Good survaillance bad survaillance

SLUSK

America has degenerated into a fascist police state, this is just another example of what the thugs in jackboots get up to.

Here you got a man who was put in handcuffs by a police officer. He did not commit a crime and he was not a suspect of a crime, yet he was put in handcuffs and taken to the station because he practiced his 2nd amendment rights and the police officer felt "unsafe".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz141.html

SLUSK

In America the jackbooted thugs(police) like their surveillance privileges but they don't like it when they are put under surveillance themselves.

"Simon Glik, a lawyer, was walking down Tremont Street in Boston when he saw three police officers struggling to extract a plastic bag from a teenager’s mouth. Thinking their force seemed excessive for a drug arrest, Glik pulled out his cellphone and began recording. Within minutes, Glik said, he was in handcuffs."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/047409.html

So this guy was arrested for filming the police using excessive force. Filming abuse from the jackbooted boys in blue is against the law and you guys at boards.ie who try to tell me America is a free country, you make me laugh. Do you even believe it yourselves?

Biggins

SLUSK wrote: »

America has degenerated into a fascist police state, this is just another example of what the thugs in jackboots get up to.

Here you got a man who was put in handcuffs by a police officer. He did not commit a crime and he was not a suspect of a crime, yet he was put in handcuffs and taken to the station because he practiced his 2nd amendment rights and the police officer felt "unsafe".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz141.html

They have even started in a lot of states, arresting people who are by-standers.
Why? For recording them on their phones while doing an arrest!
See: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/

So much for the land of the free!

Biggins

As mentioned in another thread: Police fight cellphone recordings
Witnesses taking audio of officers arrested, charged with illegal surveillance

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/12/police_fight_cellphone_recordings/

“The statute has been misconstrued by Boston police,’’ said June Jensen, the lawyer who represented Glik and succeeded in getting his charges dismissed. The law, she said, does not prohibit public recording of anyone.

SLUSK

No matter how many of these articles you post they will just tell you these are "isolated incidents".

Anonymous1987

SLUSK wrote: »

No matter how many of these articles you post they will just tell you these are "isolated incidents".

Then what makes you think otherwise?

Biggins

SLUSK wrote: »

No matter how many of these articles you post they will just tell you these are "isolated incidents".

True - but like each piece of a jigsaw is just a single piece...
Put them together though and you soon get the true picture!

SLUSK

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

Then what makes you think otherwise?

I think it's called the bigger picture.

Overheal

Considering all the footage that makes it on youtube, they arent doing a very good job :rolleyes:

Its understandable that they oppose the recordings, not because it "Protects Them" from incrimination (And there have been cases) But its a cause of Who records the Police when they do something right? Nobody. I think if you filmed it all you'd find cops at fault in >1% of all aggregate incidents.

Overheal

thugs in jackboots

You could come up with something better than that. Spin-Nicknames of any affiliation though just melt my brain. "Jackboots" (lol), Anti-Choice, Pro-Abortion, etc. etc.

And I think we've been over the Fascism thing SLUSK. Well, we did: the users of US Politics. You made a proclaimation, got debunked, ran away for 2 or 3 pages and came back with the same old ****.

To repeat a question never answered: Have you ever lived or even visited the United States?

SLUSK

Last time I went into america, via vancouver into seattle. They took my fingerprints, border security took ages and I felt like I was treated like a criminal.

Inner city Seattle was filled with bums and addicts. Never felt safe.

Anonymous1987

Biggins wrote: »

True - but like each piece of a jigsaw is just a single piece...
Put them together though and you soon get the true picture!

SLUSK wrote: »

I think it's called the bigger picture.

Like the Globe article suggested the law needs to be clearer on the topic

The cases are the courts’ concern, said Coakley spokesman Harry Pierre. “At this time, this office has not issued any advisory or opinion on this issue.’’

They guy ended up getting his charges dismissed admittedly after a bit of a 5 month struggle and it doesn't seem to have discouraged him from doing it again.

It took five months for Surmacz, with the ACLU, to get the charges of illegal wiretapping and disorderly conduct dismissed. Surmacz said he would do it again.

