Boston Police Commissioner Wants Cameras Further Away From Cops, Criminal Charges For Not Assisting Officers
from the Accountability-Free-Zones dept
Earlier this year, Texas legislator Jason Villalba attempted to shortchange the First Amendment in the name of "officer safety" by making it illegal to film police officers from within a 25-foot, constantly-moving radius. His proposed law was greeted with criticism (and death threats, according to Villalba) and was consequently discarded because it was a terrible, arbitrary law that had only the briefest of flirtations with reality and logic.
For one thing, the law would have prompted officers to split their attention between the job at hand (whatever crime they were responding to/investigating) and Villalba's directive. Of course, officers could easily choose not to enforce this bad law, but far too many officers have been filmed leaving crime scenes just to hassle citizens with cameras. And the instant the officer started closing the gap between him and the photographer, a law would have been violated in letter, if not in spirit. Villalba is a staunch supporter of law enforcement agencies and his proposal was just an attempt to give officers a little less accountability.
So, despite this bill being ridiculed out of existence, hopes springs eternal in those who feel the public is the worst of their problems. Boston's police commissioner is now asking for the same accountability halo for his officers.
Boston police Commissioner William B. Evans is calling for laws to regulate the proliferation of cellphone-toting citizens and so-called cop watchers dedicated to recording potential police misconduct — a trend that has given rise to new challenges and risks for officers at crime scenes.Evans is wholly disingenuous throughout the course of this article. He first tries to spin this as a problem caused by citizens. His claim that people are "agitating" officers by getting "up in their faces" may be minimally true, but it's far more common to see police officers walking up to people filming them and getting in their faces. Generally, citizens filming police activities don't approach cops. It's almost always the other way around. So, if there's an issue here, it should be addressed with officers first, who seem far too willing to abandon the "mission" just to shut down recordings.
“If we can get legislation that protects both sides, I’m all for it,” Evans told the Herald late last week. “Should you be up in a police officer’s face and agitating them? Absolutely not. Because we’ve seen it through all these demonstrations. It interferes sometimes with us (being) able to look at the crowd and focus on what our mission is.”
“But when you’re just out there for the very reason of, you know, trying to get a gotcha moment, that’s irritating to us,” Evans said, pointing to instances on July 4 and following the March shooting of officer John T. Moynihan, when police were met by a group of vocal video-takers at the edge of the scene.This sort of argument has been raised before to defend actions taken against photographers. It's the law enforcement equivalent of the childhood go-to complaint, "He started it!" If officers would simply focus on their jobs rather than citizens and their cameras, there would be fewer "gotcha moments." Nothing about enforcing the law translates to "taking the bait." Every officer that shows restraint in the face of someone hoping for a "gotcha moment" will come out of the incident victorious. It will be the photographer who looks ridiculous, rather than the other way around. If Evans is using this as justification for a protective, camera-free space around cops, he's basically admitting his officers have self-control issues and cannot handle being "irritated."
Evans goes even further than Villalba, however, when he starts advocating for arresting citizens who don't leap in the moment they sense an officer might have lost the upper hand in an altercation.
“During the altercation, as officers struggled to subdue the suspect, they noted that they were being videotaped by the large crowd that had gathered,” officers wrote in their report. “In need of help, officers asked members of the crowd and a security guard for help. No help was offered.”It would seem that paying out settlements for police misconduct isn't financially damaging enough. Now, Evans wants to open his department and the city of Boston up to additional lawsuits for injuries sustained by citizens providing mandatory assistance to struggling cops. And what happens if the responding member of the public takes it too far and provides some additional excessive force of their own? The subdued suspect may look at police officers and their immunity and decide it's much easier to sue a citizen who isn't protected by this legal shield.
Evans said that should never happen. “I’d also like to see some legislation that if a cop is on the ground struggling with someone, like he was the other night and everybody is videotaping, someone should be held accountable for not stepping up and helping them,” he said.
While I understand his frustration that the public seems more interested in watching than helping, the public is usually similarly unhelpful when other citizens are receiving a beatdown. And the larger the crowd, the less likely it is that anyone's going to put their own lives/health on the line for someone else. Evans says "someone" should be held responsible in situations like this, while discussing a "crowd." But who? Any random person? All of them? The security guard? If people are going to have their preference to remain uninvolved in altercations criminalized, so should officers who refuse to show the same deference to the public -- either by responding to every perceived threat with acts of violence or by pointing out that "protect and serve" isn't actually part of any police department's policies or credo.
