“FILM da police!”
This excellent song came about as a twist on the “EFF da PO-lice!” phrase wrought out of the general mistrust of all boys in blue because of a few rotten apples. You may have read my stuff before and understand that my outlook is not that all of them are bad. I look at the law the way the law looks at me – innocent until proven guilty. If you pull me over, I may not shake in my boots, but I’ll show you the same reverence I would if a homeless man came up and asked me for a dollar when you ask me for my license and registration. (In both cases, I generally say yes).
But, as I’m not living my life completely beneath a rock, I’ve seen the viral video captures of cops acting badly.
And while I try to take into account what might be missing (“what’s the rest of the context?” and “is this being amplified to make it seem like it’s a bigger problem than it is?”), there’s really know way of knowing for sure. Every case is different. But if fear is an infectious disease, then the internet’s definitely become the waiting room full of people coughing it onto each other. Only a matter of time until everyone gets sick. Mind you, I’m not saying these incidents are non-issues – just that we never really know unless we’re there and thus need to envisage the bigger picture when we watch or read anything.
But I don’t remember ignorance ever being illegal.
So video cameras can still prove pretty helpful – despite how the content might be misused on social media.
Unless you’re in Illinois.
Apparently they’re passing this law that seems kinda vague to me. What it dictates is that you can’t video record anything that can be interpreted as a “private conversation”, but that public encounters are still okay. Break this law, and you could be facing two to four years behind bars. An Illinois Policy Institute excerpt says:
“Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. When does the person you’re talking to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? The bill doesn’t say. And that’s not something an ordinary person can be expected to figure out. A law must be clear enough for citizens to know in advance whether a particular action is a crime. This bill doesn’t meet that standard, which should be reason enough for a court to strike it down if it becomes law.”
This isn’t f’real, though, is it?
Sadly, yes.
It was, at least, when a Massachusetts lady turned a sound recorder on on her phone last May while getting arrested. She was charged with “wiretapping”. Then, more recently, I heard that the dude recording the Eric Garner case also was arrested. Certainly if we’re in public, and you’re on duty, nothing’s private. We’re engaging in a professional matter which is a public affair. I’m on the receiving end of your service to and protection of the community. The way I see it is that it’s kinda like a patient with a doctor. If I want to go into the front of the clinic and share over a megaphone my lab results with everyone so they can help me celebrate that I didn’t catch the clap from the dude on Zoosk that roofied me (my fault – I totes skimmed over where he listed that as a fav. pastime under “hobbies”), then that’s my right. I’m waiving my privacy. And – if you’re the doctor – you shouldn’t be bothered by me sharing my personal info. Unless you’re the dude from Zoos-… wait, haven’t we met before?
Seriously though, am I not getting something here? I understand that mandatory po-po worn cams are coming out soon. But why not get everyone’s viewpoints if we can? Ya know, in case they end up needing to make their way to a court of law for a giant national debacle regarding he-said/she-said? It’d sure be helpful.
Who does this kinda law serve and protect?
Why can’t we shoot ’em if they’re gonna be shooting us?
With cameras, I mean…