DC police chief announces shockingly reasonable cell camera policy!

reply to post by Xcathdra


The problem is that police don't respect the citizens ... they believe that they are the law and any thing they say is like coming from the word of "God"

Police lie in almost every stop... because that is how they were trained ....

police deserve respect but when they lie to me even in innocent stops they have crossed that the line and they get no respect!

the problem is police training and the systemic methods they use created this environment of mistrust....

they are liars until proven otherwise in my opinion!

reply to post by Xcathdra


So not true! Your right and others actually lap across the top of each other... For example two people can engage in a shouting match about anything ... they are both exercising their rights which overlap. Police don't respect individual rights or they would not be acting en-mass because it is a systemic problem in the training of these officers. The police culture is also part of the systemic problem which ingrains these ideas into the police mind. You can keep making up all the excuses and rationalize the behavior of police but it will never stand the smell test!

Your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others. While you have a right to record you do not have a right to interfere. The rights of the person detained will trump the rights of parties that are not involved in the situation. Hence my comment about exercising commmon sense / acting responsibly and recording from a safe distance.

reply to post by Nspekta


As a cop I completely agree to this....video tape us! However when the suspect is being a total dick....let us have a copy to present in court haha...it works both ways and Im all for video.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
The problem is that police don't respect the citizens ... they believe that they are the law and any thing they say is like coming from the word of "God"

Not true of all police and stereotyping in order to make an argument because it cant be supported by facts is just as much of a problem. Your argument from what I see here is not only stereotyping all police, but its being done in the very manner by civilians which you find fault with with law enforcement.

As far as being the law to an extent I understand that position but when weighed against the judicial system as a whole the argument becomes non supportive by the facts. Law Enforcement does in fact enforce the laws however we do not prosecute them. Going through the academy we are taught to worry more about our job and worry less about the outcome of the investigation. Since 95% of all cases are dealt with by plea bargains it would make officers absolutely bonkers if theyhave a vested interest in the outcome of a case. Secondly outcome has absolutely nothing to do with law enforcement - Thats the judicial side of things which we have nothing to do with.

So while I see and acknowledge the argument you are making, I do beleive its somewhat skewed because of how the system actually works.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
Police lie in almost every stop... because that is how they were trained ....

Not true... However I will concede part of your argument in that its not against the law for law enforcement to lie / employ subterfuge during the course of their jobs. Those actions though fall under very close scrutiny by not only supervisors, but the PA as well as the defense attorney and in a few occasion I have seen the judge ask officers questiond during open court to further explain their reasoning.

The ability for law enforcement to lie / use subterfuge is restrictive in that the lie / subterfuge must be specific and not in any way shape or form violate civil rights. That guideline and review come from US Surpeme Court cases. The issue revolves around what the invesitgation is for and the crime within and did the actions of the officers lead to valid retrieval of information or could it be considered coerced, and if so does it fall under the criteria of fruit of the poisonous tree or is it agoo faith exception due to inevitable discovery?

Example - The police show up at a house to arrest a fugitive. The wife is not cooperating with police and the police tell her if she doesnt cooperate they will take her 10 year old son away. Her cooperation with law enforcement at that point is no longer voluntary in addition the issue raised is now forcing a presumed innocent person to provide evidence against herself and her husband (which is not only against the law but violates the legal doctrine of spousal privelidge when it goes to court) with the possibility of losing her child if she doesnt.

The courts have held that the very nature oflaw enforcement places officers into the posituion of dealing with people wjho will lie to the police. To counter that the courts have ruled the way they did however, as has been said, is extremely restricted and falls under very close scrutiny.

All of which in the end resides with the determination of the courts, not the police.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
police deserve respect but when they lie to me even in innocent stops they have crossed that the line and they get no respect!

I disagree.. Police must earn the respect of the people and that comes from the manner in which we do our jobs and interact with people. Respect is a 2 way street.. As for the lie to innocent people you are ignoring the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, including the police.

As I said there is nothing that prevents law enforcement from telling a lie / employing subterfuge. The outcome of that action and end result is what is looked at and then comapred against the law and the persons civil rights. If law enforcement were not allowed to lie then how would we do our jobs with investigating / sting operations / interviews of suspects etc etce tc.

Again though I get what your saying however its not as simplistic / black and white as you may think.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
the problem is police training and the systemic methods they use created this environment of mistrust....

Respectfully speaking you are missing the other half of your argument, which is to say a lack of knowledge and understanding of the law by civilians, who instead substitute law with their own moral / ethical views. If you go back and read your argument you will see you are doing exactly what you find as an issue with law enforcement -
You are stereotyping all law enforcement.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
they are liars until proven otherwise in my opinion!

You are being hypocritical and shortsided while ignoring the very laws you demand be followed. Law Enforcement is innoncent until proven guilty in a court of law and enjoy the same civil rights all citizens do. Although we have more restrictive laws placed on us that do not apply to citizens, a point people either dont know / dont understand.

Police officers are human, just like eveyone else..
We are citizens like everyone else..
We fall under the same laws like everyone else..
We have the same legal protections as everyone else.

Its a 2 way road and to only concentrate on police action while ignoring the fact citizens lie to police is naieve and unrealistic.

Communications on both sides must occur to get past the incorrect assumptions both sides have. Communications and open dialogue on a continual basis is whats needed. People taking an active interest in not only their government, but how it is set up, how it runs etc is a civic duty.

As a police officer I have gone through a 10 month academy and another 4-6 months of field training.I ahve gone to college and received my degree in Political Science - Public Law with a minor in criminal justice. I take classes when I can for my continuing education on law updates etc.