Evans' low-key pitch for legislation on these issues shows he truly believes police officers deserve more rights than citizens. He believes cops should work in an irritant-free environment with the knowledge that the general public will put itself in harm's way to save a public servant.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: assisting officers, boston, filming police, photographs, photography, police
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If you need to /force/ people to help you, that should tell you something
This is particularly disgusting when you consider that in several cases, one even reaching the Supreme Court, the police have argued that they do not have a legal responsibility to protect anyone, something that the courts have agreed with.
So basically the police aren't required to put their safety at risk by helping the public, but if a member of the public shows the same self-interest, it should be a criminal offense.
Hypocrisy and double-standards at their finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you need to /force/ people to help you, that should tell you something
- He wants citizens to put their life in danger, going against the very reason we have a police force.
- He wants a citizen to assault another citizen without the first having done any harm to the latter, which is most definitely illegal.
- He additionally wants this assault to be carried out at the request of a police officer without presenting any evidence that the citizen in question ever broke any laws.
This basically legalises the Hunger Games and impromptu gladiatorial combat for the amusement of the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you need to /force/ people to help you, that should tell you something
There are lots of problems with this proposal, but this isn't really one of them. You have the right to use force (including deadly force, if warranted) in defense, not only of yourself, but also of third parties (including third parties you don't even know). The rules surrounding this are murky and vary from state to state, and you can open yourself up to significant liability if you don't know them well. Thus, most self-defense instructors would advise against doing so--but it can be legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you need to /force/ people to help you, that should tell you something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What are the odds that anybody rushing in to help would get shot for trying to assist criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 13th, 2015 @ 3:44am
There is zero legal requirement for any bystander to provide assistance. Maybe a moral one could be argued but the law does not require you to do a damn thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 13th, 2015 @ 3:44am
How is there a moral requirement to help a cop murder a citizen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 13th, 2015 @ 3:44am
Which kinda shows what kinda commissioners we have. How did this guy ever become commissioner anyways?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 13th, 2015 @ 3:44am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Aug 13th, 2015 @ 3:44am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, trying to help would be insanely risky for the person doing it. If they were very, very lucky, the cop they helped would care enough to make sure that only the one that they were fighting was charged and/or tossed in a cell, rather than both in a vindictive or apathetic fit.
And should other cops arrive on the scene? Yeah, the 'good samaritan' would be screwed. Three people in a fight, one of them a cop? They're not going to carefully assess the situation or care that one of them was trying to help, it's going to be batons, pepper spray, and assault charges for both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What are the odds?
Easy to calculate since the odds go up as the helper's skin color gets darker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lead balloon anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's see
2) the catch-22: Leap in to assist officer, get arrested for interfering, likely by the same cop or his buddies, no thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's see
Several other people, who were required to provide assistance, came up to help. Several other officers on the scene opened fire. Due to the amount of of people coming to look, the swat team was deployed.
Because the blocks around the area had multiple police offices and we can't get within 25 feet, we were unable to get any video of what happened or the result.
This is Josh reporting for BS TV
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand...
Yeah, that's what I find 'funny' about the statement he made, it assumes that the suspect, rather than the cop, is always the instigator of a conflict, when it's more often than not likely to be the opposite. Why would, or should, the public help a cop assault another member of the public? Not the public's fault or problem if a cop picks a fight with someone willing and able to fight back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: On the other hand...
If I see a cop break the law, especially if it's a victim crime, you'd better believe I'll step in and arrest the SOB.
But then, the state I live in has pretty solid statutory support for citizen's arrests. I'd hate to try it elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Videoing
Any sensible police chief would commend them for doing so.
In the UK I have never seen any policeman or police representative recommend that you should physically help an officer in a way that puts you in any danger. They always say that the only assistance they would expect is that you help by calling for backup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Videoing
Of course I am assuming that the officer is behaving correctly at this point....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Videoing
Do you intervene?
If the cop looks up and orders you to help him, what do you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pot, Meet Kettle
Umm, isn't that what cops do to citizens? It's irritating to citizens, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pot, Meet Kettle
It's really all just a result of certain members of the police giving the public fodder to disparage them. If they all did their job perfectly this would not be an issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pot, Meet Kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Door-to-door policing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Door-to-door policing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So long, and thanks for all the schadenfreude
So, basically, the Boston Police Commissioner wants to implement, "The Finale (Seinfeld)", but only if it involves a cop?
While waiting for the airplane to be repaired, they witness an overweight man named Howie (John Pinette) getting carjacked at gunpoint by a criminal (Jerry Thomas Johnson). Instead of helping him, they crack jokes about his size while Kramer films it all on his camcorder, then proceed to walk away. The victim notices this and tells the reporting officer Matt Vogel (Scott Jaeck), who arrests them on a duty to rescue violation that requires bystanders to help out in such a situation.
