So says (finally) the Supreme Court.
There is no question that police have a hell of a job. And the potential of being audio- or video-taped probably doesn't make it any easier.
That said, the police also wield a hell of a lot of power. They can lock you up. They can beat you up. They can shoot you. And when it comes down to "he said / she said" disputes in court, judges and juries tend to assume the cop is speaking the truth.
With great power comes great responsibility — and accountability, and transparency. Otherwise, it's just power … and we know what power does.
(h/t +Paula Jones)
Reshared post from +Dan Gillmor
Good and important news for free speech and official accountability: Illinois law prohibiting videos of police is dead.
Embedded Link
Supreme Court blocks Illinois law prohibiting taping of police
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked enforcement of an Illinois law that prohibited people from recording police officers on the job.
Google+: View post on Google+
Honestly, I never did understand why the police, or whoever, had objections to being recorded. I mean, they are public servants and should be held accountable. I think every arrest should be recorded.
I'm sure there are some (legitimate) concerns over armchair police critics second-guessing things that are said and done from the limited vantage point of whatever recording device is being used. And worrying about how everything you say could be misinterpreted on the 7pm News would be yet one more stress point in a stressful career.
On the other hand, I think a case could be made that recording arrests, etc., actually net-net protects cops from accusations of abuse or unjustified use of force (it just doesn't hit YouTube that way as often). And, regardless, as you say, as public servants who are exercising the lawful force of the People, the People have the right (and responsibility) to know what's going on.
(I'm leaving aside the obvious answer that "Some cops are bullies and don't want to be restrained in their abuse of others." There is no doubt that there are some cops who are that way, and other cops who cover up for them behind the Thin Blue Line — but I'd rather argue from the perspective of legitimate good-faith concerns over the practice.)
I would agree that police should want it to be taped, as long as the whole thing is taped. Snippets out of context can tell very different tales.
Like the video of the cop macing the kids sitting on the ground. What we saw was him walking up and macing them. What we missed was the 20 minutes of him explaining to them before hand that he was required to use non-lethal force to restrain them and that he would have no choice if they didn't remove themselves from the sidewalk. Followed by their acknowledgement that they would be maced and they were OK with that.
That presumes that macing them was, in fact, a justified and needful use of force, no matter how much it was explained beforehand.
But I agree that having a full context is critical, which is why I'm often dubious about at least some of those sorts of videos of ostensible police misconduct, and fully support cops carrying recording gear themselves to provide (as much as possible) coverage of each encounter/arrest.