crime? He was on the boardwalk with his niece, waiting outside a public bathroom while she was inside. While he was waiting (leaning up against the wall doing NOTHING) 3 cops tackled and were subduing someone for something. One of the cops came up to my friend and says “what are you LOOKING AT???” and when my friend quite reasonably replied “nothing, I’m just waiting for my niece” the cop grabs him, throws him to the ground, starts kicking him and calling him “guido” while another cop comes over and bends his arm up behind his back, and then SITS on the arm while the first cop keeps kicking. No charges were ever filed, but he had cracked ribs, torn shoulder ligament and lots of muscle damage. Several surgeries later, NO lawyer in the STATE would touch the case he wanted to bring because the cops and judiciary would just protect their own, waste of time. NJ is one of the most corrupt places in this country, and many (but not all) of its cops are scumbag thugs.

Mike42 (profile) says:

Not Representative

Having dealt with many individual officers in several police departments (thanks to an adopted juvenile deliquent), I am of the opinion that the departments that wish to make recording illegal are in the minority.
I seriously believe that those who don’t want to be recorded are bad apples and know it. Law enforcement attracts those who want law and order, but it also attracts bullies. Thankfully, most bullies don’t last long, or so I’ve been told.

kyle clements (profile) says:


I don’t want to sound like I am defending these illegal detentions and destructions of personal of property, but having a camera pointed at your face can be intimidating for a lot of people.
Sometimes a confrontation can be avoided with some subtle trickery or deception.

For example, don’t wave the camera in their face right from the start. Pretend you are recording a friend talking, or recording touristy things, then land on the scene at hand when their focus is no longer on you.

If that wont work, resolve the problem the Canadian way: smile politely and apologize in a way that sounds genuine. Show them that you are deleting the video/photos, and casually move along… Then run home and install some data recovery software, get your files back, and post everything on-line anonymously. Nothing is lost and a big legal hassle has been replaced with a much smaller technical hassle.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: tips

Any police officer caught trying to delete footage of their behavior should be fired immediately and they should be prohibited from becoming a police officer anywhere for at least … (a year?) on their first offense. They should also be forced to pay a penalty (or face jail time. If it’s OK for the govt to fine and jail us for every victimless crime that we do, it should be OK for us to do the same to police officers for the non-victimless crimes that they do).

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: tips

Actually deleting footage after a suspect has been arrested for either filming them, or other means can, and most likely will be, destruction of evidence.

Whether it is evidence that could be used by the prosecutor, or the defendant it is still evidence until a court says otherwise, even after any charges are dropped. The only person who might have a defence on deleting it is the actual filmer themselves.

LDoBe (profile) says:

Re: tips

While you make a cogent point in regard for avoiding being hassled by the police, it isn’t really the point.

Whether the police like it or not, we as citizens shouldn’t have to worry about whether we will get in trouble for recording our public servants in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.

An officer of the law has no legal grounds (yet) to detain a citizen for doing something legal.

Everyone has uncomfortable experiences all the time, whether it’s getting a filling, or paying your taxes.

The police should stop being pussies and ignore the camera, and follow their training. If they stay true to the fact that they work for us, then they don’t need to worry about liability.

lostalaska (profile) says:

If you’re up in the cops space as he’s trying to do his job (especially if you’re not part of the “situation” that brought the cops), then yes I think they should be able to detain you since your interfering with police work and it’s one of the common ways to get arrested for “technically” doing nothing wrong. On the other hand if the cop has to walk across the street and tell you to put your camera away then it’s just a cop being a douche since you were well outside their “sphere of control”.

The few times I’ve dealt with officers it’s been about 50/50 some have been super nice and talkative even able to relate to, while others have been all about trying to put the fear of the police into you and threatening to arrest you for obstructions of justice, or interfering with police work when you’ve done nothing wrong and aren’t holding back any info. I’m of the opinion that going to jail or being detained is literally a coin toss as to what kind of officer you are going to be dealing with.

NOTE: most of my experience has been as a witness to a crime (fender benders, 1 robbery while living in PHX) or for a very short span of renting a room in a house where the landlords (a couple on the rocks) would get get into huge verbal fights and throwing all of each others stuff out the windows and on the lawn. The cops would come out for domestic that a neighbor would call in… I got the hell out of there fast both of the owners were sociopaths that cops apparently knew by first name. (sometime saving a few hundred a month just isn’t worth it).

Hugh Mann (profile) says:

Chilling effect on officers

Well, I’m generally in favor of clearly stating that police officers are subjec to being recorded/filmed in the public performance of their duties. However, I don’t think it’s a good idea to dismiss so easily the concept of an officer thinking twice before taking some action. Who wants to be subject to Monday morning quarterbacks in ANY job, much less one in which a large number of citizens are likely to find somethign to criticize just on general principles?