Good luck with that. I only hope that anyone arrested under such a law, doesn't get a "Jackie Chiles" type lawyer to represent them, as that never works out too well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's good for the goose...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Curtail zoom lenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's necessary!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adult Swim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, it's also these morons with their cellphone cameras that get too close to these cops while also shouting at them. It's common sense that you stand a good deal away from the cops while they do their jobs. How many videos have we seen where morons are standing too close to these officers while they are investigating an incident?
I would put that number at over 60%. Not saying that everyone is guilty of doing this but that these so-called 'cop-watchers' stage these altercations in order to provoke these cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How far away is far enough, so far that they cannot see the cops?
Being a cop, is having a job where some people will try to provoke and annoy you, so cops should deal with it, without resorting to violence unless subjected to a physical attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Uh, no, it absolutely is the police that are the problem. Their job involves tons of interacting with the public, if they don't know how to, or aren't able to do that in a calm, civil, and professional manner(first is optional but desirable, second is more important, third is non-negotiable), then they either need to quit or go back for more training so that they can.
It's common sense that you stand a good deal away from the cops while they do their jobs.
So long as they're not actively interfering with the cop's actions('distracting them' doesn't count, if someone is that easy to distract, then police work is not for them), it shouldn't really matter how close they are. Also, standing too far away would ruin one of the more valuable parts of recordings, the audio, by making it too faint, or too poor of quality, to use to determine what was said.
How many videos have we seen where morons are standing too close to these officers while they are investigating an incident?
Define 'too close'? 5 feet? 10 feet? 15, 20, 25? Again, so long as someone's isn't actively interfering with the actions of the police, the police can and should just ignore them. If they get too close, politely ask them to get back a little and give the cop some space to work.
Not saying that everyone is guilty of doing this but that these so-called 'cop-watchers' stage these altercations in order to provoke these cops.
As the AC above noted, police work is a stressful job, and this should not be surprising to anyone considering it as a career. If a cop can't handle someone with a camera in a calm manner, then they certainly won't be able to handle any real problems that crop up, and as such should quit, as the job is clearly beyond their ability to handle.
Also, as the article notes, even if some of the ones with cameras are trying to get a response, so long as the cops ignore them or act in a civil manner then the one attempting to provoke them will get nothing, and they, rather than the cop, will be the one who looks foolish. All a cop has to do to counter the 'cop watchers' is act in a professional manner, how difficult is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think the police are clearly a very serious problem. So is police management.
"it's also these morons with their cellphone cameras that get too close to these cops"
There are existing noncontroversial laws about doing this whether or not a camera is involved, so the concern by the police is obviously not "morons who get too close". They concern is that their behavior is being recorded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If one of your gophers see this commissioner, you are setting a dangerous precedent and setting the conditions for a "them vs us" situation with your intended "legislation". I hope you fail and are removed as the alternative is much worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For years, people have been told "don't get involved, call the police"
Someone standing around video taping is almost certainly of a generation that has been raised from cradle-age with the "let the police handle it" training. And now we've come to it's logical conclusion. You won't over-ride that type of indoctrination with a law and wishful thinking.
At most, you might expect someone to call 911 on behalf of the officer being beaten. Since that's what they've been trained to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For years, people have been told "don't get involved, call the police"
Perhaps. But I think it's far more likely that it's the result of the police having lost the trust and respect of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For years, people have been told "don't get involved, call the police"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For years, people have been told "don't get involved, call the police"
I think you meant DO respond. That's how I got the only detention in high school I ever received - some boy took offense at being hit in dodgeball in gym and charged me swinging. I took ONE swing back after he broke my glasses (yes, bullies and the like WILL punch someone in glasses) and wound up in detention along with the jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is this "Constitution" thing of which you speak?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For an officer to be caught in a 'gotcha moment' implies they did something wrong. The problem isn't that citizens are trying to catch them in a 'gotcha moment' the problem is that you are so insecure that your officers won't do something wrong that you don't want them to be caught when they do. That's not very reassuring to the public who should absolutely be trying to catch officers when they do something wrong. The proper solution to ensuring that officers aren't caught doing anything wrong is to ensure they don't do anything wrong to get caught for. Instead you want to ensure they don't get caught when they do something wrong. Not acceptable.
and if your officers aren't doing anything wrong they shouldn't have any reason to be irritated. If they are so sensitive as to get irritated for being videotaped not doing anything wrong they shouldn't be officers to begin with because an officer shouldn't have an easily irritated temperament.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The chief only wants it for police officers. Because they're so "special".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who should be required to help
Well the obvious answer is "the closest person", but that's probably the person fighting the cop. Oh, but that's perfect! Just pass a law requiring them to help the cop subdue themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Superficial Official
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are the same idiots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]