Federal lawsuit: IMPD vs. camera guy

[9mmfan]

Ditto what Kirk said. Seems to me a video of a lawful police action be of value to the police. If a LEO is pissed at someone for recording them perhaps their not doing everything kosher. Be interesting to see what INGO resident LEO's have to say.

 

[Classic]

Why aren't the officers personally liable instead of the people of the city? That's BS.

This is always the most disturbing point in cases like this. The officers should have to pay back the city. This kind of conduct would stop immediately after the first time it happened.

 

[thebishopp]

and thankfully it hasn't worked (in cases where the citizen contested the charges). other attempts have been "disorderly conduct", "failure to obey", "obstruction", and other variations of those types of laws. so far they have all met in failure and settlements (again in cases where the citizen contested the charges and sued).

 

[thebishopp]

Frequently it's half of the evidence that is revealed. You'll have no problem finding hundreds of videos online which show half of the story. Doesn't justify taking someone's camera but it also doesn't take a genius to understand why that gets frustrating. It's a shame so many are so easily manipulated and don't possess the basic intelligence to realize when they're being duped but it is what it is. Looking forward to reading what comes out.

and this is why it's important for officers to have their own body cams. in most depts that have instituted body cams they have found a large decrease in the amount of officer complaints. now if this is due to most complaints being false or officers being more careful because they know they are on camera who knows.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hmph. This didn't cost the cops involved anything. The tax payers are, once again, being punished for the actions of bad actors who should have known better. At least they'll now receive more "training" on the matter. Till next time it happens, anyway.

I dunno....that might have been one strongly worded policy. Edicts were probably stated--it might have been a very tense meeting.

 

[phylodog]

and this is why it's important for officers to have their own body cams. in most depts that have instituted body cams they have found a large decrease in the amount of officer complaints. now if this is due to most complaints being false or officers being more careful because they know they are on camera who knows.

I don't disagree with their use but I also don't see the mayor or council buying them. They've got much more important things to worry about like bicycle lanes, cricket fields and an unusable regional operations center.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, we used to be told to take the cell phones if someone filmed us wrestling with a resister so a warrant could be secured and the video pulled as evidence for the resist charge. Testimony is one thing, video is another, and especially since juries tend to be visual that's a big help in court. In the next to last in-service they told us to stop unless there was some other reason to do so, so I guess that was preemptive due to this law suit.

I'm not opposed to body cameras. I used to audio record all of my interactions with citizens and one particular supervisor. It helped me quite a bit in a grand jury, during a false allegation, and also shut down a lawsuit before it got off the ground. The problem becomes one of cost, like anything else. Sure cameras aren't that expensive, but think of how much data has to be stored, indexed, retrieved for court of FOIA requests, etc. I just want to make sure it's easy to turn on and off and I know which one its on. Nobody wants to see the results of Taco Tuesday...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, we used to be told to take the cell phones if someone filmed us wrestling with a resister so a warrant could be secured and the video pulled as evidence for the resist charge. Testimony is one thing, video is another, and especially since juries tend to be visual that's a big help in court. In the next to last in-service they told us to stop unless there was some other reason to do so, so I guess that was preemptive due to this law suit.

I'm not opposed to body cameras. I used to audio record all of my interactions with citizens and one particular supervisor. It helped me quite a bit in a grand jury, during a false allegation, and also shut down a lawsuit before it got off the ground. The problem becomes one of cost, like anything else. Sure cameras aren't that expensive, but think of how much data has to be stored, indexed, retrieved for court of FOIA requests, etc. I just want to make sure it's easy to turn on and off and I know which one its on. Nobody wants to see the results of Taco Tuesday...

You should be doing that on your own time any way!

 

[dross]

Here in Colorado we had three locally famous situations where a person was arrested, a couple of them beaten pretty badly, and their cameras taken or destroyed right there on the spot. In all three separate cases the police lied about what happened and then other video from other sources emerged, proving the cops were lying. In the worst of these, the guy filming was the son of a deputy sheriff who was on the phone with his dad at the time, freaking out at the beatdown the cops were handing out to another guy. He wasn't drunk and he didn't resist, but when the cops smashed his cellphone and beat him up, they lied and said he was interfering with the other arrest and resisting. A street camera proved otherwise.

Perhaps that's why they don't like being filmed. It interferes with their ability to construct the incident post facto.


P.S. A few bad apples, just trying to get home at night, isolated incident....you know.

 

[phylodog]

P.S. A few bad apples, just trying to get home at night, isolated incident....you know.

Nah, sh, you know, those three represent the entire profession.

