Store owner installs surveillance cameras to spy on police
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/21/v-fullstory/3769823/in...
In the original article, the owner explains what he originally thought he was agreeing to - and why:
"About three years ago, Saleh said police asked him to participate in what they called a “zero-tolerance” program to reduce crime. He gladly signed up, not realizing at the time how much it would impact his business and customers. Under the program, Miami Gardens police are given broad powers to stop and arrest people who appear to be loitering or trespassing at the participating business.
The idea behind the program is based on the “broken window theory,’’ a concept that has been employed by police around the country. The theory holds that a community that rids itself of petty crime, such as shoplifting, vandalism and trespassing, can eradicate more serious crime because criminals won’t have anywhere to hide."
This is also the justification for NYC's "stop and frisk" program which has been in the news so much lately. For the record, I'm not a fan.
Here's more from the Miami Herald article:
> Saleh added that after he filed the internal affairs complaint in August 2012, one of the officers he complained about, Michael Malone, confronted a customer who was part of the complaint.
> Saleh said that after the officers started harassing him, his employees and customers, he began to doubt that police were conducting an impartial investigation, and he did stop cooperating. He said that should not have stopped them from collecting their own evidence, given the seriousness of the complaint.
> “What about their own video, the videos that officers are supposed to take from their cars?” Saleh asked, contending that each time an officer turns on his lights, the vehicle’s dashboard cam is supposed to activate. Saleh said he requested copies of the police videos corresponding to the arrests he recorded and was told the videos didn’t exist.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/22/3772817/miami-gardens-...
I've also experienced a similar situation where I've called for a shift commander and the officers that stopped my mom showed up. Or Another when I called internal affairs because they destroyed/ vandalized my computer equipment in my room, including opening brand new beers and pouring them on my laundry. I called a shift commander and the officers of the raid showed up at my house while I was on the phone with internal affairs.
It Baltimore they don't call it Stop & Frisk. They don't check that box off. They check the box called Citizen/Police Contact. The last time I had "Citizen/police contact" I was with my friend who's an eagle scout on our way from the Loyola/Hopkins Lacrosse game when we were stopped by 4 police cars with guns drawn, demanding to see our hands forcing us out of the car, and putting us in hand cuffs while they searched us and the car. The officers reasoning was "You were a black guy (I'm mixed and very light) and a white guy in a beat up car driving through the hood".
I still carry the Citizen Copy of that paper ticket/notice/citation whatever it is because that's the day I was almost shot. It's a reminder that we're not safe anywhere. The only thing we can do is try to stay out of their way.
No. We can't give up. We need fight back with every legitimate tool at our disposal.
http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/11/encourage-people-to-contac...
Or you get the video, the police-officer's boss agrees with you that the behaviour was outrageous, and sacks the officer. They offer you $1.2 million out of court settlement because all the evidence is so clear. But the officer goes through appeal, and gets his job back, with back pay. Again.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/06/28/out-control-of...
> Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis fired Williams after concluding that the officer choked a suspect during a 2009 arrest and lied about it to Internal Affairs investigators. Williams appealed the finding to an independent arbitrator who ruled in his favor last week. Absent court intervention, Williams can expect reinstatement and a city check for more than $150,000.
EDIT: If you want to downvote, please prove me wrong. I'm happy to provide citations where law enforcement is responsible for criminal conduct, up to and including theft and shooting people's dogs for no reason, and where they're defended by their unions.
But the union would not defend me if their lawyers thought the dismissal was according to procedures and with sufficient evidence; it's not considered in the union's interest to defend clearly bad employees, and in practice they object in only a minority of dismissals. Even when they do lodge an objection in a given case, there is hardly any guarantee they will prevail. Why don't police unions work like that? My guess is a mixture of factors, relating to both cultural aspects (the "no snitching" culture) and ineffective oversight or even outright collusion from people who are supposed to be their adversaries in such procedures, such as judges.
Imo public opinion has to align against police misconduct for it to be dealt with. If the public is offended by misconduct not being punished, this provides both an incentive for elective officials to make sure that can be done, and to police unions to be pragmatic about which kinds of interests they wish to defend; it may not be in the members' collective interest to defend a few bad apples, especially if doing so greatly angers the public. Of course, it might be in their interest if the whole lot of them are bad apples...
