I’m not saying this is always a slippery slope, but in some communities I think it would be … if we let one person interfere with a police beating … then everybody will think it’s okay to stop police beatings … then everyone will think it’s okay to stop police manhandling … pretty soon the police will have to ask politely or risk mob action …
You’d be surprised what peoples think should be against the law … but really ain’t … which is why we should record, report and scream at elected officials … the alternative is basically vigilantism, and that’s an even more violent form of society …
Of course the media is full of stories about police brutality … why would a major network newscast lead with a report about police using a minimum of force to subdue a suspect? …
ETA: If you’re intolerant of watching police pull a woman out of the driver’s seat of a car and cut her head off … never vacation in Saudi Arabia …
There is something to be said for the fact that the act of observation may mitigate the officer’s actions.
If this is happening in an alley with no credible witnesses, the cop could do whatever he wanted, and there would be no one to contradict his story.
If you call out, “I am recording and broadcasting you live on facebook right now.” The cop will likely decide to stop, if what he is doing is illegal or against policy.
This exact thing happened here in January. The guy who had shot the suspect who had shot the officer was lauded as a hero. The suspect shot dead turned out to be the driver of the vehicle that over-turned. The cause of the roll-over AFAIK was never determined as was the motive for the assault.
I could show you a number of incidents where the cop did not beat the suspect while they were being filmed, whether or not being filmed contributed to that, I couldn’t tell you. I will say that being filmed is probably the only reason that this guy came out of this alive.
But, anyway, is what you are trying to say is that cops will act exactly the same whether or not there are credible witnesses to their action?
I don’t want to put words into step-dads mouth but I think he was coming from the assumption that the cop would not be beating this dude if he didn’t have to.
Of course that wide line applies to the officer as well. I suppose in Barack’s hypothetical its crystal clear a murder is about to happen but I would suggest that in real life it won’t be that simple
Indeed, but the OP is (now) saying that he would kill the cop if he saw something happening that he interpreted as likely to lead to the death of the suspect.
We have posters on this board who consider it acceptable to beat an unarmed and non-resisting person because the officer felt that they deserved it, not because the person was presenting any danger to the officer or to the public. That would be my assumption to what the step-dad meant. Not that beating this person would protect those people, but that the cop is the judge when dishing out extra-judicial punishment is acceptable.
No-I was trying to ask a question about the effectiveness of filming a beating when it comes to stopping said beating? I like to have the facts before I make a conclusion, whenever possible.
Is it legal to interfere with a police officer going beyond “reasonable force” to subdue and apprehend a suspect? Of course it is. Nobody is above the law. Police, being agents of the government with extended powers the public does not have - also need to be held to a higher standard.
No matter what the perp may have done, there is never a right or justification for anyone, let alone an agent of the government to beat the living crap out of him.
Is it a good idea to interfere? Is it practical? No, and NO!!
Even if the police were about to kill the suspect; or to take two recent examples, stomp a guy’s head while he’s down on the ground handcuffed, or slam a 69-year-old’s head on the armrest across the aisle - first, excess force is a judgement call. You better be sure the system agrees.
Second, those who violate the rules to abuse (or kill) probably don’t stop when faced with an opportunity to lie to exonerate themselves. Whatever you say happened, they will contradict.
Third, the system believes the police over the public, when it comes to police problems; the news if full of police being exonerated for everything from excessive force to choking someone to death to blatantly shooting them. And any other officers nearby or responding to the problem, may ignore or not have seen the lead-up; they’ll only see you interfering/assaulting a police officer.
Fourth, this assumes you make it to jail while trying to stop the officer - once you assault him, it’s his word against yours whether it was justified if you end up dead. He is presumed to have the right to defend himself in the alleged performance of his duty, and see previous points, if you’re not around to justify your actions, and he is, what are the odds you will be proven to be in the right posthumously?
And finally, if you are proven to be in the right posthumously, what satisfaction would you get when that decision comes down?
I do not have any studies or stats, and I don’t feel like searching through hours of youtube videos to find one that may match what you are looking for, so I don’t have a direct answer for you. In fact, even if you filmed some cops beating an unarmed person, and they stopped when you started filming, that still wouldn’t be proof that it was your filming that made them stop. Maybe they were just getting tired or their fists were getting bruised.
I do, however, understand basic human psychology, and know that many people only break laws and policies when they think they can get away with it. When they know that there are credible witnesses, they are less likely to break the law. Same reason retail stores put cameras in to deter shoplifters.
I mean, we already have threads where posters are complaining that the cops can’t do their jobs, out of fear of being filmed. My argument against that is that being filmed should only have the effect of making sure that they do their job correctly.
Ditto. Or at least a cite to a law that says a citizen may intervene when a cop is using excessive force. I think almost everyone in this thread agrees that it’s a really bad idea to to so, and if you survive the beating you get for your trouble, you’ll get crushed in court. But, is there some law somewhere that addresses this scenario? Has it ever been invoked in an actual case?
UltraVires’s cite seems interesting (sorry, I haven’t had the time to read it yet), and it addresses the related scenario when the individual being arrested has the right to resist unlawful arrest. But that leaves open the OP’s question.
That was the whole point of the rest of my post - what’s “right” is not necessarily held up by our system. (Plus a lot of citizens have the common sense or fear to know that)
If the actions of the police are not legal, then you are not interfering with their lawful duties. The trick lies in persuading the system that you are right, they are not acting lawfully, they are acting sufficiently beyond the law to merit interference.
Of course, if you stop a cop beating a suspect, that also does not mean you can let the suspect go - the arrest itself was a lawful activity.
Considering there was a recent video of US Marshals arresting someone, where the one marshal, being a dick, pointed an assault rifle at the fellow filming them, who was standing beside a pregnant woman inside his home… and turned on the flashlight attached to that rifle to try to interfere with the video… and his buddies did nothing to stop him - the bar for “proper behavior” by law enforcement can be pretty low in the minds of others in the system.
Good point, probably best to just walk on and ignore it, if you are not absolutely positive that your actions as acting as a credible witness (with video) will have any effect on the situation.
Or, just maybe, we can find out if there are any other legal options open to us, because so far you have given no evidence that filming without interaction actually does anything to alleviate the situation.