 

[88GT]

Frequently it's half of the evidence that is revealed. You'll have no problem finding hundreds of videos online which show half of the story. Doesn't justify taking someone's camera but it also doesn't take a genius to understand why that gets frustrating. It's a shame so many are so easily manipulated and don't possess the basic intelligence to realize when they're being duped but it is what it is. Looking forward to reading what comes out.

What does any of that have to do with the reaction LE has to being filmed?

 

[phylodog]

Would you not be irritated if one of your relatives smacked you in the mouth and someone started recording just as you reacted then put that video online to convince everyone you're a monster of sorts?

 

[88GT]

Would you not be irritated if one of your relatives smacked you in the mouth and someone started recording just as you reacted then put that video online to convince everyone you're a monster of sorts?

I'm irritated at a lot of things. Are you now arguing that this gives me the authority to behave in a manner inconsistent with the law and basic civility?

 

[phylodog]

I'm irritated at a lot of things. Are you now arguing that this gives me the authority to behave in a manner inconsistent with the law and basic civility?

You have the most vivid imagination of anyone I have ever had the pleasure of talking to. I don't mean this as an insult but I cannot comprehend how you come to your conclusions. I didn't indicate anything of the sort, not even close.

 

[88GT]

You have the most vivid imagination of anyone I have ever had the pleasure of talking to. I don't mean this as an insult but I cannot comprehend how you come to your conclusions. I didn't indicate anything of the sort, not even close.

Well how else do you connect your comment about being irritated that you are being filmed/recorded and make the leap to actions some LEOs make to stop citizens from filming/recording?

Yes, yes, it's perfectly understandable that you find it irritating to see a video of the last half of an incident that paints you in a poor light without providing the full context of what happened. But we aren't discussing the merits of the use of video to condemn or exonerate LE in their actions. We are discussing the illegal and excessive actions taken by LE to PREVENT that video from being taken. So again, I ask: what part of being irritated about the use of video to document LE behavior has anything to do with illegally preventing the citizen's from taking that video? Unless you are arguing that the former justifies the latter?

 

[phylodog]

I don't make that leap. Your question was "What does any of that have to do with the reaction LE has to being filmed?" and I answered it. No hidden messages or implications that I thought what they did was justified or acceptable, I simply provided a reason for LE to not enjoy being filmed.

Well how else do you connect your comment about being irritated that you are being filmed/recorded and make the leap to actions some LEOs make to stop citizens from filming/recording?

I was not making a leap.

Unless you are arguing that the former justifies the latter?

If I were attempting to make that argument it would be abundantly clear. I am not.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Frequently it's half of the evidence that is revealed. You'll have no problem finding hundreds of videos online which show half of the story. Doesn't justify taking someone's camera but it also doesn't take a genius to understand why that gets frustrating. It's a shame so many are so easily manipulated and don't possess the basic intelligence to realize when they're being duped but it is what it is. Looking forward to reading what comes out.

I can see both sides, and agree with your subsequent concern of the filming starting just after a major provocation, perhaps even one justifying deadly force. On the other hand, there are things which have been discussed on INGO that are unacceptable under any circumstances (like the group of police beating the unresponsive man to death). It would seem that the generation of more evidence, not less, by those involved and bystanders would serve the purpose of truth much better than the prevention of the manufacture of evidence.

 

[phylodog]

It would seem that the generation of more evidence, not less, by those involved and bystanders would serve the purpose of truth much better than the prevention of the manufacture of evidence.

Provided the evidence generated is complete, I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Trigger Time]

Would you not be irritated if one of your relatives smacked you in the mouth and someone started recording just as you reacted then put that video online to convince everyone you're a monster of sorts?

No I wouldn't. Because I wouldn't act in a way that embarrassed me or was out of line. I use my brain before I react in most cases. I've been hit in the face before and I didn't go all Jackie chan on the people.
I don't know anything about this case but I don't like the idea of cops not wanting to be filmed while doing their jobs. Or prohibiting someone's rights to do so.
I'm glad some of the bad apples are being caught by video evidence lying about what really happened. A cops word in court should never be worth more than someone else's.

 

[Bunnykid68]

No I wouldn't. Because I wouldn't act in a way that embarrassed me or was out of line. I use my brain before I react in most cases. I've been hit in the face before and I didn't go all Jackie chan on the people.
I don't know anything about this case but I don't like the idea of cops not wanting to be filmed while doing their jobs. Or prohibiting someone's rights to do so.
I'm glad some of the bad apples are being caught by video evidence lying about what really happened. A cops word in court should never be worth more than someone else's.

You missed his whole point. What if someone walked up and smacked your mother and you responded in kind, but the only video shows you yelling and beating the crap out of that guy and not what started it.