If we don’t accept the reasoning of “only someone who has something to hide should be afraid of public scrutiny” when an ordinary citizen is faced with invasion of privacy by the government, why is it different for cops? While we certainly expect a certain level of professionalism, ANYBODY can get the jitters if they know they are (or might be) subject to a bunch of backseat drivers.

Again, not to say I am actually opposing the ability to videotape the cop who is giving you a speeding ticket, but I think we have to treat as real (and take appropriate action, if possible, to mitigate it) the fact that a cop can get stage fright just like anybody else, and being recorded very well might cause a cop to take an extra second to think about it in a situation in which seconds count.


mr pitt (profile) says:

Re: Chilling effect on officers

if the cop has issues with “stage fright” while doing their very public job before the public that pays them, perhaps they should not be a cop.

In a functioning democracy, scrutiny of the work performed by public officials is a critical part of the oversight process. If we can not document behavior we as members of the public might find questionable because the public official might get “stage fright”, how on earth can “we” the public make intelligent decisions about how to vote when questions such as “should the town cops carry tasers” come-up? If we vote yes and suddenly the town is filled with rumors of people being tased in a way that is inconsistent with the law but no one is allowed to document the behavior in question, it is just a he said she said cluster-fest that goes no where. If we see a video of 200lb officer Brutus tasing a little old lady and kicking her in the head, we now have a situation where the video may not tell the whole story, but, it does suggest something is not right with the world as a 200lb cop apparently needs a taser to subdue a little old lady.

Anonymous Coward says:

On further news it is now illegal to defend yourself from the illegal actions of the police in the state of Indiana. The State Supreme Court has decided overturning more than 150 years of common law.
Further eroding (the right of the people)(you and I)to be secure in our persons, papers, affects, and property.
Welcome To The Jack Booted Authoritocracy!!!

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

From your own link
“As we decline to recognize a right to resist unlawful police entry into a home, we decline to recognize a right to batter a police officer as a part of that resistance.”

You can technically say that the police officers in that case did not have leave to enter the house, but the defendant in that case should have just refused permission for them to enter his home, not attacked them. The cops were well within their rights and authority as part of a domestic violence case, to enter the home of the aggrieved and provide aid.
The issue of unlawful entry…I agree with the cops on this one because…imagine if a suspect just has to run into his house and deny entry, and that way he can get off scot free? That point was mentioned in the article.

bordy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The problem with this ruling, as I see it, is that I no longer have a right to reasonably refuse an unlawful police entry to my home.

What rights then am I left with to keep an officer who, without a warrant, just feels like snooping around? Should I just say, “Please don’t come in”? Should I call the police?

Seriously, it seems I have no other recourse except some post hoc legal action, by which time the rights I’m concerned with protecting have already been violated.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“The cops were well within their rights and authority as part of a domestic violence case, to enter the home of the aggrieved and provide aid. “

The opinion certainly doesn’t say that. Where are you getting that from?

They weren’t invited by either party that lived in the home.

Angry Puppy (profile) says:

How to Find Balance

A few months ago the police caught someone in my cul-de-sac who was running from what looked like every on-duty unit in the city that night. I could hear squeling tires and sirens for over half an hour. The suspect tried to park the car he was driving, duck down and pretend to be just another car in the neighborhood. When six or more squad cars boxed him in he tried to run and then fought with the police yelling as screaming punk tough guy. They beat the hell out of him. When he finally gave in and was finished he was covered in blood head to toe and crying like a baby.

I went out (this was about 3AM) and asked if this had anything to do with any of the people living in the neighborhood (it didn’t) and the officer was extremely nervous and wanted to keep me away from getting a good look at the suspect. He seemed relieved I simply said thank you and went home and did not have a camera. Most of what I am relaying is based on sounds and a glimpse or two of the actions but I got a complete picture of the events and the necessity of what the police did to protect me and you.

On video this would have looked terrible. Six or more police beating a teenager (albeit a large, muscular, tattooed, shaved headed, violent one) with batons and boots. The reality was a hyper-violent suspect resisting arrest and trying to injure police to his last once of strength and well trained police trying not to kill him while attempting getting him under control after a dangerous car chase that left all of the officers filled with adrenaline. They could not use a taser because they have been banned for any police use in this area (considered too dangerous). If only a small part of the fight was recorded and not the initial attack of the suspect this video taping of only part of the incident would be very coercive, effectively working as if it was edited.

On the other hand another incident that was on the news was a bystander’s cell phone video that showed a suspect fully complying and on the ground and another officer coming up and kicking the arrested man in the face without provocation, something he may have gotten away with without the video evidence.

