E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The NYCLU released an app called "Stop and Frisk Watch."
Believe you are witnessing an unlawful police stop and want to record the moment? There's an app for that, courtesy of the New York Civil Liberties Union.
The group released a free smartphone application on Wednesday that allows people to record videos of and report police “stop and frisk” activity, a practice widely denounced by civil rights groups as unjustified stops that they say mostly target minorities and almost never results in an arrest.
The appl was thoroughly criticized by the New York Police Department, which said that the tool might prove useful for criminals.
The “Stop and Frisk Watch” phone app is meant for bystanders watching a police stop, not those subject to it, the NYCLU said. Now available on Android phones, an iPhone version will launch later in the summer. It comes in English and Spanish.
“Stop and Frisk Watch is about empowering individuals and community groups to confront abusive, discriminatory policing,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said in a statement. “The NYPD’s own data shows that the overwhelming majority of people subjected to stop-and-frisk are black or Latino, and innocent of any wrongdoing. At a time when the [Mayor Mike] Bloomberg administration vigorously defends the status quo, our app will allow people to go beyond the data to document how each unjustified stop further corrodes trust between communities and law enforcement.”
The recording and report will be sent to the civil liberties group, which will collect the information. One of the app’s three main functions is called “listen,” in which users can learn when and where people around them are being stopped. This would be useful for community groups monitoring police activity, the NYCLU said in a statement.
New York City police stopped and questioned people 685,724 times in 2011, a more than 600 percent increase in street stops since 2002 -- Bloomberg’s first year in office -- when there were 97,296 stops, the group said in a statement. Of that, 87 percent were black or Latino, and nine out of every 10 of the people who were stopped were not arrested or ticketed.
The “stop and frisk” practice has been the subject of many protests in the city, and one of the focuses of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The NYCLU said it developed the app with Jason Van Anden, a Brooklyn-based visual artist and software developer who also created an Occupy Wall Street app, “I’m Getting Arrested.”
Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne denounced the app, saying criminals would find it “useful” because it would alert them to where police stops were happening. He also raised concerns about privacy issues and the rights of those being filmed, noting the group was de facto creating a “database of videos of individuals stopped by police.”
“It's one thing when providers learn what pizza or movies you like. It’s another to create a database of stops and arrests by police,” he said in an email statement. “On the plus side, the videos may capture images of suspects in the vicinity of a stop and be helpful to the police in that regard. Presumably, the NYCLU database will the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- 3 men found shot dead in car near Columbia University in New York
- Did Canada's alleged cannibal killer Luka Magnotta strike in LA?
- How hidden camera confession helped clear high school football star
- High school senior denied diploma over family's loud cheering at graduation
- Singing vet gave 'America's Got Talent' a photo of another soldier
- California student takes the long way home to US after 'no-fly' designation
Leave a Comment:
Clearly, the Deputy Police Commissioner is trying to intimidate potential users of this app by implying that they could be called as witnesses.
Stop-and-frisk without reasonable cause is an affront to our rights and should be banned.
That was the same passage that jumped out at me, Barry. Unbelievable the amount of corrupt power the police have...they are comfortable with publicly threatening anyone who might record them abusing it.
Presumably, the NYCLU database will (have) the names of the videographers
They are telling anyone who uses this...that they will know who they are....
Disgusting.
I truly hope that when you really need a police officer to protect you and your family, they are too busy to come to your aid because they are defending themselves from this ridiculous garbage.
police don't protect, they write reports after you've already been victimized. also, if they don't do anything illegal they don't have anything to protect themselves from.
funniest part is you probably hate criminals but aren't smart enough to realize that by defending this type of act you're actually defending criminal activity.
They are paid to enforce laws, not bully law abiding citizens. If we don't police the police...they become a law unto themselves. If you are suggesting that we let that happen, or risk them not doing the job they are paid to do...then you are the type of person who supports a police state. When the brown shirts come for you...don't look to your fellow citizens for help...they'll all be in jail.