“Because I didn’t do anything wrong,’’ he said. “Had I recorded an officer saving someone’s life, I almost guarantee you that they wouldn’t have come up to me and say, ‘Hey, you just recorded me saving that person’s life. You’re under arrest.’ ’’

The US still performs well in freedom indices. This one by the Economist includes civil liberties and ranks the US at 18/167. That is the best metric we have of the broader picture.

Anonymous1987

SLUSK wrote: »

Last time I went into america, via vancouver into seattle. They took my fingerprints, border security took ages and I felt like I was treated like a criminal.

Inner city Seattle was filled with bums and addicts. Never felt safe.

Can't say specifically for Seattle but New York and Boston were very safe depending on the neighbourhood, no worse than any European city (can't speak for outside of Europe/US). As for security it's no worse than how Ryanair treat their passengers except Ryanair are getting paid for it. A poor welcome is not a fascist state, better than a nice welcome in a country that actually does abuse human rights.

KerranJast

SLUSK wrote: »

Last time I went into america, via vancouver into seattle. They took my fingerprints, border security took ages and I felt like I was treated like a criminal.

#1 terrorist target country in taking maximum security precautions shocker!

They'd be crucified by their citizens for being lax with border security.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

Last time I went into america, via vancouver into seattle. They took my fingerprints, border security took ages and I felt like I was treated like a criminal.

I have no sympathy for you. Irish customs dont treat me much differently. Oh youre an American, Coming HERE, to LEARN? Sit over here for 2 hours while I process six other Flights, Have a Coffee, and then feel like Stamping your passport.

Of course it didnt matter that I had just Come from Shannon 3 weeks beforehand and lived in Ennis for the last 5 years before that.

So You Poor thing they took your fingerprint and asked you some questions :eek: Truly we should be ashamed of ourselves for taking basic information from the people we let through our borders - Even though we've been doing it for a lot longer than the last 10 or even 200 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

Nodin

SLUSK wrote: »

Last time I went into america, via vancouver into seattle. They took my fingerprints, border security took ages and I felt like I was treated like a criminal.

Inner city Seattle was filled with bums and addicts. Never felt safe.

You could change the destinations to any combination with regard to say Brazil, Romania, Russia, France, Italy etc and come to much the same conclusion.

Mjollnir

SLUSK wrote: »

America has degenerated into a fascist police state, this is just another example of what the thugs in jackboots get up to.

Here you got a man who was put in handcuffs by a police officer. He did not commit a crime and he was not a suspect of a crime, yet he was put in handcuffs and taken to the station because he practiced his 2nd amendment rights and the police officer felt "unsafe".
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz141.html

Oh, please. It should be obvious to any rational individual that that's an example of a bad arrest, not some breathless, histrionic contention of a 'fascist state'.

sdanseo

Mjollnir wrote: »

Oh, please. It should be obvious to any rational individual that that's an example of a bad arrest, not some breathless, histrionic contention of a 'fascist state'.

That link is neither an example of a bad arrest nor a man who has any sense at all. If anything, statements like

We should not be required to apply for any "permit" to carry a concealed weapon in the first place. Despite this, Mr. Mitchener did everything required of him by law, ordinance and Metro instructions.

just reaffirm many people's well-held opinion that the USA is a nation of gun-toting idiots. Certainly this guy deserves the label. That officer had no proof this guy hadn't stolen ID from the office and that he wasn't going to shoot her down once she turned her back.

As long as things like the steadfast belief that to refute the second amendment is effectively treason, regardles how utterly senseless it is, the USA will be fundamentally flawed and that is by no means the only reason why.

SLUSK

sdonn wrote: »

That link is neither an example of a bad arrest nor a man who has any sense at all. If anything, statements like



just reaffirm many people's well-held opinion that the USA is a nation of gun-toting idiots. Certainly this guy deserves the label. That officer had no proof this guy hadn't stolen ID from the office and that he wasn't going to shoot her down once she turned her back.

As long as things like the steadfast belief that to refute the second amendment is effectively treason, regardles how utterly senseless it is, the USA will be fundamentally flawed and that is by no means the only reason why.

So you are saying police should be allowed to arrest people who make them feel "unsafe" even though they have not committed a crime or are suspect of a crime?

What you are saying is that police should be allowed to do arbitrary arrests?