Having had arrested knife wielding muggers, home invaders, and a couple of thieves in the past and controlling the situation through extreme aggression, but no violence, I can see that a police officer may use a level of aggression that is less than necessary if intimidated by a video taping public resulting in harm to the officer, suspect, or both given the possibility of a loss of promotion, career, or even a bogus criminal sentence. Looking at shows like “Video on Patrol” I do sometimes sense a level of reserve on that part of officers confronting aggressive suspects in several of the videos (usually from the police dash cams) that could be argued encouraged the suspect to become violent and did result in injury and even death when a far more aggressive initial confrontation would have resulted in compliance.

Personally these NPR liberal, academic, armchair quarterbacks often make me retch but I agree that the actions like those of the New Jersey police who arrested Khaliah Fitchette and, in my opinion are guilty of tampering with evidence, and that idiot that was recorded confronting the motorcyclist in plain cloths and pulled the pistol without first identifying himself as a police officer and then arresting and prosecuting these vidoegraphers to intimidate them should have been brought to light. The article also does point out that most police do understand that video is now ubiquitous and a fact of everyday life for us all. Where should we draw the line? Should video from anti-crime cameras put in place by cities be edited if police are recorded committing crimes?

On the whole, I would have to side with public freedom to observe, report, and record police actions in public otherwise we will end up with more of a police state than the “patriot” act and other slimy, anti-freedom, anti-privacy laws have already created.

ChrisB (profile) says:

Re: How to Find Balance

Excellent post.

How many times have videos by students showing a teacher yelling or grabbing a student been put on Youtube. Of course, they don’t show the students egging the teacher on for 15 minutes before they get the perfect 15-second “gotcha” clip. I can understand why cops don’t want to be videoed, because it will encourage people to fuck with them until they snap.

JustMe (profile) says:

Re: How to Find Balance

“Personally these NPR liberal, academic…”

Yeah, because what this country needs is fewer academic people. The smart folks are absolutely holding back this country. In fact, how about locking up every academic person?
/end sarcasm

People who seek to emulate Pol Pot and Chairman Mao because they fear smart people aren’t the solution.

Doan Bugme (profile) says:

Restrict You Movement??

Mr. Union Guy claims: “They need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be …” Dang, my phone doesn’t come with a “tractor beam” that I can use to grab people, but I think I want one! C’mon Mr. Union Guy, tell the truth for once. You just want to make sure that nobody can ever ever call one of your “there’s no bad officer in my union” officers a criminal.

Gwiz (profile) says:

“All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

– Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 1887

In the reality of everyday life, there isn’t much power that is more absolute than armed men with the ability to legally restrain and detain a citizen.

The accountability provided by filming of police while on the job is extremely necessary to ensure the power entrusted to them does not tip toward the side of corruption.

VMax says:

Shouldn't they always think someone is lookin over their sholder?

When the public entrusts you with the duty of enforcing the law, I would think you’d say to yourself “Is this the right thing?”. If you have the time to worry about someone filming you, you’re probably not involved in a dangerous situation; so if you’re doing wrong, it is intentional. If your actions cause someone distress, I think it should have “Chilling Effects”. A cold shower has helped me from doing quite a few stupid things.

cofiem (profile) says:

While I do think that it is perfectly ok to film police in public, I would say that this sounds suspiciously close to

“if you’re not doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t have any objection to being tracked/filmed/recorded/etc”

Now obviously the larger point is police doing their job properly. I would like to see some consistency, tho.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

It’s perfectly acceptable for corporate employers to monitor their employees at work. But that’s different than allowing the employer to secretly hide cameras in the employees house and monitor the employee at home.

Same thing here. In this situation the public is the employer and the police are the employees. Employers should expect to be monitored from their employees while at work.

Ralph-J (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“if you’re not doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t have any objection to being tracked/filmed/recorded/etc”

There is no inconsistency in allowing the filming of police officers. Phrases like “nothing to hide – nothing to fear” are about protecting privacy against abuses by those in power. This does not apply here: police officers are doing public work in a public space. The people filming are not “in power”.

David says:

Similar UK

Sounds like the similar recent spate of incidents here in the UK where photographers have been harassed (or in one case, actually arrested and de-arrested) for taking perfectly legal photographs in public places. It is on record that they appear to have been trying to make up new “laws” as they go along and, in another example that was clearly audio recorded, stating that they did not need a law to restrain an innocent 16-year old who was taking pictures in a a public place of a public parade. All this, despite a strongly worded letter from the Association of Chief Police Constables to all forces saying that this must stop.

Justen (profile) says:


Yes, that’s the point. We want to be afraid of beating the shit out of people for no reason, to be afraid of raping people, to be afraid of cold blooded murder, to be afraid of abusing your power in any way. A chilling effect is what we’re after. And we will keep filming. Suck it up and learn to behave like decent human beings. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, isn’t that what you’re always telling us?