And if you are the type of person that makes it so difficult to do their job that no one bothers becoming a police officer, than you are the type of person that supports anarchy. Don't go running to you fellow citizens when you are outgunned.
Nonsense...it's not "their job" to stop and search people without cause. I absolutely support them doing their job. I don't support them breaking the laws and trampling the constitution.
The ends don't justify the means.
You're assuming their is no cause. I am assuming there is.
i know from personal experience that alot of the time here is no cause and assuming only makes an ass out of you.
Like the police like to tell everyone else, if you're not doing anything wrong then you shouldn't worry about it. I agree the cops serve a very vital service, the good cops. The bad cops are very comfortable blasting through the rights we have as quaranteed by the constitution. The line has to be drawn or it will only get worse. They need to be as accountable for that actions as everyone else. How else do you explain the incident recently where the police beat a mentally disabled man to death and then lied about the circumstances. That wasn't 1 rogue cop, it was a team effort. It's getting to the point where we need to fear the police almost as much as the criminals.
From the police spokesman in the article- "Presumably, the NYCLU database will the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”
tell me that's not meant to discourage/threaten people by insinuating that "if you use this app, we'll have your name"
When 90% of stops result in no further police action, I really have to question if there was probable cause to make the stops. When the majority of frisks are of minorities, it makes one wonder if their "probable cause" is that someone is black or hispanic?
This would not be necessary if the Police Officers believed in their own creed. To protect and defend. They seem to be looking for more ways of defending some of their illegal actions than in stopping the crime and protecting the people. This does not mean that there are not some great officers out there. But unfortunately there are far too many that abuse the system.
Sometimes the only way for john q. public to see what's going on under their noses is to show them the picture or video as proof.
"From the police spokesman in the article- "Presumably, the NYCLU database will the names of the videographers and provide a rich vein of potential witnesses to crimes being investigated by the NYPD and other authorities.”"
I'm all for it, don't mind being a witness. It's better than assuming.
I am fine with the recording as, if they aren't doing anything wrong, why would they mind? That is what they tell up to defend the stops, right? If it encourages all police to always follow the book, why not?
It doesn't matter why they stop the person, as some have said. The point is not to catch cops stopping an innocent person-we already know this happens 90% of the time. The point is to catch them doing something that breaks the law and/or is abusive-whcih they should not be doing regardless.
What does concern me is the "listen" part. I agree that telling people where police are stopping people is not a good idea as it may become a tool for criminals to avoid stops.
The comments by the police commissioner are scary, as they are a blatant threat to those who record videos.
I believe that 95% of cops are good, honest people whosincerely want to make their community a better place. But there are bad apples in every bunch, and those apples are what lead to distrust from the public. I hope this helps.
Wshiwzasgtmjr
Yes, and that "cause" is the fact that they "look like" a criminal -- i.e., they are Hispanic or black; wear "hoodies"; happen to be in a particular part of the city; wear gold chain necklaces; etc, etc, etc, etc........
In other words, they are not White Middle-class Ivy-League types.
i'll believe these stops are legit, when they start stopping and frisking white people at the same statistical rate. there are lots of white guys on wall street snorting coke - stop and frisk them as they leave their place of business and i guarantee you'll find the drugs you've been looking for on the black and latino guys.
and yes, i bet the stats show it's mostly GUYS getting stopped and frisked too.
this is profiling, and they arent profiling because the "stats bear it out" they are profiling because thats who they want to punish to fit the stats, and make the stats seem that way.
I know plenty of white people who could get stopped and frisked and found pot on them...and that just doesnt happen like it does to black people.
TRUTH.
lets put white people through this and see how "fair" it is.