Overheal

Why are we taking examples from an Individual's Political Blog anyway, that doesnt include any reference material to proof that the described incident ever took place?

Google News: "Charlie Mitchener", Mitchener being the apparent victim of this atrocious injustice.

Even if there is any truth in this account, its clear this officer was sent out on an incident she had no training or preparation for. But considering the 4 Previous officers that managed to handle the situation perfectly well, that means as Low as an 80% Success rate in good policing.

southsiderosie

I'm an American living in Europe, and the state is far more omnipresent here than at home. CCTV, requirements for registering with local authorities, etc. Once you are in the US, should you choose to, you can have little to no interaction with the state.

I would also add that as a person of color, I and my other non-white American friends have been stopped by police and asked for id more in Europe than we ever were at home...which is interesting because a lot of Europeans like to squak about how racist the US is, but from what I've seen they treat their minority populations (many of whom are citizens) like ****.

SLUSK

southsiderosie wrote: »

I'm an American living in Europe, and the state is far more omnipresent here than at home. CCTV, requirements for registering with local authorities, etc. Once you are in the US, should you choose to, you can have little to no interaction with the state.

I would also add that as a person of color, I and my other non-white American friends have been stopped by police and asked for id more in Europe than we ever were at home...which is interesting because a lot of Europeans like to squak about how racist the US is, but from what I've seen they treat their minority populations (many of whom are citizens) like ****.

Well I never said the EU was good either.

Overheal

^ London? I like to laugh at the Notting Hill thing every once in a while still - you wont find anyone in that movie that isnt white, contrary to Reality.

And I just remembered: When I saw this thread title I thought this was going to be about LA Police Trialing their new Cameras, Im surprised this wasnt even picked up in the Original Post.

http://gizmodo.com/5433176/these-police-will-soon-be-required-to-wear-head-mounted-cameras

Sadly, stories about police discrimination and the Tasering of 10-year old girls are frighteningly commonplace these days. Officers in San Jose, CA have a particularly bad reputation, which is one reason why they are being outfitted with head-mounted cameras.

The kit includes a camera, a control piece and a computer that hangs from the belt. Every time an officer interacts with a civilian, they are required to activate the AXON camera. Afterward, the officer can switch the camera to a "buffer" mode that records limited video, or turn it off completely. At the end of a shift, the video will be downloaded to a central server.

A leading critic of the department welcomed the cameras as a tool to provide useful evidence, but dismissed their significance as a solution to rocky police-community relations.

"The AXON project is unfortunately a positive thing right now because the level of distrust is so high," said Raj Jayadev, director of the community organization Silicon Valley De-Bug. "But it doesn't address the more fundamental problem: What stereotypes police may carry when they see people of color on the street and make assumptions about character.

Since an officer can simply turn off the device at anytime, I don't think AXON will put an end to police abuse. However, keeping a record of these interactions can do nothing but help the evidence gathering process. Trials financed by Taser are currently underway, but reports estimate that a full-fledged deployment in the San Jose area would cost upwards of $4 million in taxpayer money. [Mercury News via Crunchgear]

And without surveillance gear, how would we have ever believed this?

On a related note, the Ambiguity is Over: Cellphone searches without a warrant are now officially against the rules. Rejoice.

SLUSK wrote:

Well I never said the EU was good either.

No, but then neither do you try and call them Fascists either :rolleyes:

SLUSK

Overheal wrote: »

^ London? I like to laugh at the Notting Hill thing every once in a while still - you wont find anyone in that movie that isnt white, contrary to Reality.

And I just remembered: When I saw this thread title I thought this was going to be about LA Police Trialing their new Cameras, Im surprised this wasnt even picked up in the Original Post.

http://gizmodo.com/5433176/these-police-will-soon-be-required-to-wear-head-mounted-cameras



And without surveillance gear, how would we have ever believed this?

On a related note, the Ambiguity is Over: Cellphone searches without a warrant are now officially against the rules. Rejoice.No, but then neither do you try and call them Fascists either :rolleyes:

The EU is not a single country like America either. I would call Britain a fascist police state as well.