My impression, though, is that the majority of Americans are hardly concerned about police misconduct, and generally support the police against complaints, which doesn't provide very fertile ground for anyone interested in pushing reforms. You can win an election by being tough on crime, but can you win an election by being tough on police misconduct?
In a democratic system, whether a major crackdown on police abuses happens depends to a large extent on whether there is actually public support for such a crackdown. Is the current situation that there is strong public support for a crackdown, but FOP lobbying is keeping it from happening? I don't think that's the case; my read is that the majority of people actually think the police are basically good guys who shouldn't be hassled more. The dissenters are a mixture of left-wing/minority-activist groups who are suspicious of racial profiling and police abuse directed mainly at minorities, plus some libertarian groups wary of increasingly militarized policing. But afaict by far the majority opinion thinks those concerns are overblown and supports the cops.
Your original post was a single word with no explanation and did not contribute in any meaningful way to the discussion. It's not a question of whether I agree or disagree with you, it was a crappy post and not the level of content I expect to find on HN. I gave your post, not you, not your ideas, a thumbs down.
The onus is not on anyone else to prove a 1-word assertion wrong, it's on you to prove it right. More generally, every assertion is wrong by default, the asserter has to prove it true.
That's very true in this case. Cop unions are just one aspect of the problem, and if you look at this particular case, no cop has been disciplined. The union, which comes into play late in the game, really cannot be a factor except very indirectly. There are dozens of problems upstream of the union that need to be attended to first.
Most major Hospitals have peer review processes known as a Morbidity and Mortality conference where doctors behind closed doors can speak freely about poor outcomes and ways to avoid future occurrences.
The lack of major reprimands for marginal doctors is sometimes why people rush to lawsuits because standard review processes are usually avoid a doctor apologizing or admitting any blame.
In aviation, near misses in airline or transport category flights are sometimes investigated as "serious incidents" even if no damage to the aircraft or injuries occurred.
It seems if police adopted a similar review process where problems and potential misconduct are addressed in a non-adversarial way (M&M conference style) then attitudes and community relationship will benefit.
It's worth pointing out that unions are legally compelled to defend all of their members regardless if that person is in the wrong or not.
I don't believe you. I think you'd be sad to do it. Otherwise you would have already. And having lied about one small thing, why should I believe that you haven't lied about other, bigger things?
http://www.policemisconduct.net/
http://www.policemisconduct.net/maps/searchable-map-2009-201...
There are plenty of incidents in Seattle you might be interested in.
I'm just wondering what is at play in this state.
Our local Sheriff gave a Neighborhood Watch talk and mentioned the drastic down-sizing of law enforcement officers in the Oregon counties adjacent to us as a major concern and a potential source of problems for us.
Far more South than Portland...
You're assuming that real accountability exists somewhere short of escalation to the national news. That's not necessarily or even (anecdotally) likely the case and really, what are the chances?
How many years, decades and victims did this county have before now?
In my experience, law enforcement is dominated by a culture of deference to seniority, dreams of retiring with a pension and an "at war" attitude.
Self-preservation is keeping your mouth shut and toeing the line.
My crime? I was walking barefoot down the sidewalk.
There is more behind the scenes going on.
Of course you'd need to get the prosecutor to take up the case, which would probably require the help of a lawyer, which a person taking out the trash at a convenience store probably can't afford.
Additionally, I think there is more to this story than is being reported, because it makes no sense on its face.
1) an arrest warrant exists for said person 2) a police office has reason to believe (gathered evidence, etc) that said person committed a felony
I agree with you that a cop can arrest someone for a very weak reason (he looked like the suspect), but arresting the same person 62 times when it was apparent the guy worked there?
Something is up.
At some point? At every point. And I don't understand the use of "even".
We are all responsible for our actions.
I mean, there'll always be a grey area, but this story seems a little nutty.
I totally agree that catalyst for localized change (if there's even any of that in this case) shouldn't be, "Oh shit, we got caught and now it's on the news."
Of course, we won't get in to equally informative stories of police in China, India, Thailand or the United Kingdom.
Having collected a fair range of experience across the world, I think I've now discovered where my misunderstanding originally arose: I had the wrong idea about what "police" meant. I see now that it's clearly nothing more than an internationally popular short form for "useless and corrupt thug-cum-bureaucrat".