Richard Reynolds says:


There is not now nor has there ever been a law abridging the right of people to film in common public areas (with the particular exceptions of courts or certain other government property that has clearly been marked for prohibiting photography) or to film any person within such an area, be it a police officer or not. Any police officer who arrests a private citizen for “obstruction” or “disturbing the peace” for filming, photographing, or videoing the police or anyone in common public areas is committing an unlawful detention, arrest, or perhaps even kidnapping. Ms. Fichette should pray she be arrested every single time an officer sees her videoing. She’ll be very well off as long as there are stupid officers out there willing to violate the law and people’s rights.

johsonmcjohnson says:


Filming police officers is intrisically biased. this is because the audience of the film is not saavy to the nuances of police activity, rules, or protocol. Nor are the filming entities without bias. They are armchair quarterbacks. Filming police means that actions that are legal, or in a grey area subject to legitimate human judgments, are going to be edited to the benefit of the filmer, and/or judged from the perspective of a person with a built in bias. Hence, the chilling effect that causes police to NOT take otherwise lawful actions.

mr pitt (profile) says:

Re: Duh

Fortunately, a good video record provides a terrific opportunity for the police to explain why their actions, activity, rules or protocols are correct and appropriate for a given situation. To suggest a film is intrinsically biased is absurd. A “film” is simply a visual and auditory record documenting a given series of events taking place at a given location. While video can be edited in a way that takes an officer’s actions out of context and presents those actions in a way that makes the cop look like an idiot, that is not what we are actually talking about. We are talking about the unedited video record. In a situation where editing has been done to make a cop look bad, the solution is as simple as showing the whole unedited clip.
Police are vested with a great deal of power and leeway when it comes to making on-the-spot decisions. Perhaps outcry by the public, which employs the police, should be regarded not as an uninformed bunch of civilians being ?armchair quarter-backs.? Maybe this is a situation best viewed, as the employer telling an employee their behavior or method for handling a situation is unacceptable.
Police are public officials. Guess what, when it comes to public officials, every member of the public is an armchair quarterback. If you are unable to do your job as a cop in the public eye, maybe you need to consider a different line of work.

john says:

people who film cops should be in jail

i know what u guys r doing exsposeing cops too youtube the way u people act and treat police let me tell u exsposeing cops badge numbers and names lead too u being sued the very people who protect your family u turned your backs on why because hackers told u too u guys with the camrea heres a tip u dont run the police you dont own the police they follow the law givin too them u cant change them or scare them if u want too lie and hurt the very people who protect u then u belong in jail i thank god thay protect my family let me tell u a cop needs too id us what if some nuts running around killing people all of u calling yourself americans domt make me laugh u r whats wrong with the world hurting police supporting fucking hackers news flash america dont support hackers i want u too picture this your sister hurt by someome really bad or even your kids now u kept pushing police intill they wont help u picture someone u love in their own blood and because of u the police wont help u what then u think hackers will pay your bills protect your kids wrong police where there too help but u choose too hurt them intill they stopped helping u your family hates u forever so what can we do leave cops alone first off first amendment freedom of press unless u have proof your with the press u get locked up and the press domt put there videos on youtube thats idenity theft so think about that

martin braun says:

police fear of being filmed

This is reminiscent of the old experiment with the cat in a box with decaying radioactive material that may or may not decay, setting off the poison and skilling the cat. The idea being-incomprehensibly-that the cat is both dead and alive.
Similartlky-in this police concept-the idea -just the possibility of being photographed by a civilian, is enough to cause a crime or to kill a cop. Every injury suffered by policemen will be laid at the feet of “crazy-anti Trumper-anti police who want us to fail!”.
The truth is, the average number of police killed per year is around 100 and is becoming less. THis is for all 50 states.
An average of 2 police deaths per state, usually killed in alcohol fueled accidents, self inflicted gunshots. Rarely are police killed by civilians. POlice never care or bother with cameras on corners, in buildings or buses . They care nothing for Shop cameras or street coverage-They seem to fear embarassment in being caught shooting an inniocent, more than anything.
Last century, When few people had expensive digital cameras-this was not a problem, Cops also used six shooters-much less powerful guns, & they were trained “NOT” to fire!
I was beaten and chased many times as a kid by mean “hippie hating” cops- but still-they recognized some common humanity-no one ever pulled a gun on me! I returned the favor, by never being mean or making their jobs any harder.
This is a new issue invented by cops and their right wing libertarian pals. THey just fear being caught with their pants down. Being shown as less than gods or Centurions, too many many like to pretend they are.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...