Overheal

Ive called them Orwellian [and similarly you could apply the same term to the US but frankly applied to all society in general] but I think youve thrown around the term Fascist so much its lost its meaning.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_%28epithet%29

Mjollnir

sdonn wrote: »

That link is neither an example of a bad arrest nor a man who has any sense at all. If anything, statements like

As someone in the business, and from the information given, I assure you, it was a bad arrest. While its not clearly stated, it is indicated that after being detained, he was then transported back to the station and held until a report was written. That is an arrest, and a very bad one. If that is indeed that case, there was zero grounds for that, and he should have been released on scene once his identity was established and the building cleared.

Was she right, as a solo officer, for detaining him before backup arrived and the situation fully assessed? Absolutely. Transporting him from the scene, in restraints and in custody and then, some time later, after a report had been written, only then releasing him? A very bad arrest, and opening up her department to liability.

just reaffirm many people's well-held opinion that the USA is a nation of gun-toting idiots. Certainly this guy deserves the label. That officer had no proof this guy hadn't stolen ID from the office and that he wasn't going to shoot her down once she turned her back.

Anyone who opines that the US is a nation of gun-toting idiots based on this, given that he had a valid, legal permit and in no way acted improperly towards the officer, is more likely deserving of the label 'idiot'.

As long as things like the steadfast belief that to refute the second amendment is effectively treason, regardles how utterly senseless it is, the USA will be fundamentally flawed and that is by no means the only reason why.

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything? Keep your red herrings, thanks, I have no use for them.

sdanseo

Mjollnir wrote: »

As someone in the business, and from the information given, I assure you, it was a bad arrest. While its not clearly stated, it is indicated that after being detained, he was then transported back to the station and held until a report was written. That is an arrest, and a very bad one. If that is indeed that case, there was zero grounds for that, and he should have been released on scene once his identity was established and the building cleared.

Was she right, as a solo officer, for detaining him before backup arrived and the situation fully assessed? Absolutely. Transporting him from the scene, in restraints and in custody and then, some time later, after a report had been written, only then releasing him? A very bad arrest, and opening up her department to liability.

"As someone in the business" - meaning you're a US cop? So you walk around all day with a glock etc belted to your hip. You're biased towards the gun culture already.

My reading of the article suggested he waited in his own office while the officer completed paperwork. He was not formally arrested, not detained for a prolonged period, his rights were not invalidated and the police course of action was in my educated opinion warranted and correct. By your own admission, she was corect to detain him temporarily. Maybe she could have been a little faster or more courteous afterward, but the fact is he was without his gun for one hour. God help us if he can't survive in NV without while surrounded by police he shouldn't be allowed one.

Mjollnir wrote: »

Anyone who opines that the US is a nation of gun-toting idiots based on this, given that he had a valid, legal permit and in no way acted improperly towards the officer, is more likely deserving of the label 'idiot'.

No, I didn't for the opinion that the US is a nation of gun-toting idiots. I said that was a common stereotype in European society and that the man in question was deserving of such and I stand by that statement. He is deserving of the label for suggesting anyone should be allowed to have a firearm without a licence. Does this include the larger proportion of the population who have likely had no training in how to handle firearms, or does it include convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles, burglars and the clinically insane? Have some cop on!

Mjollnir wrote: »

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with anything? Keep your red herrings, thanks, I have no use for them.

It has to do with US gun culture. It's a fundamentally idiotic policy invented nearly 230 years ago in the middle of an armed conflict where it was not uncommon for British soldiers to randomly kill people and burn houses as they saw fit. Modern society is just not comparable, is more civilised and is not a place where firearms for self defence should be commonplace - purely because they should not NEED to be. A culture of firerarms breeds a culture of violence and that's why the US has such a problem with violent crime. The blindness and unwillingness of Americans to see this horridly obvious truth sickens me, if I'm brutally honest.

This all related to the OP's comments on starting the thread and is an example of how the USA is a flawed society. That's not to say our society isn't flawed too, it's just addressing the thread.

Lose your defensive attitude and open your eyes, pal.

SLUSK

sdonn wrote: »

"As someone in the business" - meaning you're a US cop? So you walk around all day with a glock etc belted to your hip. You're biased towards the gun culture already.

