Morning Links

Friday, January 6th, 2012
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

26 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Juice | 

    Buerhle should be arrested for dressing his dogs that way. Poor doggies.

  2. #2 |  nigmalg | 

    Please tell me where police come up with this right to privacy in public. It’s so common place across the country. Do the unions feed it to them? Do they go on their little police forums and share this information?

    And then he gets right in the photographers face, “toe-to-toe” as he put it. How would that not be seen as an immediate threat to your safety? They pray every day that you “challenge them” so they can escalate the situation into a Kelly Thomas.

    In the few experiences that I’ve had with local officers, many of them get right in your face for insanely petty things, even when you’re the one who called them. I’m talking about a few inches from your nose, to the point where your natural reaction is to push them back.

    Peace Officer de-escalation handbook:

    1.) Subject disagrees with your position
    2.) Intimidate subject immediately with aggressive take-down posture.
    3.) If subject reacts in any way what-so-ever, employ taser, fists and/or baton.

    Lets switch shoes and try the same thing Officers, how would you handle it?

  3. #3 |  marco73 | 

    How can there be any right to privacy in public?
    I saw a fawning CBS report on all the cameras in Lower Manhattan. You cannot step out of any building without having your image immediately captured in living color. The cameras are tied together with software that allows “authorities” to put in search criteria and have the computer search all images in seconds.
    So by the mere act of being physically present on a public street, your image is captured in a digital searchable form.
    So when a cop is on the street, in uniform, with the car with all the flashing lights, somehow they have a right to privacy? And just exactly who pays the cop’s salary, anyway?

  4. #4 |  MH | 

    That Alabama minister is lucky the cops didn’t break into his house and kill his family or pets.

  5. #5 |  Bob | 

    JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

    Let me get this straight… They get random photos from drivers licenses and just mindlessly issue warrants when a “Confidential Informant” picks them out.

    The sheriff’s office and task force officials have acknowledged that the warrant was mistakenly issued for Dukes and Dukes’ photo was picked out in error.

    Bullshit. The warrant wasn’t mistakenly issued, it was intentionally issued, just without any kind of investigation or ethical conduct whatsoever.

    Sheriff’s officials have said they were acting in good faith and have publicly apologized to Dukes.

    Good faith? GOOD FAITH? Letting informants look through pictures of random, non criminal persons they generated from driver’s license photos and mindlessly issuing warrants for them is “Good Faith?” Really?

  6. #6 |  Dave Krueger | 

    Veteran photographer threatened by L.A. cop for violating the cop’s “right to privacy.”

    The cop in the picture definitely has that “I traded in my brain for a bigger dick” look on his face.

    Of course, in practical terms, Constitutional rights only exist when government recognizes them. As long as cops can get away with this kind of blatant intimidation and abuse of power, they will continue to do so. In fact, it will continue to get worse because, without punishment, they will become ever more bold. Ultimately, laws will be passed prohibiting the recording of cops because the police state is growing and has already passed the point of no return.

  7. #7 |  Dave Krueger | 

    The threatening letter that the FBI anonymously sent to Martin Luther King, Jr.

    This is simply the Jack Bauer theory of government at work. The government was doing what it considered to be “the dirty work” of keeping America safe from the forces of evil. And we appreciate it just like we appreciated it when Jack did it on “24″. In fact, as the government gets more secretive, we can be sure they are doing more and more of this, consequently making us safer still.

    Sure there will be occasional mistakes, corruption, and collateral damage, but it’s essentially just like the drug war. We enthusiastically support it as long as it only hurts people we don’t give a shit about.

  8. #8 |  DoubleU | 

    Mark Buerhle shouldn’t worry, not many Marlins fan will want to drive that far South and into Miami to watch him play anyway.

  9. #9 |  Burgers Allday | 

    Please tell me where police come up with this right to privacy in public. It’s so common place across the country. Do the unions feed it to them? Do they go on their little police forums and share this information?

    Police are generally amenable to photography, at least in theory, which is one of the small surprises you get when you read police boards as regularly as I do.

    What police men on police boards regularly tell other officers about how to handler recorders is as follows:

    1. order any photographers an absurd distance from the crime scene “for safety”

    2. arrest photographer before he has had a chance to get as far away as the police officer wants him. The coded language for this procedure is called “controlling the scene.”

    3. Do not order photographer to turn the camera off.

    4. subject gets camera back when all police investigations are over, but not sooner.

    As long as citizen’s are willing to play by these rules, most police officers seem to accept the idea of people recording. If you want to see a textbook example of how police officers generally believe that police SHOULD handle recorders then dig up the Emily Good (rochester, NY) video from summer 2011.

    The problem is that these ground rules, which have evolved gradually over the past couple years) are not very favorable to recorders (although they somewhat more favorable than I would have expected to see beforehand).

  10. #10 |  M | 

    Rickets?? Vitamin deficiency shouldn’t be a reason for anybody to die anymore. How tragic.

  11. #11 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #9 Burgers Allday,

    The four step strategy you describe contradicts your statement that cops are amenable to photography. It’s sort of like saying they have no trouble being recorded as long as the photographer isn’t within range where he can capture anything meaningful. Those rules are specifically designed to throw up obstacles to recording, not to serve the interests of safety, but to use safety as an excuse to prevent people from recording.

    To say that the rules are not favorable to photographers is an understatement since the rules are, in fact, specifically designed to defeat the photographer’s capacity to record, thereby intentionally abusing his rights.

