Cameras In The Hands Of Citizens? The Horror!

Sometimes even the ACLU does things that are okay, if for the wrong reasons.

PubDef reported this last year, but is seems the ACLU has finally succeeded in giving out video cameras to St Louis residents to videotape police actions.

Says the ACLU spokesman:

"Police officers who know their misconduct will be reported and probably filmed might be less likely to abuse their authority. Project Vigilant is not and should never be perceived as an 'anti-police' program. In meetings with St. Louis Police Chief Joe Mokwa, we stressed that we are just as likely to catch the police officers in the course of positive behavior as well as negative. Our project is designed to give police officers more incentive to connect and communicate respectfully with the residents of the communities they patrol."

I think in general it's a positive thing - certainly it's not a bad thing to allow citizens to videotape the police, and anything that prevents police officers from abusing their authority, but also allows the residents to feel safer, is a good thing.  But wait, there's more.

Glenn Reynolds has a riff on this today.

That's why they're making (futile) efforts to shut it down. But suggesting that the police have a right to "privacy" while performing a public duty in public is ridiculous. In fact, it's worse than ridiculous -- it's an effort to place the police above the law that applies to the citizenry, their employers.

As I said I'm all for private citizens having the right to videotape their surroundings.  But...and it's a big one...

Would it be too much to ask that when video is shot of a police officer, that the full video be released, and not just the part where police officers are seeing a man beaten for seemingly no reason?  If a PCP addict gets hit with a Taser and keeps coming, surely that's something that should be shown in addition to the four police officers wrestling the guy to the ground and hitting his legs with a baton?

That's the danger.  The purpose of the ACLU is not the truth - it's the use of any means necessary to make their political points, and video can be misused, as it was in the Rodney King case, to show the most inflammatory portions of a scene.

Maybe it's too much to ask, but if the video is used correctly, it's a useful tool for the citizenry. It's also a useful tool for demogogues to whip up indignation, and that makes the citizenry less safe.  Just ask Reginald Denny.

Comments

[Chris Copeland]

Giving the full tape of the incident would be preferable, but enforcing that would be impossible, unfortunately.