Why Are Cops Allowed to Film Citizens, But Citizens Not Allowed to Film Police Brutality?

From AlterNet:

But wait -- why not?

Though you'd expect that uncomfortable question to evoke dissembling, Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Jim Pasco was quite straightforward about it.

Police officers, he told NPR, "need to move quickly, in split seconds, without giving a lot of thought to what the adverse consequences for them might be." He added that law enforcement authorities believe "that anything that's going to have a chilling effect on an officer moving -- an apprehension that he's being videotaped and may be made to look bad -- could cost him or some citizen their life."

Obviously, nobody wants to stop officers from doing their much-needed job (well, nobody other than budget-cutting politicians who are slashing police forces). In fact, organizations such as the NAACP have urged citizens to videotape police precisely to make sure police are doing ALL of their job -- including protecting individuals' civil liberties.

This is not some academic or theoretical concern, and video recording is not a needless exercise in Bill of Rights zealotry. The assault on civil liberties in America is a very real problem and monitoring police is absolutely required in light of recent data.

More here.

Yeah, this is nuts and is becoming increasingly disturbing to me. The whole point to video recording the police is precisely to get them to hesitate. That, of course, and to catch them red-handed when they don't hesitate. And by "hesitate" I mean "make sure they don't shoot the wrong guy" or "make sure they don't tase the wrong guy" or "make sure they don't shoot or tase a guy who's already on the ground and not resisting" or "make sure they don't throw the elderly woman they just pulled over on the ground in a rage of self-righteousness and hyper-masculinity." Because, you know, bystanders have captured all that shit and more on video in recent years. All in the news, and it wouldn't have been if it hadn't been recorded on video.

What I haven't seen in the news is any story suggesting that cops hesitated in life or death situations because they were afraid of somebody with a video camera. I'm not saying it never happens, just that I've never heard of it. Certainly I've never heard of any academic studies suggesting such a thing. It's really difficult not to conclude that this is bullshit. Cops just don't want to be on video--it's too inconvenient for the power tripping that attracted them to the job in the first place.

Look, this really is basic civil rights stuff. If you believe that the 2nd amendment is about making governmental authority honest, then you've got to support the concept of recording the police. I mean, it's a lot less lethal than weapons, and essentially serves the same purpose. Except that nobody has to die. Unless of course there's actually something to the cops' undocumented fear of "hesitation," which there isn't, and, even if there is, can easily be overridden with training.

Seriously. There is an enormous problem with police misbehavior in this country, really, and video does a small part in helping to stem the tide. I'm not much of a video hound, myself, but in no way do I feel constrained by any of these anti-video laws, or any prosecutor's creative interpretation of existing statutes that don't really say anything about video. That is, I strongly advocate civil disobedience as far as recording the cops goes.

I mean, if we're not watching the cops, who is?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$