Do cameras lie? -- Final End

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 01:09:16 10/12/02 Sat
Author: Drummond
Subject: Do cameras lie?

Well, Patrick initially said we could discuss issues of the day on this list. Some of my fondest memories of Lick are the philosophical discussions I had with fellow students, some of which exceeded the caliber of my first year college discussions.

I'd like to see if there's any interest in reviving some of those discussions with our 20 years of experience and knowledge coming into play.

Do cameras lie?

A few years back I took on a false arrest case against the California Highway Patrol. My client�s vehicle was being impounded because his driver�s license was two days expired, and he decided to photograph the officer�s search of his vehicle. When he pulled out his camera, the officer instructed him to put it down. When my client refused, he was arrested and charged with a violation of California Penal Code section 148, "interference with the duties of a peace officer."

I convinced the prosecuting attorney to drop the case, a decision that caught him some flack from local CHP officers. We then pursued a civil claim against the officer and department, and prevailed in a jury trial. By then, they realized that a man could not be lawfully arrested for photographing police activity, and so the officer changed his story and got caught in a blatant lie on the stand. 9 of the 12 jurors ruled against him and awarded my client 15 thousand for his four hour incarceration.

The other three jurors felt it was "disrespectful" to photograph an officer when he was doing his job, and felt it should be against the law (and apparently did not feel compelled to follow the law in their proposed verdict).

On my way home from the Bay Area tonight, I heard a radio news report of a "race riot" that took place at Thurgood Marshal High School in San Francisco today. The new reports all contradicted each other on various details, so it�s hard to know fact from rumor.

Apparently, two days ago there was an altercation between a Chinese and a black student. It heated up again today, and one of the students� older chronologically "adult" brother came to pick him up. The "adult" then got into an argument with the other student, and it erupted into a brawl that quickly spread throughout the hallway and into some classrooms. There are mixed accounts of what happened, and the estimate range from 30 to 100 students involved in the brawl. Some said that one student hit another over the head with a metal pipe, although no serious injuries were reported. Others described it as a big shoving and shouting match, with very little actual violence. In any case the principle called the police and reported a riot. The police showed up with a SWAT team, and by some accounts were pretty rough in the way they handled the students. Apparently, the early reports that students were being carted off in paddy wagons were erroneous. Only two students and one teacher were taken away in handcuffs.

Here�s the point. The teacher, a 29 year old black man, apparently did not feel that the situation merited a SWAT team. He pulled out a video camera to film the police activity. One of the officers instructed him to shut off the camera on the basis that it was "aggravating the students," which is obviously B.S. When the teacher refused to comply, he was arrested, charges unknown.

Now the question, should photographing police activity be illegal? The argument some of the talk show call-ins were making was that police often have to be physical, even violent on their job. If everybody sees the violence, they will be shocked because violence is shocking. Better they don�t see it, just as it�s better that they don�t see what goes into sausage. If people see it, they will pressure the police to be less violent, and it will be harder for the police to maintain order. The cameras in effect "lie" because they don�t depict what could happen if the officers "coddled" the suspects by not pounding their heads in.

What do you think?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Oops, ignore the intro -- Drummond, 01:18:59 10/12/02 Sat
- Is it right? -- schwabra, 18:02:41 10/12/02 Sat
  - Well, I think it can protect all parties -- Drummond, 00:24:54 10/13/02 Sun
    - I agree -- schwabra, 08:44:26 10/13/02 Sun