[Dragon]

I think that's a good idea and certainly feasible nowadays, but then again it's not a silver bullet either; for example in this case it seems awfully likely that the device would have happened to be malfunctioning that day, or broken in the struggle, or even if it worked by streaming to a remote location in real time, the files would have been corrupted due to a software glitch.

Ultimately the only thing that I think would really work is personal recorders worn by the public, which stream in real time to someplace that the police can't easily seize/shutdown. Until a jamming device becomes part of standard equipment.

Personal cameras for Police are a good idea. Ironically, that could also come from the military surplus. Soldiers use helmet-mounted cameras all the time. Personal recorders worn by the public are also a good idea, in that they would not only allow monitoring the Police, it would also make their work easier. For instance, stealing would become much harder, and a camera recording is much more trustworthy than an eyewitness account. I suspect it'd improve security a lot. If this was well managed, centralized and voluntary (carrying a cam definitely shouldn't be mandatory), it could help many problems, shorten court cases a lot and make people less inclined to misbehave. Knowing the government, though, it'd be anything but this, and the implementation would be either laughable and/or raise cries of "Orwell!".

Also, US Police could probably do with a lot less privileges. Not to the point of impotence, though. In Poland, Police is a laughable force because it has so many restrictions on it's actions that it's barely capable of enforcing the law.

[Ulala]

The solution to the American nonsense is not more guns in the hands of citizens, and it isn't the elimination of power from police forces.  It's increased personal liability on police officers, where they are held to the same individual standards as anyone else performing the same duties they are.

While part of me certainly agrees (and all of me wants to), the realist in me just can't get there. America has me jaded these days.

[mjn.mixael]

All this talk of public recording devices reminded me of the public perception of Google Glass... And that can't even record 24/7. If that is any indication, public recording devices as suggested would be an uphill battle.

[Lorric]

Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of. And for wearing a camera, the presence of your own personal camera is probably an aid to your judgement. And of course it isn't a one way street, it also protects you, people can't make malicious claims of police brutality if you've got it all on film. Come upon a crime in progress, it's all there on tape.

[Dragon]

Exactly. It'll not only help with controlling police brutality, but also provide additional, detailed evidence in case of police stopping a crime in progress. You can't pay attention to everything, but if you've got multiple camera recordings, you can, for instance, not worry about writing down/remembering the license number of the crooks' getaway car. It could also be used to tactical analysis of encounters with armed crooks, much like in the military. This solution really has no drawbacks besides added cost of buying a camera for every cop out there, and the administrative overhead involved with managing the footage.

[karajorma]

Come upon a crime in progress, it's all there on tape.

This alone should be a reason enough for police to carry cameras. Video evidence would also help the police secure convictions in cases where the defence try to make the case seem less serious than it actually was. It's pretty hard to claim that something was just a minor bar brawl when you can see the police running up to someone in the middle of a kerbstomping.

Add the fact that it also increases their own personal safety (attack a cop and you've just given the world video evidence that will put you in jail for years) and you would think that most police would be in favour of them. Unfortunately people always market the anti-cop reasons for having them first, rather than pointing out the number of scumbags the police witness getting away with crimes who otherwise would be in jail.

[mjn.mixael]

Local reports tonight are saying that among a whole new slew of riots and excessive police force, 2 journalists were arrested. The journalists were asked to leave and to stop filming police. After conflicting police instructions they were forcefully arrested. They were eventually released without being charged, but names and badge numbers of those involved in their arrest was withheld.

Saw it on the tube while at the gym. I'll post a link to an article when I get home unless someone else does it first.

This is crazy. Regardless of what happened to the kid, this is way out of control and the state should probably be getting involved.

[Aardwolf]

So yeah, my earlier question, again: what's the deal with the NFZ?

[BlueFlames]

So yeah, my earlier question, again: what's the deal with the NFZ?

Police claim that one of their helicopters was shot at, so they had the FAA impose a no-fly zone up to 3000 feet.  Detractors of the decision state that this is a means of partially blacking out the media, by preventing news helicopters from hovering over the area film from overhead.

[mjn.mixael]

Journalists arrested article

[Dragon]

Looking at the comments below, the Police Chief in Ferguson knew nothing of the arrests until he was phoned about that... I wonder, just who is in charge in there? This whole situation looks FUBAR, I don't think anyone controls it anymore. Is there any sort of police you can call in if you see a police officer acting up? Ques custodet ipsos custodes? I have a feeling that in Ferguson, no one does, and we're seeing the results. This goes waaay beyond the issue of police militarization, those guys are out of line and need to be put back into it, hard. In my book, they've already gone rogue.

[Lorric]

These "police" are looking more like a gang of armed thugs than police.

Massive red flag for me any kind of suppression of filming, never mind on a scale like this.

This could be something that as far as I know is unprecedented. Has an entire police force (or even a large part of it) ever needed to be removed from duty?

[mjn.mixael]

Now this is just wild.

[MP-Ryan]

Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.

"People should have no problem with being filmed.  If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of."  I feel like I've heard this argument somewhere before...

Look, I support police bodycams.  I support them because they are shown in case studies to reduce the level of behaviour used against police, reduce the amount of force exercised by police, improve accountability, and document evidence.  I think they're an excellent tool.

I also recognize that people - police included - have inherent privacy interests that cameras by their very nature invade, and therefore there is some reluctance to adopt them.  I think the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns, but the "if you've done nothing wrong then" argument is completely unacceptable everywhere it's used.  That's presumption of guilt on a circumstantial basis - you don't have to justify wanting privacy, you have to be justified in measures that reduce it.

[Beskargam]

Just some of my musings on this.