(yes, im white...and im sick of the prevelant false belief that white people arent doing all the same bad things that black and latino's are doing, if not worse)
I like how the article left out what a stop and frisk is. An officer can walk up to anyone and ask them questions and ask to frisk them without any criminal activity and anyone can refuse to allow the search or answer any questions as long as they are not being detained. If an officer approaches you, you simply have to ask if you are being detained if not, and you don't want to talk to them, you can leave. This method has been approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and most police agencies use this tool in high crime areas. It's used to identify possible suspects/victims/witnesses and any stop and frisk has to be documented and that is where they are getting the statistics from. Law Enforcement is not trying to hide what they are doing. Most cities, like New York, use this approach in high crime areas, and unfortunately, most open street drug activity and prostitution is in predominately minority neighborhoods, hence the one sided stats. And believe it or not, some people have agreed to talk and allow themselves to be frisked while trying to conceal weapons/drugs etc and the stop has led to an arrest. Again, they could have refused and would have been allowed to leave.
The biggest issues I have with this app is if someone goes to an area because of listening to the app, you could end up interfering with the officers, depending on how you approach the situation, either getting someone hurt and/or getting yourself arrested. Anytime someone approaches an officer who is in the process of interviewing or detaining someone or investigating a crime, the officer's first thought is his safety and the safety of others if he does not know what your intentions are and will react accordingly. The other issue is if you were approached, and you agreed to talk to the officer and allow him to frisk you because you have nothing to hide, you could wind up with your picture in a database that you have no control over how the information would be used. As a retired Deputy Sheriff, I have used this procedure while patrolling high crime areas, or in areas where we have had a surge in criminal activity, i.e., burglaries, criminal mischief etc, and on some occasions, received very helpful information that eventually led to discovering who was responsible.
While I will admit that there are some overzealous or corrupt police officers, they are a very small minority, less than 2 percent of all law enforcement. The rest are just trying to do a job that most people either could not do or who look down on them. I disagree with the comments from the police chief, but in reality, if you video tape and submit a stop and frisk using this app, and it was determined that a suspect they were looking for could be in the video, a prosecutor/police officer would subpoena this information and the name of the photographer would become public record as part of the criminal case. However, he should not have made a threat out of it.
Then stop looking like a criminal. Stop looking like a gang-bangin' piece-of-sh!t. Then you probably won't be stopped.
Well when they commit drive-byin', pimpin', gang-bangin' and cokein', then they'll start looking at them too.
In other words stop glorifying criminal culture.
Since when does asking someone to follow the constitution equate to advocating anarchy? Oh, that's right, since 9/11, when a scared populace decide that it was just easier to surrender their constitutional rights than to fight for them.
What a change this country has gone through - what happened to tolerance?
Anybody over 50yo predict the USA would be like this back in 1970?
People try and make it sound like this stop and frisk is something new. This approach was routine many decades ago when people respected the police and did not openly defy police officers. The practice then ell out of favor due to numerous challenges by outfits like the ACLU. Stop and frisk has now made a come back since the courts have now sided with the police and ruled the practice legal. The reason most of those being stopped are minorities is because they are the ones who are hanging out loitering on street corners in crime infested areas. It is lost in the fact that nine out ten are not cited or arrested that one in ten are. That is a huge number of criminals being caught, based on the numbers cited in the article that would be 68,572 crimes identified and prevented through the program, many of them drug dealers who are stopped from distributing their product. That is a lot of crime being stopped!!!
@js in sd, have you ever heard of the 4th amendment? the point is that the police shouldnt be able to search whoever they want cause maybe they'll find some guilty people, would you be ok with weekly searches of your home? to make sure you werent breaking any laws?
sadly police unions all over the country are trying to ram through laws that make it illegal to film cops in public places using provisions of wiretapping laws that were never meant to be used in that way. the police in this country are being rapidly militarized, cops are carrying machine guns in their squad cars, cities are buying armed apc's and a whole host of other extremely lethal and extremely expensive weaponry, all the while they cry that they cant get enough money to hire police and give them benefits.
Never mind the truth. The criminal coddlers don't want to hear it.
all kneel before the almighty police state!!!
It's difficult for me to reconcile your statement with the fact that 90% of the stops are on minorities and 90% of those searches are bogus.
What the @!$%# happened to the 4th ammendment?