Based on the above -
Do I have the required training to walk into an ER and act as a doctor during a trauma? NO
As a citizen do I have the training required to walk into an ER and act as a Doctor during a trauma? NO

However it is appropriate based on the time and place for me to speak to the doctor and have thigns explained to me so I vetter understand the situation.

I wish people could apply that same standard when it comes to local state and federal laws and law enforcement itself.

Communication is key.. It iwll help break down the walls of mistrust that have been put in place on both sides. During a person average life they may never come into contact with the police or they may come into contact only a few times. Police on the other hand have public contact continuously from hour to hour day to day. The bulk of what we deal with are possible violations of the law. By that very fact the people we deal with, the large bulk, dont care for law enforcement and some of those want to do us harm.

Our failing is viewing all citizens as potential threats.. Its a hard view to break based on our day to day operations. Its one of the main reasons civilians must become more engaged in government and law enforcement operations.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
So not true! Your right and others actually lap across the top of each other... For example two people can engage in a shouting match about anything ... they are both exercising their rights which overlap.

And when that shouting match wakes up the neighbor or causes a scene inside a store, both of those individuals have just disturbed the peace of people not involved in the back and forth. Those 3rd parties can sign a summons for peace disturbance (in my state, others its the officer on behalf of the 3rd party). Also in my state a police officer cannot have their peace disturbed because of our jobs.

A person does not have the right to walk into a crowded area and yell fire.
A person who is assaulted has a right to self defense however the moment the threat stops, the person defending himself must also stop. If he fails to stop and keeps up the "defense" he can be charged with a crime since he continued an assault after the threeat was diminished.

A group of protesters who block a city street are exercising their 1st amendment rights. However by blocking the public right of way, they are violating the civil rights of the people who want to drive down that road who now cant. Travel across state lines and within states is constitutionaly protected, which means the 1st amendment rights of the protesters end because their actionss violate the constitutional rights of those who are not protsting who want to continue their daily lives.

So yes, your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns
Police don't respect individual rights or they would not be acting en-mass because it is a systemic problem in the training of these officers. The police culture is also part of the systemic problem which ingrains these ideas into the police mind. You can keep making up all the excuses and rationalize the behavior of police but it will never stand the smell test!

The problem is people dont understand what their rights are, how they apply and when they stop. Instead people would rather blame the police for their own ignorance by refusing to know how their government works.As I have stated time and time again an educated citizen is the best possible outcome to holding government / government agencies in check.

When the citizens who are complaining dont know the law or how their rights work, the view they form towads the police is based on ignorance - not fact or knowledge - and that is just as detrimental as police who go rogue. To stereotype all law enforcement makes you absolutely no better than the police themselves based on your argument to date. You are arguing the citizens should be allowed to do what they want while the police should not be allowed to do their jobs.

Your opening argument in this posts proves my point about knowledge. Without even doing any research of your own, you are telling me I am wrong. I do this for a living and very much know what im doing in addition to how the law works at all levels, state and federal being they govern me every action as a police officer.

How can you, or anyone else for that matter with the same mindset, ever hope to hold government / police responsible when you have no idea of how they operate in the first place?

When the framers of our constitution finished their job of creating a new government, Ben Franklin was asked a simple question - "What type of government did we get?

Franklin replied - "A Republic, if you can keep it".

The argument I see people make in this realm falls into the same misunderstanding of what the US is. The US is not a Democracy, we are a Representative Republic and contrary to popular belief their is a difference. If as a citizen you dont know the law, dont know your rights, dont know how your government works, dont bother to take an active interest / participation - the fault and blame lies with the people, not the police.

So, once again, communication among all groups is required to move past the distrust.

I am not making excuses and for you to think I am only reinforces what I am trying to tell you. Police / Government are part of the problem, however they are not fully responsible for it. The citizens who refuse to participate / learn is the other half of that failing.

The systemic problem does not reside with the police, but the people who are to lazy to learn.

You want to hold police / government accountible.. I am all for that.

Tell me-
If you dont know the laws of your City / State, if you dont take any intrest in your government, if you dont bother to vote / speak up at city council meetings, if you dont understand / know how police operate -

Then how exactly can you hold those entities accountible?

When I post information I provide links to case law / laws etc. People bitch at me for doing that an call me an apologist, among other colorful names,and make other accusations against me. Because of that blind hatred / ignorance towards government / law enforcement, they fail to realize I provided them with the very information they would need if they wanted to become familiar in order to change that which they dont like / agree with.

Communication is the answer.. Participation is the answer.. If people want change they should stop bitching and do something about it. You cant create a solution you don't know where the problem is coming from.

Ignorance... name calling...stereotyping...apathy....laziness.

They should never be allowed as the majority opinions / positions of the citizens.

You are the government so please, quit bitching and do something to resolve / find solutions.

Lets correct the terminology, she isn't changing the law, for the only LAW was the constitution and any other legislation they were following was unlawful and violated the constitution, and even enforcing such is a crime.

reply to post by Nspekta


S&F, and WOOT! About time they recognized the law of the land! Now, if we can get all of the governments of various places around the country to wise up, things will get better!

Yes, very sad that we have to celebrate someone stating our rights! Glad this chief did it, though!

I recently watched a video on YT about something like this - a security guard (supposedly a cop also, but not for the police force of the place he was) freaked out about a couple of guys making a video of shopping carts in a Walmart lot (don't ask me why). The guard actually shoved the camera, demanded ID (never IDed himself as a cop, either), threatened the guys with a taser, and called the police in. The entire thing was beyond insane. The boys weren't doing ANYTHING wrong, either. You can tell this because, before the guard noticed them filming HIM, he was ignoring them. Two guys, no disturbance, and he acted like an insane man. The boys making the video were totally polite, though, and stood up for their rights, even under such threats.