  12. #12 |  Burgers Allday | 

    The four step strategy you describe contradicts your statement that cops are amenable to photography. It’s sort of like saying they have no trouble being recorded as long as the photographer isn’t within range where he can capture anything meaningful. Those rules are specifically designed to throw up obstacles to recording, not to serve the interests of safety, but to use safety as an excuse to prevent people from recording.

    Yes, you and I know that police are talking out of both sides of their mouth on this. Still it helps to know what they think. And, of course, sometimes cameramen do interfere, so in some cases the police are initially justified in shoo’ing the photographer.

    Frankly, a more robust debate on what constitutes “interference” (as opposed to mere presence at the scene or mere proximity) would be a good thing. That debate is more likely to happen once us Tatortotski’s understand that police don’t relize that they are against photography, but merely against interference. This is how the debate can move forward.

  13. #13 |  Highway | 

    Are they really not ‘against photography, just interference’? Or is that just politically acceptable code they’re using to cover for the possible fact that they are against photography? Because like Dave K. says: the ‘rules’ are designed to make photography impossible or useless or both.

    It’s a lot like the immigration discussions (and I’m probably opening a can of worms here, but whatever): If you say “I’m not against immigrants, I’m against illegal immigration,” but then you fail to acknowledge that legal immigration is just not an option due to lack of opportunity and multiple overlapping roadblock rules, then it’s really just nice cover to point to the ‘illegal’ part to keep from admitting to something that might be morally or ethically reprehensible.

  14. #14 |  EH | 

    Burgers: In what case(s) have photographers interfered? If you’re going to bring up Lady Di I’m going to laugh you off the site.

  15. #15 |  BamBam | 

    Police are not against photography or interference, they are against evidence being captured that MAY LEAD TO ACCOUNTABILITY. Note I did not write “will hold them accountable”, as we all know the game is rigged to allow cops/prosecutors/judges to do what they please.

  16. #16 |  Dave Krueger | 

    #12 | Burgers Allday

    Frankly, a more robust debate on what constitutes “interference” (as opposed to mere presence at the scene or mere proximity) would be a good thing. That debate is more likely to happen once us Tatortotski’s understand that police don’t relize that they are against photography, but merely against interference. This is how the debate can move forward.

    I think we’ll just have to differ on this. I think cops are against photography independent of interference and I think they are fully aware that they don’t like photography. That’s not to say there aren’t exceptions, but I believe that cops have developed a culture that takes advantage of their special powers, apparent credibility, and immunities and they see that culture as being threatened by the scrutiny they are subjected to when someone records them. The camera almost completely eliminates the ability of the law enforcement to control how the circumstances of any event are portrayed because video is more credible than they are. Not only do they not want to give up that control, but I believe they will very often get angry and abuse their powers when they see someone recording them.

  17. #17 |  FloO | 

    Here’s a pretty good theory: What you say (or hate) about other people is, in fact, what you are saying about yourself.

    So let’s see…

    “…your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.” ~the F.B.I.

    Yes, sounds about right.

  18. #18 |  CyniCAl | 

    Good news for pigwatchers everywhere:

    http://news.yahoo.com/samsung-dv300f-dual-screen-camera-wi-fi-fast-104429432.html

  19. #19 |  Dana Gower | 

    @#15

    http://www.dallassouthnews.org/2011/12/15/police-chief-david-o-brown-disciplines-officer-for-pushing-protestor/

    This is an article about a video on the same site. Police claim (in official report) that a protestor assaulted an officer and charge him. Video is posted showing the officer, unprovoked, shoved the protestor. The officer is “disciplined”, but charges against the protestor will still be presented to the grand jury.

  20. #20 |  PermaLurker | 

    @M
    Rickets is actually becoming quite common again. Humans need to be exposed to ultraviolet light in order to produce vitamin D, but the fear of sun exposure and the media pushing of sunscreens everywhere all the time, plus more time spent indoors means many people are deficient. The deficiency is even more pronounced in populations that have higher skin melanin content as they require even longer sun exposure in northern latitudes to make sufficient D. Vitamin D is the evolutionary reason why white people exist. Northern populations ditched natural sunscreen (skin pigment) in favor of increased ability to make D in limited sun exposure conditions (winter).

  21. #21 |  Mattocracy | 

    Is that why us whitey’s are white? I did not know that.

  22. #22 |  Omar | 

    Is that why us whitey’s are white? I did not know that.

    That and all your redhead neanderthal ancestors.

  23. #23 |  c andrew | 

    Dave wrote:
    The cop in the picture definitely has that “I traded in my brain for a bigger dick” look on his face.

    And it really is too bad that his upgrade is the size of a vienna sausage.

  24. #24 |  John Spragge | 

    Radley, you missed an obvious point in your arguments against breed specific legislation: vague laws like these provide corrupt public officials with a weapon against anyone who challenges them. So far, Ontario has only suffered through campaigns by Javert-like public officials obsessed with eliminating all the puppies of a particular dog they think they have identified as a pit bull. But legislation that empowers a mere zealot can equally empower a crook. If you keep looking into this politician’s financial dealings with property developers, the possibility your dog might start looking a whole lot like a pit gives them one more very effective tool to harass you.

  25. #25 |  AlgerHiss | 

    I’ve come upon something called CALEA: Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies

    Their website is:

    http://www.calea.org/

    Anyone know much about this bunch?

  26. #26 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    FBI sends MLK a letter: That’s the worst troll letter to a political figure I’ve ever read. If anyone from the FBI is reading, call me and we’ll talk. I might be able to upgrade your efforts.

Leave a Reply