Whites-only drinking fountains were routine, too. Just because something was "routine" doesn't make it right.
If the stops only result in 10% arrests, then obviously their criteria for making the stops is too broad and intrusive. I wonder if you'd support random searches of people's homes if one in 10 searches revealed some indication of criminal activity?
well gee barry, if ramdom stops can catch 1 in 10 people commiting some kind of offense or another, just think how "safe" we would be if we allowed random searches of our homes and vehicles. we might even catch a terrorist.
100% searches of all homes and individuals on at least a monthly basis NOW!!!
(sarcasm off)
A "Stop" is not an arrest. An arrest, as the first step in a prosecution must be based on probable cause. a stop may be for "articulable suspicion. For example:
A man is walking down the street with something strange and feathery in his hat. The policeman stops him and asks, "What's your name and what is that strange thing in your hat?" The man says, "Oh, that.
My name is Yankee Doodle, and that is my large macaroni." To which the officer responds, "Well, that's strange but you are free to go. Have a nice day."
The officer had articulable suspicion and thus could stop the man, but not probable cause, so an arrest was un-warranted.
Terry vs. State of Ohio, U.S. Supreme Court, 1968
No...all he had was curiosity. There was no reason to suspect any wrongdoing. There is nothing illegal about walking down the street wearing a funny hat. In your scenario, the cop had no "articulable suspicion" of anything criminal that would justify a stop and search.
Police may briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such a detention is known as a Terry stop. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained may be armed, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.
"it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous."
Which is not the same as saying they can stop and frisk for any old innocuous reason.
and asking someone a question about their hat is not the same as putting your hands on their body, removing the contents of their pockets, rifling through their bag, all in public, making the person searched look and feel like a criminal to all who pass by, for no reason other than the cop just picked that person randomly for search, with a 90% failure rate.
This APP is similar to the Mobile Cop Watch Alert Network which is largely built around a location-based text messaging platform and a loose nationwide network of local copwatchers who can participate at any time.
the cop watch mobile alert network can be found on google, just type in 'cop watch mobile alert network' or call (877) 588-0804
The NYPD has joined the KGB, Stasi, Savak & Mossad in the Police State Hall of Fame. Welcome to the New America, where we're happy to give up our liberty in exchange for a little security. We love our Patriot Act!
You're not acting patriotly.
thepunisher-2054749
Well, a TRUE Patriot does not defend the wrongs done by their Government. And it's "patriotically".
God bless the NYPD for doing their job. The criminal stats are down so it's a good thing.
I remember the late-80s, early 90s when they used to sit around in their squad cars all day eating donuts while petty crimes would go on and they'd turn a blind eye. They wouldn't do jack sh!t.
A great turnaround from those days. If people have nothing to hide, then they shouldn't mind being stopped & frisked just as you would at the airport.
I think we could assume that his post was sarcastic, if not then he would fit right in to 1930s Germany.
@The Quacked One My bad, but man sarcasm on sarcasm crime does not make. Don't be that guy to find flaws with sarcasm.
By the statistics in the article, this tactic resulted in the ticketing or arrest of 68,000 people. Doing or holding something worth ticketing or arresting them for. Three cheers for the cops. Job well done. Do some more.
Don41331 your comment makes me want to vomit. The fact that you're OK with bending over and letting the government have their way with you might be acceptable to you, but they can just f the hell off when it comes to checking up on me. Do I participate in criminal activities? No, I sure don't, so I don't have anything to hide. That does not take away from my right to privacy and my right against searches without probable cause. I do not accept being scrutinized by any form of government, especially when I am not doing anything illegal.
The thing that amuses me most is their excuse, as well as yours, of "if you aren't doing anything wrong then you have nothing to hide" works on the police who don't want to be recorded. The only difference is citizens are 100% within their rights to record anything happening in the public right-of-way.
Well don't choke on it, pal.
;)
Well you just try to stop them, k?
Sure pal, sure. The guilty never have anything to hide. lol...
