While video surveillance has proven to be very useful and beneficial. With all of the questionable police shootings that have been happening, it is no surprise that civilian videotaping of such events have been used as evidence. However, after reading the article, “Are Cameras the New Guns?”, it has come to my attention that the people behind the camera are being persecuted. In 12 states, there is a law that requires consent from all parties with the exception of videotaping in public places where there is no exception of privacy. However, when the law is put to the test, this exception is often overlooked or ignored completely.
In one case, a motorcyclist was pulled over for speeding by a plain clothed officer driving in an unmarked car. The motorcyclist, who was wearing a helmet camera at the time, later posted a video of the officer waving his gun and yelling at him. 10 days after the incident, the officer obtained a warrant and put the motorcyclist under arrest for illegal wiretapping. The officer’s motive for obtaining the warrant was most likely attributed to the posted video making the officer look bad. This is ridiculous to me because at the time of the incident, there was no arrest made. It was purely due to the fact that the posted video gave the officer a bad image. In this situation, the reason of arrest deviates from the true purpose of law enforcement, that being to protect and serve the citizens, and becomes more of a personal statement to protect their own egos. Of course, the other officers stood behind the decision to arrest the cameraman.
In the case of the police shootings, the fact that the cameraman are being arrested instead of the people that are shooting innocent people is ridiculous. Even when the law makes exception for surveillance in a public place, the camera men are still being persecuted for recording law enforcement commit crimes, only for the benefit of the officers in question. Video surveillance should not be something that a person should be convicted for when the footage that they obtain can actually be extremely useful.
1 comment:
I like that you talked about the exception to the eavesdropping rule, being able to videotape in a public setting where there should be no expectation of privacy. What is most unsettling in the case of the motorcyclist is the fact he was taping in public and further than that it happened inadvertently. It wasn't even the cyclists intention to film the officer, he was probably just using what I am assuming was a GoPro camera to capture his ride. But after capturing something as frightening as a civilian dressed officer waving a gun in your face it wouldn't make sense not to share it. When excessive force occurs people should have the right to do something about it and the cyclist was lucky (or as it turns to unlucky) enough to capture it on film.
Post a Comment