My reading of the article suggested he waited in his own office while the officer completed paperwork. He was not formally arrested, not detained for a prolonged period, his rights were not invalidated and the police course of action was in my educated opinion warranted and correct. By your own admission, she was corect to detain him temporarily. Maybe she could have been a little faster or more courteous afterward, but the fact is he was without his gun for one hour. God help us if he can't survive in NV without while surrounded by police he shouldn't be allowed one.



No, I didn't for the opinion that the US is a nation of gun-toting idiots. I said that was a common stereotype in European society and that the man in question was deserving of such and I stand by that statement. He is deserving of the label for suggesting anyone should be allowed to have a firearm without a licence. Does this include the larger proportion of the population who have likely had no training in how to handle firearms, or does it include convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles, burglars and the clinically insane? Have some cop on!

It has to do with US gun culture. It's a fundamentally idiotic policy invented nearly 230 years ago in the middle of an armed conflict where it was not uncommon for British soldiers to randomly kill people and burn houses as they saw fit. Modern society is just not comparable, is more civilised and is not a place where firearms for self defence should be commonplace - purely because they should not NEED to be. A culture of firerarms breeds a culture of violence and that's why the US has such a problem with violent crime. The blindness and unwillingness of Americans to see this horridly obvious truth sickens me, if I'm brutally honest.

This all related to the OP's comments on starting the thread and is an example of how the USA is a flawed society. That's not to say our society isn't flawed too, it's just addressing the thread.

Lose your defensive attitude and open your eyes, pal.

Broken Britain with it's draconian gun laws is very safe *rolleyes*
Switzerland with it's very liberal gun laws is a very dangerous country *rolleyes*

Mjollnir

sdonn wrote: »

"As someone in the business" - meaning you're a US cop? So you walk around all day with a glock etc belted to your hip. You're biased towards the gun culture already.

Let's take your little game a step further, shall we?

Ah, so you're Irish? So you walk around drunk all day? You're biased towards the forces of sobriety already.

A. I don't carry a Glock
B. Being a LEO involves being armed, out of the nature of the job. It involves no 'bias' towards anything other than safety.

My reading of the article suggested he waited in his own office while the officer completed paperwork. He was not formally arrested, not detained for a prolonged period, his rights were not invalidated and the police course of action was in my educated opinion warranted and correct. By your own admission, she was corect to detain him temporarily. Maybe she could have been a little faster or more courteous afterward, but the fact is he was without his gun for one hour. God help us if he can't survive in NV without while surrounded by police he shouldn't be allowed one.

My statements stand, and you haven't addressed them.

No, I didn't for the opinion that the US is a nation of gun-toting idiots. I said that was a common stereotype in European society and that the man in question was deserving of such and I stand by that statement. He is deserving of the label for suggesting anyone should be allowed to have a firearm without a licence. Does this include the larger proportion of the population who have likely had no training in how to handle firearms, or does it include convicted murderers, rapists, paedophiles, burglars and the clinically insane? Have some cop on!

My statements addressed only his arrest, and the specific aspects of it, not the comments of Lew Rockwell, and, as such, your rather breathless questions are irrelevant to them.

It has to do with US gun culture. It's a fundamentally idiotic policy invented nearly 230 years ago in the middle of an armed conflict where it was not uncommon for British soldiers to randomly kill people and burn houses as they saw fit. Modern society is just not comparable, is more civilised and is not a place where firearms for self defence should be commonplace - purely because they should not NEED to be. A culture of firerarms breeds a culture of violence and that's why the US has such a problem with violent crime. The blindness and unwillingness of Americans to see this horridly obvious truth sickens me, if I'm brutally honest.

Problem being you're not being brutally honest; rather, you're exposing a rather shallow understanding of the crime and social dynamics extant in the US today, and how our history did and did not lead up to where we find ourselves now.

This all related to the OP's comments on starting the thread and is an example of how the USA is a flawed society. That's not to say our society isn't flawed too, it's just addressing the thread.

Lose your defensive attitude and open your eyes, pal.

Lose the notion that I have a defensive attitude, pal: I've commented on one thing, an illegal arrest, the technicalities of which I'm intimately familiar with, and you're trying to turn those into some meta-commentary on things that I haven't addressed and, frankly, belie a rather stereotypical, comic-book understanding of US culture.