Well you just make sure you don't fly or take a train anywhere. Go pedal-power.
Well you better go tell the cops that. They don't seem to be listening to you at the moment.
Just stand in the middle of the street, wag your finger and admonish them. Oh and uh... stick your tongue out at them at the same time. They'll get the message.
more lol...
The forefathers did envision walking the streets without fear of government intervention and harassment. The emplaced the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments to the Constitution for just that purpose.
the thing about the fear of videos by the police is that phones already record videos that can be posted on the internet.
So that bastion of liberalism that is NYC, the same city that derided the State of AZ for SB1070 is now doing the exact same thing that they accused SB1070 of promoting.
it happens in every city. it's also illegal in every city. what was your point?
Ummm....not illegal, but thanks for playing.
actually, yes it is cause you are not allowed to stop someone without cause and frisk them. my court appearance and having the case thrown out over this exact type of police activity trumps whatever you THINK you know. a OCU police group stopped me at some apartments that my friend lived at and frisked me to "make sure they were safe and i didn't have weapons". they found weed on me and arrested me. the case was thrown out cause they had no right to frisk me, not even for their own safety. try being informed instead of just opinionated.
Why am I not surprised you ended up in court.
why am i not surprised that's your only rebuttal. nothing to say about me being wrong cause i'm not. also, if that's supposed to make me feel ashamed or something it didn't work.
So, basically a cop arrested you because you were carrying illegal drugs and somehow you aren't wrong? Whether the cop broke the rules or not is debatable, but the fact you did is not.
Wshiwwhatever...
Can't debate so you try to deflect ?
Next you'll be calling names I guess. Or maybe a strawman ?
actually it's not debatable, the debate is over and the police men lost it IN COURT. yes, i broke the law but so did they and two wrongs don't make a right. the cop did arrest me for carrying illegal drugs but never had the right to search me in the first place as they witnessed no crime being committed. there isn't much of a point arguing with you, not that you're putting up much of one, cause you obviously don't know the laws.
Ok Jo, you want a debate, here you go. The problem with this app is it is all about context. If you only see the police response but not the events that led to that response, the danger is to the pliceman who is doing his job properly.
Actually if it was the first time you got arrested for it then it's not criminal.
"At present, first-time offenders who are found to be carrying less than 25 grams of marijuana on their person are supposed to be issued a noncriminal violation ticket, similar to a traffic ticket, while those observed to be openly displaying a small amount of the drug -- in an upturned palm, for instance -- are often arrested on a misdemeanor criminal charge.
noncriminal violation ticket.
And Wshiw...
What danger ?
In order to be ticketed don't you have to break the law? Criminal or not it is breaking the law.
The danger is that they have to defend their actions. Waste taxpayer dollars, and in the off chance may get reprimanded or lose their jobs simply based on a video that lacks context. The other danger is they modify their behaviour to a point that it puts them in danger.
i can live with both of those dangers. as i said below, even with video evidence of breaking the law or violating rights cops don't always get in trouble for those actions.
You can live with it because your not a police officer, their husbands and wives, or their children.
Context they can provide just as good as before the app came out.
I actually see no dangers at all.
By the way is it illegal to violate someones fourth amendment right ?
and you can live with what police do cause you're not black or hispanic. see what i did there?
You do understand that the 4th Amendment only protects you from the Federal government right?
Actually no, not only from the federal gouvernement.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/when-the-fourth-amendment-applies.html
then why was my case, which was brought by city police, thrown out? yeah, keep talking.
No, the 4th Amendment protects you from all levels of authorized government police and agents. Constitutional rights and privileges carry across and through the whole society.
Wshiwzasgtmjr, you remind me of what my dear sweet old grandmother used to say. "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
With respects to your grandma.. Wshhiwzasgtmjr removed all my doubts even before he opened his mouth.
Like th cops, say, if you got nothing to hide, then your're fine. Same back at the cops, if you got nothng to hide, than you're fine.
