That’s what he’s embarrassed about?
He didn’t piss himself or get naked or try making out with a statue in the cemetery. . . ?
(welcome to my world.)
6 Likes
“Be made public” does not have to mean “published on the internet”, as I see it. I would be satisfied of the police would have a dedicated viewing point at the station
You’re probably thinking of the display department. Down in the cellar. With no lights. Or stairs. In the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’
3 Likes
Totally disagree with @beschizza, and agree with those who say that automated (or especially discretionary, by police stations with no oversight) release of interactions with the (presumed innocent) public turns a tool of police-monitoring into a tool of intimidation of the populace.
More body cameras — which are pointed at the public, not the officers — simply become more surveillance cameras, with the power to invade privacy, or chill free speech by identifying those at a protest, or to intimidate a dissenting bystander with the implicit threat of making an “altercation” a part of that person’s future Googleable history.
From an commentary here:
Even assuming that the primary role of police body cameras is, in the words of the A.C.L.U., to allow “public monitoring of the government instead of the other way around,” their deployment is fraught with contradictions.
First of all, citizens should know when their actions are being recorded, potentially for use against them. But police can easily transform the act of notification into one of intimidation, using the power of the badge and camera combined to chill legitimate dissent or exercise of a citizen’s right to refuse interrogation and search.
The chilling effect of surveillance makes a camera on the bodies of the police more dangerous than a camera in the hand of a citizen.
The database of videos cannot be secret if the program is meant to provide oversight, but transparency at meaningful levels could risk embarrassment of innocent citizens filmed in police encounters.
-
Body camera videos should not be released automatically, and certainly not at the discretion of police departments, but should be released when the public make legitimate requests for them, or inquiries into events. They should also be randomly screened by independent ethics oversight boards.
-
The public should always have the right to film the police.
5 Likes
otherwise…
4 Likes
He shouldn’t be allowed to sue or otherwise request removal of the video. In fact, this sort of behavior should be plastered all OVER the internet to demonstrate what happens when you make bad life decisions. If it were to become the new norm for everyone then maybe more people will use better judgment. If you’re acting the fool in a public place, you have no right to privacy.
well… yeah. it’s called personal responsibility. guy should know his limits.
Body cameras represent a HUGE invasion of privacy of the people the officers encounter and of the officers themselves, who after all are going to visit the restroom and chat with their loved ones while wearing the camera. It is important to protect the public and to protect cops from false accusations that cops wear body cameras - it is, so far, the best proposed way to provide oversight on these people empowered to use lethal force where we live. But if we want to make that work, we need to protect the reasonable privacy of the cops and of the people they meet, while also preserving and making available when necessary the body-camera footage.
So, some simple ideas:
- The cameras should be on. Always. No switches, no covers.
- The footage must be preserved for a reasonable amount of time as a default, to be automatically extended if someone files a claim that they are interested in coverage of a particular area/officer/time period.
- To protect privacy, the footage should only be available at dedicated viewing stations and on request, not idly and over the internet. It should not normally be shared.
- It must somehow be made fairly straightforward to view the material upon submitting a reasonable request, with the presumption that requests are to be granted. On the other hand: it may help that viewing must be done in person, but this doesn’t abrogate the invasion of privacy involved. This is a tricky one! I can imagine a need to allow prior review and requests for omission/censorship/obscuring by representatives of the cops and of people caught on film, and all this is difficult to handle.
- There must be some provision to allow recordings deemed to be in the public interest to escape from the contained viewing environment and be more widely shared.
1 Like
You can stop the subtitles now.Thank you for that. Steve Martin FTW!
2 Likes
Ah, alcoholism has just been solved! Give yourself an award.
And what other rights do you lose if you’re “acting like a fool?”
The fact is that, besides clumsily pawing at a police officer after being told to stop, this person did no harm to anyone, besides being an obnoxious drunk. Which isn’t generally against the law.
I don’t think grown adults ought to get obnoxiously drunk, but I don’t think the state should use public humiliation as a reprisal. Is this really different from the Puritan stocks?
4 Likes
oh stop it. that kid’s not an alcoholic, he’s just a dumbass. stop making excuses for everything.
the cop was right to arrest him, if nothing else to stop him from hurting himself (as he probably did by tripping when he tried to run away) or someone else by getting into a car and driving.
he didn’t lose his right to privacy by being drunk, he lost it by being in public. if you’re in public, anyone can take your picture. they can post it on the internet if they want to. that’s all legal, drunk or sober.
1 Like
I know right? THANKS OBAMA!
Edit: For clarification, this was a hilariously ironic response to a mind numbingly stupid post from someone whose participation in the BB community was extremely short lived…
1 Like
This guy is acting like an idiot, but posting embarrassing footage on the internet is bullying. It’s a form of punishment and there’s a reason we get someone besides the police to convict and administer punishment.
Many people consider suicide when this happens. If they would choose death over a life of ridicule, it’s subjectively worse than a death sentence.
1 Like
@beschizza does. He doesn’t think about how this kind of thing affects people’s lives. Embarrassment isn’t enough, there needs to be humiliation, even if you don’t know the whole story. Even if it makes people want to kill themselves.
I remember reading an interview from a teenage girl who had a story go viral. It was posted all over the internet including this site. She hadn’t hurt anyone, but after it went viral, she became depressed and seriously considered suicide. She had to change her look so people wouldn’t recognize her. Her childhood friends ganged up and ridiculed her. A teenage girl who hadn’t hurt anyone.
1 Like
Yes, yes, I’m sure you’ve never once screwed up and done something stupid. I’m sure you’re perfect.
1 Like
And there have been cases where young women have killed themselves over online harassment. Of course, this shit happened before the internet, just on a much smaller, local scale. It’s an empathy problem.
1 Like
This boy was caught pleasuring himself by a fellow student in the washroom of his public school. He was doing something some people deem wrong. He was recorded by the fellow student, and the video was published to the internet.
He was bullied so badly that he committed suicide. Did he make a mistake? Yes. Did he deserve ongoing ridicule over it? Did he deserve to die?
Everyone makes mistakes at some point they wouldn’t want plastered on the internet. It’s bullying. It’s a form of punishment that’s almost always unmatched by the crime.
Punishment of private citizens should be served by the authorities after investigation, not the mob @beschizza. Even if you think the person did something wrong.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
