Their website is:

http://www.calea.org/

Anyone know much about this bunch?

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

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

That and all your redhead neanderthal ancestors.

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.

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

So let’s see…

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

Yes, sounds about right.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.