Riots in Missouri - Part 3

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]489869[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]485031[/split]

 

[Evelisse]

sorry if this was posted already, but, really?

http://www.ibtimes.com/illinois-passes-bill-makes-it-illegal-record-police-1744724

An amendment to a Senate bill in Illinois has been overwhelmingly passed to ensure that recording police officers and government officials is now a felony.

The Amendment to Senate Bill 1342 was stealthily introduced on the back of an unrelated piece of legislation last week. It essentially reestablishes a completely unconstitutional eavesdropping law that was previously overturned by The Supreme Court in March for being too draconian.

The amendment has stripped away safeguards to free speech rights from the original legislation and instituted a blanket ban on recording officials in public. It was passed by both the Illinois House and the Senate, with huge majorities, within two days of its introduction.

A post at watchdog website IllinoisPolicy.org notes that the bill is designed to prevent people from documenting interactions with cops on their cell phones by making it a class 3 felony to “eavesdrop” on city and state officials including police officers, police, an attorney general, an assistant attorney general, a state’s attorney, an assistant state’s attorney or a judge.

The new amendment legislates its way around the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ standard in law by refraining from defining it, and merely states that recording any “oral communication between 2 or more persons” is now illegal.

A class 3 felony is punishable by a prison sentence of two to four years. The bill also outlines that it is now a class 4 felony to record a private citizen in such circumstances. The crime is punishable by one to three years in prison.

The vaguely worded legislation states:

(a) Eavesdropping, for a first offense, is a Class 4 felony (from Ch. 38, par. 14-4) and, for a second or subsequent offense, is a Class 3 felony.

(b) The eavesdropping of an oral conversation or an electronic communication of any
law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Assistant State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her official duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 3 felony, and for a second or subsequent offenses, is a Class 2 felony

Jacob Huebert, Senior Attorney at Liberty Justice Center, notes “There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police.”

Huebert also notes that the legislation could impact the widely proposed move to implement body cameras for all police officers

“Police may argue that using body cameras to record encounters with citizens outside of “public” places would violate the law, as citizens have not consented to being recorded.” he writes.

 

[Victarion]

Rahm pls

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Okay so activist demand cameras on every cop the government reacts by making it a felony to record cops.

I guess we know who works for who.

 

[Feenix]

I can definitely get behind cops wearing cameras, but I think allowing people to record cops would be a slippery slope. We can see how always having a camera on you affects celebrities and how many people say and do stupid **** to try and get a reaction out of someone.

I think people.would deliberately antagonize a cop just to get them to react on camera so they can upload the video to YouTube.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I can definitely get behind cops wearing cameras, but I think allowing people to record cops would be a slippery slope. We can see how always having a camera on you affects celebrities and how many people say and do stupid **** to try and get a reaction out of someone.

I think people.would deliberately antagonize a cop just to get them to react on camera so they can upload the video to YouTube.

I don't think most police abuse videos involve someone setting a trap for some innocent cop.

Many times cops abuse their power and people catch it on tape. It's that simple.

Case in point Eric Garner.

Why would you want to make Eric Garner's death at the hands of a policeman illegal to record???

 

[Lantern Venom]

I don't think most police abuse videos involve someone setting a trap for some innocent cop.

Many times cops abuse their power and people catch it on tape. It's that simple.

Case in point Eric Garner.

Why would you want to make the Eric Garner's death at the hands of a policeman illegal to record???

That's a good point. While it's a horrible event, it can be used to prevent future tragedies. The cops obviously didn't know about positional asphyxiation, which might have killed Garner even without the chokehold, and the EMT's didn't react with the urgency that they should have.

Furthermore, perhaps this will spur some changes to federal and local laws. Having the police wrestle with civilians over something as innocuous as selling cigarettes certainly isn't what our leaders should want.

 

[Feenix]

I don't think most police abuse videos involve someone setting a trap for some innocent cop.

Many times cops abuse their power and people catch it on tape. It's that simple.

Case in point Eric Garner.

Why would you want to make Eric Garner's death at the hands of a policeman illegal to record???

How do you know for sure? That's the problem with videos - they can be edited.

Eric Garner's death and also his resisting of arrest was caught on camera. Don't you think that might have played a part in the lack of indictment? I would imagine had there not been a video, there would have been more scrutiny of the case and maybe that officer would be going to trial.

 

[Kelly]

I don't think most police abuse videos involve someone setting a trap for some innocent cop.

Many times cops abuse their power and people catch it on tape. It's that simple.

Case in point Eric Garner.

Why would you want to make Eric Garner's death at the hands of a policeman illegal to record???

I heard weeks after the Rodney King incident that that was a set up....but it doesn't really matter to me if its a set up or not, if the cops are abusing their power, they are abusing their power. Plain and simple.

 

[Evelisse]

I don't know, I think with regards to the Eric Garner case, it was that everything was on camera and it didn't seem to make a difference. If there were no video, I think the grand jury and people in general would be very quick to focus on the size of Garner and his criminal past, figuring he was probably throwing punches and on a rampage that the police had no choice but to take him down as they did. (since eye witness account can't always be trusted)

As far as edited video I say just deal with that on a case by case issue, I still feel the benefits of having the situation on camera still helps both the public and the police more in the end.

