Will Cameras Save Us from the Police State?

By  •  Thursday August 6, 2009 12:48 PM PDT  •  6 Comments

Practically every day, a new video is circulating on the internet showing severe examples of police misconduct. As the police become increasingly militarized and brazen in their violent attacks—for example, see this story on a Baptism party in a private backyard broken up for excessive noise, ended when cops tasered a grandfather and a pregnant mother (who has been perversely charged with “assaulting a police officer”)—cameras may be our best hope in preventing the emergence of a full-blown police state. The police killing of Oscar Grant at the Oakland BART station on New Years Day was made famous and prosecutable because it was caught on so many cellphone cameras. Even government cameras give a glimpse into police corruption and criminality, such as with this recent footage of multiple officers agreeing to frame a woman to cover up a car accident caused by one of their own.

I used to think that police brutality was becoming much more commonplace, but maybe it’s only more visible now because of technology? I would guess it’s a combination of both factors at play.

Of course, government wants to monitor what we do, but keep everything it does secret. This is why Obama has gone so far as to push for an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act purely to prevent photos depicting torture of detainees, and has blocked the release of documents pertaining to the destruction of videos revealing torture in interrogation. But the technology is there, and the surveillance state isn’t going away, so as long as cameras advance and proliferate, I say: Turn them against the state. It may be one of our best checks on government power.

Tags: Civil Liberties, Police, The State, Torture

6 Comment(s)

  1. You should look into the cases of Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers Barry Jacob “Jake” Rowland and Daniel Martin.

    Rowland has been on PAID LEAVE since November 2008. He was turned in by fellow cops for kicking a handcuffed woman repeatedly in the chest after she allegedly spit on him. The other cops deny ever seeing her spit on him and she denies ever spitting on him. The OHP refuses to release the dashcam video of the incident but those who have seen it say his assault was unprovoked.

    Martin pulled over an ambulance for allegedly not yielding to him and then flipping him off in May 2009. During the traffic stop, he tried to arrest the paramedic and choked him for “obstructing”. This was after the paramedic told him repeatedly that they had a patient onboard. OHP released the dashcam video proving his guilt but only after public pressure and the release of a cell phone video taken by family members. There is no evidence on the video of wrongdoing by the paramedic or ambulance driver and the ambulance clearly yielded when it was safe to do so. Martin was given only 5 days suspension and is back on the street now. There are thousands of signatures on an online petition demanding the firing of Martin and a lawsuit filed by the paramedic is pending.

    Carlos | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  2. Thanks, Anthony!

    Here’s another horrific example — caught by the police car’s own camera:
    Tennessee Cops Caught Planting Weed On Man During His Arrest

    Mary Theroux | Aug 6, 2009 | Reply

  3. That is what Obama meant by “transparency”!

    Gregory Farrington | Aug 7, 2009 | Reply

  4. Why no petition to fire Rowland? His actions were worse than Martin’s, or at least the DA who filed the charges against him seemed to think. I’d sign a petition to fire the lady-kicker, if one was available. He’s a p.o.s. who deserves far worse than he will likely get.

    Paid Leave is Wrong | Aug 21, 2009 | Reply

  5. While I see your point regarding cameras owned by citizens (which reminds me of the recent Iranian elections), these isolated crimes committed by police do not indicate an impending police state. Proliferation of federal security cameras (like those in London) are a far greater threat to our freedom than our local police officers.

    AlexIV | Aug 31, 2009 | Reply

  6. AlexIV,
    The existence of cameras that look at citizens does not automatically mean that a state can control it’s people inappropriately. The only REAL defense any citizenry has in the 21st century is a police force that defends it’s people AGAINST the state. Thus the biggest threat to a people is having a police force that is more obedient to the state than it is to the people.

    Though I’d certainly prefer both a moral police force and a moral state, if it was a choice, I’d rather have the moral police force.

    The only real protection a free people has is that it’s army will not fire on it.

    Mark | Sep 6, 2009 | Reply

Post a Comment