@Wshiwzasgtmjr:
I still believe in the importance of law enforcement officers, and their role in catching criminals and deterring crime.
HOWEVER, I also believe that ANY LEO who commits criminal acts and/or civil-rights violations in the course of performing his duties, has no business being a LEO.
I also believe that only LEO's who commit criminal acts and civil-rights violations worry about having to defend themselves. A legit LEO would have no qualms about defending himself, when he knows his actions were correct and legal.
Your whole argument is just a cover for those LEOs who want to continue getting away with committing criminal acts in secret.
One of the tricks of the police is to ask a person to turn the drug over to them. When he pulls it out of his pocket to hand it over, he's arrested for "openly displaying" the drug.
I have great respect for most NYC police officers. They're the reason that I feel perfectly safe walking the streets of midtown at midnight. But, some of their petty tactics just go to far.
Hate hurter, the fact that you got away with breaking the law does not make you a spokesman of any kind for any one. You are an idiot and a criminal. And you seem so proud.
The 'app' and the camera do not pose any physical threat to the police officer. They are not in danger from it or the person operating it.
Mr. Wshiwzasgtmjr -
Since the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, Federal Courts have jurisdiction of all constitutional rights violations, even in cases begun in State and local jurisdiction.
I think something more telling here that a lot of people want to ignore is that 10% of these stop and frisks resulted in an arrest. It's pretty shameful if that large of a percentage of these people were carrying something illegal.
that means 90% of the people were not doing anything wrong but ALL of them were stopped without cause and illegally. it's a violation of their protected rights but obviously ok with you cause you
a) don't fit the description given(you're white)
b) are not a patriotic believer in people's freedoms in this country.
probably both with one exception, they must respect YOUR rights and anything else is fine with you.
Well, it's an obvious violation of Fourth Amendment rights to be randomly stopped and searched by cops, there's no doubt about that.
But... it's still a pretty shameful statistic that there's a 10 percent chance that if you stop a random person on the street, they're carrying something illegal.
87% are black or hispanic. that's not random stops, it's targeting certain people based on race.
If you're duck hunting, you don't stop to shoot at crows and pigeons, too, just because you don't want the ducks' feelings to be hurt.
Our complete aversion to profiling, no matter how logical the practice might be, is the reason you see 90-year-old grannies in wheelchairs and 2-year-olds in diapers getting "enhanced patdowns" at airports.
so you're saying that blacks and hispanics are all criminals? you don't take away an entire group's rights based on what some of them do. well, america does. that's why ALL muslims are now considered terrorists. it begs the question though, why aren't all white people villified since timothy mcveigh was white?
No, I'm not. And if you had paid attention, you'd have noticed I said that the practice in its entirety is wrong because it's a clear violation of Fourth Amendment rights. They shouldn't be doing random stops and searches in the first place, regardless of skin color.
The 4th Amendment does not protect anyone from being RANDOMLY stopped and or searched. It does, however, protect from UNREASONABLE search and seizure.
When the police stop and frisk only those who "happen" to resemble a STEREOTYPE of what a criminal "looks like" -- THAT is unreasonable search and seizure.
Actually, stop and frisk is legal and does not require suspicion that you committed an crime, and has been upheld by the supreme court. A stop and frisk allows an officer to approach anyone at any time and talk to them. The office can ask permission to search the person and if the person agrees, can be searched. At the same time, any person can refuse to talk to the officer and can refuse to be searched, unless the officer tells them they are being "detained" and searched as part of the detainment. A person can only be detained if there is probable cause to believe the person has committed or is in the commission of a crime. Any time an officer approaches you and starts asking questions, you can simply ask them if they are detaining you. If they say no, you can walk away without answering any questions or being searched.
As to the statistics showing minorities more than whites, most officers use this approach in high crime areas where street drugs/prostitution is a major problem conducted in the open and unfortunately, this is predominately in minority neighborhoods, hence the unbalanced stats.
In theory. In practice, the police will probably just make up some bull@!$%#e so they can tackle and taze you.