I used to follow Popehat pretty closely up until the summer, and the authors often write about police brutality. However, I got turned of by the constant libertarian vibe and the the impression that the authors thought all law enforcement officers were evil. I don't want to see all law enforcement individuals this way, because that's utterly terrifying and goes against everything ingrained in me as a child. Basically that the the cops were the good guys and what not. However one of the things that I took away from Popehat was that,  FBI apart, there are no national standards for law enforcement conduct, training, and oversight of police departments. In addition, I find it to be problematic when the police force for a region is different in ethnicity from the area they are bound to maintain law in. Unfortunately, America's problems with race cannot be overlooked in many of these situations. Whether race actually played a role in many of the recent high profile authority figure killing an innocent cases, the aftermath of each of these events has certainly included race.

On a personal note, I have found the two or three times that I have interacted with police officers to be utterly terrifying (speeding ticket, didn't put the new sticker on an old license plate). I acknowledge that my experiences have fallen on only one side of the spectrum, so that my feelings are biased, but I think the lack of positive interaction also says something. I become afraid whenever I see a cop car on the road. Having one follow you for a time is utterly nerve wracking, even though I know I haven't been seriously in the wrong. I think what has made me so uncomfortable with police is how they approach their jobs. None of them have been friendly, or nice, or smiled. I've gotten business-like but understanding with the plate issue (I had the new sticker in my glove compartment), and what felt like hostility for the speeding ticket. What happened in both incidents really was that I was no longer a person to the LEO. Dehumanization is not something I think that law enforcement should practice, particularly among the officers who most frequently encounter their protected.   

I'm not sure where this came from originally, but this is a map by the cato institute about botched paramilitary raids that I found interesting. http://www.cato.org/raidmap?type=1 If you flip through the years, the number of incidents on average has gone up since 1990 (I didn't check before then, strapped for time). There were virtually no incidents on the map for 2011 to present interestingly enough.

[Luis Dias]

Well surveillance is already the status quo, and therefore it is absolutely reasonable to also institute sousveillance. This is already inscribed in one law, I can't recall where, that was instituted not long ago that enabled people to document their authorities' actions on the public arena.

[Lorric]

Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.

"People should have no problem with being filmed.  If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of."  I feel like I've heard this argument somewhere before...

Look, I support police bodycams.  I support them because they are shown in case studies to reduce the level of behaviour used against police, reduce the amount of force exercised by police, improve accountability, and document evidence.  I think they're an excellent tool.

I also recognize that people - police included - have inherent privacy interests that cameras by their very nature invade, and therefore there is some reluctance to adopt them.  I think the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns, but the "if you've done nothing wrong then" argument is completely unacceptable everywhere it's used.  That's presumption of guilt on a circumstantial basis - you don't have to justify wanting privacy, you have to be justified in measures that reduce it.

I don't see how PRISM has any relevance to police getting aggressive about being filmed by reporters. Especially in an environment like this. In an environment like this there absolutely should be cameras rolling. This isn't a case of there being no good reason to be filming these officers. And according to the article the police came to the reporters, not the other way around as well.

Police by definition are high visibility. They're also going to be inserting themseves into the private lives of people all the time, in a variety of ways that are more intrusive than a camera. I don't think it's too much to ask for police to let themselves be filmed. And there's a difference to being filmed in the chaos that is Ferguson, where police brutality and power abuse is very much on the agenda, to being stalked by someone with a camera while doing your day to day job. They should welcome the cameras if they're doing nothing wrong. And there's also a big difference to objecting to being filmed, and slamming someone up against a wall, slapping the cuffs on them, and hauling them down to the police station.

[Dragon]

Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.

"People should have no problem with being filmed.  If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of."

Remember, Police=/=People. A police officer is, by definition, different from an average man in the street. They are not supposed to act like people, they're supposed to act like police. They've got privileges and equipment potentially capable of causing great harm. At the same time, they've also got many duties that may put them at risk. Many arguments that apply to a normal person with a private life don't apply here. A police officer doesn't have a private life. Once an officer takes the uniform off, he/she is a normal person, no different from anyone else, playing by the same rules. It's only when in uniform that one officially is a police officer. Some also adhere to their job's idea off duty, actively trying to prevent crime while out of uniform, but they're nothing more than particularly brave citizens without the uniform. Uniformed police cannot have the same freedom a random person does, because of their responsibilities. Also, service as a police officer is strictly voluntary, meaning that they would know what they sign up for. A policeman/woman should have no problem with being monitored. In fact, monitoring things is also one of their very duties. One who watches shouldn't be afraid of being watched. With power comes responsibility, responsibility restricts freedom. It's the natural order of things.

Of course, I'm talking about "normal" police, not special forces of any sort (which can and do have plainclothes divisions). But then, we're not arguing about those special forces anyway, and they seem to have little to do with what's happening in Ferguson.

Now this is just wild.

Funny. I suppose the situation in Ferguson is officially FUBAR now. Gazans do have some experience dealing with oppressive governments... All the more reason for someone to stop this madness. Ferguson PD has gone rogue, I tell you.

[mjn.mixael]

Local news is tossing rumors that Ferguson and Saint Louis police are being pulled from both the investigation of the kid who was killed and from active duty. Cops from all over MO are being reassigned (again, according to rumors) to Ferguson. I'm waiting for the Governor to start his press briefing to get the facts.

It's sad that it's taken four days for there to be even a hint of real leadership. Clearly the Ferguson Police Chief isn't in control of his officers.

EDIT: Governor just confirmed that Missouri Highway Patrol is taking over from Ferguson local police.

[swashmebuckle]

Being able to watch live streams of your local police officers on patrol would be awesome and informative. Then you could vote for the best cop and the winner would get a free box of donuts. All the winners could then have their clips go to state and eventually national level and the ultimate best cop winner gets a free trip to Hawaii sponsored by Krispy Kreme. The only problem is what do you do if the winner is from Hawaii?