 

[Kelly]

I don't know, I think with regards to the Eric Garner case, it was that everything was on camera and it didn't seem to make a difference. If there were no video, I think the grand jury and people in general would be very quick to focus on the size of Garner and his criminal past, figuring he was probably throwing punches and on a rampage that the police had no choice but to take him down as they did. (since eye witness account can't always be trusted)

As far as edited video I say just deal with that on a case by case issue, I still feel the benefits of having the situation on camera still helps both the public and the police more in the end.

From what I'm gleaning from interviews, etc....the Grand Jury got a very in depth analysis of what is a choke hold, and what isn't...and apparently that was very compelling and was a big part of their decision. It would be great to get the evidence like we did in the Brown case...

My whole problem with the Garner case is, they shouldn't have gotten to the point of even trying to arrest him, that was altogether stupid, and a major waste of the police departments time to spend picking up people like that...The entire incident should have never happened, and it is just horribly sad that someone died because cops had to harass a guy basically doing nothing.

In my opinion the Brown and Garner situations are not even in the same universe, let alone the same category.

 

[Docker2.0]

From what I'm gleaning from interviews, etc....the Grand Jury got a very in depth analysis of what is a choke hold, and what isn't...and apparently that was very compelling and was a big part of their decision. It would be great to get the evidence like we did in the Brown case...

My whole problem with the Garner case is, they shouldn't have gotten to the point of even trying to arrest him, that was altogether stupid, and a major waste of the police departments time to spend picking up people like that...The entire incident should have never happened, and it is just horribly sad that someone died because cops had to harass a guy basically doing nothing.

In my opinion the Brown and Garner situations are not even in the same universe, let alone the same category.

You just can't ever say I'm right can you?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

How do you know for sure? That's the problem with videos - they can be edited.

Eric Garner's death and also his resisting of arrest was caught on camera. Don't you think that might have played a part in the lack of indictment? I would imagine had there not been a video, there would have been more scrutiny of the case and maybe that officer would be going to trial.

1) Resisting arrest does not warrant killing anyone. If he attacked a cop with a weapon that would be another story. But instead the cop did an illegal choke hold on some who simply put his hand up in the air while saying "don't touch me". Then he continued the illegal choke hold while Garner said he couldn't breathe 11 times. Anyone else does this to another person it's clearly manslaughter at the very least.

2) Typically when there's no tape of alleged police abuse, it's simply a matter of the cops word against the victim.

And guess who the court automatically sides with the vast majority of the time.

 

[Kelly]

You just can't ever say I'm right can you?

What?

 

[Docker2.0]

What?

Eh, you always seem to yell and nag me in every thread I go into. Now we actually agree on something, you won't even acknowledge it. Just saying.

 

[RockSP]

sorry if this was posted already, but, really?

http://www.ibtimes.com/illinois-passes-bill-makes-it-illegal-record-police-1744724

Gotta keep these corrupt cops free to keep violating rights while at the same time feeding the prison industrial complex, y'know?

 

[Kelly]

Eh, you always seem to yell and nag me in every thread I go into. Now we actually agree on something, you won't even acknowledge it. Just saying.

Um, ok......

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

The media coverage makes news out of black people killed by the police, but rarely do I see stories about whites shot by cops, so I just searched for a second and found this.

Is this accurate?

According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports from 2000 to 2004, police-involved “justifiable homicides” kill about 350 people a year, 99 percent by shooting. [Update: see below for 2014 links.] Virtually all police-involved killings, most for good reason, are categorized as justifiable. Of those killed by police, 32 percent are black and 64 percent are white. While the percentage of blacks killed is high compared with the black percentage in America (13%), it is low compared with other indicators of violence, such as the percentage of homicide victims and offenders believed to be African American (both 48%).

If true, it seems like even when someone escalates a situation with a cop (resisting arrest) and is a minority they are more likely to get media coverage and support from pundits. I'm not seeing any national stories on cases involving cop shootings on whites for example

 

[cronosred]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...n-community-sees-hammer-murder-as-hate-crime/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...e-whether-attack-on-bosnian-woman-hate-crime/

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The media coverage makes news out of black people killed by the police, but rarely do I see stories about whites shot by cops, so I just searched for a second and found this.

Is this accurate?
If true, it seems like even when someone escalates a situation with a cop (resisting arrest) and is a minority they are more likely to get media coverage and support from pundits. I'm not seeing any national stories on cases involving cop shootings on whites for example

I think the issue is unarmed blacks being killed by cops.

Either way there needs to be better tracking of police shootings.

 

[cronosred]

Undercover cops attacked by protesters so of course the articles headline is
"Plainclothes cop pulls gun on police brutality protesters in Oakland"

http://mashable.com/2014/12/11/undercover-cop-oakland-protests/

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm more interested in what intel the undercover cop was trying to gather.

Trying to infiltrate and spy on peaceful protesters. Maybe even sabotage the protest itself.

No wonder things got ugly.

 

[Hoganva]

I heard weeks after the Rodney King incident that that was a set up.

 

[Kelly]

The media coverage makes news out of black people killed by the police, but rarely do I see stories about whites shot by cops, so I just searched for a second and found this.

Is this accurate?
If true, it seems like even when someone escalates a situation with a cop (resisting arrest) and is a minority they are more likely to get media coverage and support from pundits. I'm not seeing any national stories on cases involving cop shootings on whites for example

I think the issue is unarmed blacks being killed by cops.

Either way there needs to be better tracking of police shootings.

Media is going to put on the tv what brings them the highest ratings. Right now, this is bringing them the highest ratings. Media jumped off the "moral outrage" ship a long time ago.