The Constitution is the first law. If you law and order types realized this you'd stop supporting police tactics that trample Constitutional rights.
There is nothing dangerous about a camera, or filming a situation. If its catching police looking bad, that nobodies fault but the Police. The public should not be supporting the Police confiscating phones or arresting poeple who film them acting inappropriately. They are either professionals, or they are not. The public deserves the truth of whats going on.
The danger is a 30 second clip without context.
bout time the danger was for the police rather than the citizens. no judge is going to base his decision solely on the out of context video unless there is obvious laws being broken by the police. even then they won't always rule against them.
A video is an honest accurate witness.
A video is a snapshot in time. I punch you in the face. You punch me back. Only your response is recorded. That accurate witness just said you were assaulting me.
Police shouldnt be getting into fist fights with people. Their job is to capture people, bring them in. They should not be using the "subdue" part as excuse to get into brawls with people, or beat people up. Anger management. If they need better protection, so be it. But as peace officers their job is to de-escalate, not exacerbate situations.
Police have nothing to fear from a camera unless they are caught acting out of line, and everyone knows it.
that accurate witness said nothing other than you were hit. if you hit him too there will be physical evidence and witnesses who watched you hit him, then got out their camera to record the rest of what happened. otherwise why would they get there camera out, they wouldn't know to record if they hadn't seen the first part.
Ok, you completely missed the point. I throw in the towel on this one.
you were never in the fight to begin with.
I weep for the children of this country. Have a good one.
I got the point. If its catching police assualting people, thats a good thing. Its irrelevant if the other person hit him. As I said, police should not be getting into fist fights, or brawls. I realize a hostile person who is fighting is dangerous, but police are suppose to be professionals. Not thugs. Get a damn net if you need one.
"A video is a snapshot in time. I punch you in the face. You punch me back. Only your response is recorded. That accurate witness just said you were assaulting me."
Man, you need some serious debating courses, WTH. Do you even know what is wrong with your statement? You use, I punch you in the face as an argument? You punch me back and get recorded as your bases for your argument.
First of all, using the police as example, as it should be, why would anyone just punch the cop in the face, if they are innocent. So, what you are saying is that the police don't like to be punch in the face, and if that happens they will punch back? What ever happended to just restraining the thug who punched you in the face, don't they teach you how to do that at the academy?
The only conclusion I come away from your posts is that you're one of those dumb cops, who thinks they are better than everyone else, are above the law, and wants to be able to do whatever they like. You have no real excusses so you throw around "What Ifs", a tactic to re-enforce fear in people.
Wshiwzasgtmjr
So how the hell would that hurt YOU?
The very fact this APPLICATION is needed because we are sliding FAST into NAZI SS GERMANY:. The writing is on the wall - Nasty in our government, inside out - for the past 40 years - intense programming, debasement of the people - 3 generations NOW whose whole reality is bent on WHAT THE MEDIA TELLS THEM IT IS!!! Powerful stuff, of BRAIN Washing - especially with childhood drugs, alcohol and video games. Only a MILITARY FORCE will be able to CONTROL the masses out of control - it is coming, for it is already here. The 'people' of this once GREAT COUNTRY are nothing But animals to be satisfied by Obama and his 'congress'...you might as well use the WORD MAFIA or NAZIs when speaking about the dictating force in this country - and there fore the WORLD, as our leaders - are truly European now - WE ARE NOT AMERICAns any longer...and this is just what a sleeping people GET.
this app is not needed. this app allows police to find out who recorded the vid in the first place and possibly do something to that person. anonymous recordings are better as there is no retribution.
You know, I used to think you people were nuts but since about 10 years ago, I'm with you.
The government NEEDS to be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
HATR_HURTER
The app is still a good thing, because WHEN enough people use it (and they will, as more and more are harassed, hounded and persecuted for using it) The Powers That Be WILL take notice of the fact that The People (that's the average Citizen) will not tolerate the abuses of Power any longer and are not afraid to fight for Liberty, Truth and Justice.
the people are already using youtube to do the same thing anonymously though.
A friend of mine said maybe 40 years ago that the United States would eventually become a fascist country. His only mistake was thinking it would be run by AT&T. :)
Now we need the app that catches them speeding, running red lights, driving agressively, smoking weed, driving drunk, and doing everything else they do that is illegal the very day they arrest other people for doing the same thing. A cop in Chicago let another go who was DUI and 2 miles down the road the cop hit a snow plow and died. Professional courtesy turned out to kill the guy. Go figure. Cops need to practice what they preach, so many of them don't and that's what give them the bad name!
Police work isnt a license to take out your rage on people. Thats what Police are afraid people will see. Whether the person they go after is bad or not, is irrelevent. Their "job", is to arrest criminals, and bring them before a judge for punishment. Not dish it out themselves.
Can you say TSA?
This might be interesting.
I've never heard of TSA beating suspects.
Well it didn't take long to drag in Obama. If you really want to know, all governments local to national and Democrat or Republican want control once they are in power. Look at Bloomberg trying to dicatate what you can drink supposedly out of concern for health. Where is the concern for overbearing regulation and governemnt control there? It is the duty of the citizen to apply brakes to the dominance of government. If we don't no government will do it for us. Acting as a good witness to a wrong (as in the videoing of police actions) is just such a duty. In some states being a bystander to a crime is a crime itself. So here is a tool to do it. Don't fall for that silly arguement that it could help criminals. No it is because some with power don't want the abuse of that power brought forward. Look at the beating to death of the homeless man in California. Luckily public cameras were available there.
Mr. Obama craves the attention. He is flattered by it.
The only time I can see myself getting upset at the fact that I was being video recorded is if I were doing something I shouldn't be doing. In the day of dash cams, I would think this practice would be welcomed by law enforcement. Why is it not ok for you to do something that they do themselves? I have a hunch.....they don't control the pause button on your cellphone.
Ignorance is the tool of the sheeple in this Nation, by putting thier heads in the sand they believe it will all go away, well let me enlighten you, nothing worth while comes easy, you must fight for your rights, tell BLoomberg and his band of thugs that you will not stand for, enough said.
If the NY police stays in one place long enough for criminals to troll the net and find these, it's the supervising officer issue.
Kind of reminds you of the Bicyclist that a NY cop clotheslined, then charged him with a list of things. Only the fact that a Japanese tourist put his video of it on Youtube busted the cop's story.
Not surprising at all that we need this app to report on the SS ^h^h NYPD.
Stop and Frisk does not drive down crime, it is a fishing expedition. Why are we not on Wall Street stopping White men in business suits and brief cases looking for guns or drugs, why are we not stopping and frisking everyone going into Port Authority or Penn Station, they could be bringing drugs and guns back to NJ, why only in minority neighborhoods or wherever groups of blacks and latinos live must we be thrust up against walls for no reason at all at gunpoint because we look suspicious? Didn't the Nazi's do that? It's called collective punishment when you punish everyone for the sins of a few. Since the color of my skin dictates that I am a criminal and should be carrying a gun or at least drugs I have no respect for NYC police and they have none for me so we are even.
More transparency is good for everyone concerned. If proper procedures are followed the police should have no objection.
This app., and your existing phones can record audio and video. In todays world of the bureaucratic government, they should be considered anytime you deal with a government employee. If the bureaucrat can say, on the phone, your conversation will be recorded for quality control, please begin your (that be you the citizen) conversation with, "your (the bureaucrat's) conversation is being recorded." If they (the bureaucrat) is or has been helpful, say so at the end of the conversation, or in an email. If not, be courteous, but say, no you haven't been helpful, or courteous - if rude. And, then send a copy to the supervisor, the director, commissioner, your legislator.
So the police are concerned that criminals will now be able to avoid areas where the police are... If they are only charging one in every ten people searched I think that the criminals are already doing a pretty good job of avoiding them. I'd hate for them to blow that 10% arrest rate, though.