There are those days when even I miss something that needs to be said.Yeah, just like the police, I can't be everywhere all the time. My problem is I happen to live in an area WHERE the police NEED TO BE... MOST of the time.
With that said, I submit this for your review.
I just found out about this story yesterday (although it's really been ongoing since February 2007).
Here's the link to the related article:
http://news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/NEWS/807150321
Long story short:
Man goes to see daughter perform at choir show. Man takes camera to record her. School tells man he can't. Man says he can. Police are called, Man is strong-armed into custody, causing injury to man. Prosecutor dismisses case and charges.
End of story, right?
I don't think so.
First off, who the hell made this off-duty officer the Right Hand of GOD (I thought that was MY jurisdiction)? Placing someone in a headlock, and then pulling them backward out of a chair constitutes something we used to call EXCESSIVE FORCE. And it's made to SUBDUE a potential threat without escalating to something worse.Now I'll be the first one to tell you that such force should ONLY be used when a clear and present danger exists. The next step up on the ladder would be LETHAL FORCE (immediate and life-threatening danger exists).
If the father had an intent to harm the officer (he was practicing PASSIVE RESISTANCE...anyone recall the name GANDHI?), then excessive force "may" be justified. Same with brandishing any type of weapon. When something like that occurs, the IMMEDIACY of the situation demands that response of the the officer be swift...and conclusive.
Again, such was not the case. Dad had NO weapons, and his videocam was STILL in it's case. If dad had ANY weapon, it might have been our very own U.S. CONSTITUTION.(note to potential "arrestees"- law-enforcement doesn't like it when you know the law MORE than they do...trust me on this one)
So, if the police department WANTS a lawsuit, actions such as THIS will certainly fill the bill. It would have been much better *if* the two officers just gave dad a "Bum's Rush" (one officer under each armpit and they carry the person off with legs dangling), and called it quits. But for some reason, there was a LOT of overreaction...and for no good reason.
When you place anyone in a headlock, you have potential to harm. And you can knock someone out if correct pressure is applied for about 30 seconds. Now, add to this, dragging them backward out of a chair onto a floor, and you WILL run the risk of neck or back injury to the person you've got control over. That's just basic physics - the "to every action-equal, opposite reaction" gig.
Sure, I wasn't there, and I didn't see what occurred, but common sense dictates that given a situation such as the one described in the article, some level of professionalism MUST prevail on the part of the police, and that means to cause AS LITTLE angst and bother as is possible. Sorry, but I just didn't get that from the story.
And neither will you.
I would be remiss to not add that if the school had (in place) a policy of NOT videotaping an event, then a good recourse would be (aside from signage) to stop "dad" on his way OUT and just ask for the damn tape. Or perhaps have a person at the door on the WAY IN stating that "No recording devices are allowed during the performance".
Simple, huh?
Now since the FWCS is NOT the NFL...or the NBA, I don't see a problem with recording an event at school for personal reasons. There is no "licensing" crap to speak of, and the school has to get a parent's permission to put the student on camera anyway, right? Does the school have a monopoly on event recordings now?
We're not talking about the FBI showing up at dad's house, kicking down the door, and demanding the tape be turned over to them with hefty fines and jail time to follow. And I'm positive that dad isn't going to copy the damn event, sell it at an perversely high profit and pay no taxes in the process.
All dad wants is something for his family's posterity...something to remind him of his daughter's accomplishment.
Isn't that what ANY GOOD PARENT would want (or even come to expect)?
And that begs a much larger question.
Why DO the police come down like a ton of bricks on "dad", when we have KNOWN drug dealers plowing their wares on our streets every hour of every day, and NOTHING gets done to stop them?There is a curious duplicity at work in this city, and to ensure the public safety of EVERYONE, we've got to have some sort of MAJOR change, before something innocuous gets totally out of hand.
Oh, wait...something already DID...that was the story about dad recording a choir event.
Too late, people.
Tell you one thing, if I were the police chief, I'd have those 2 officers on the carpet reaming both a brand new a**hole for their actions. I'd have them issue a public apology to dad, and dock them some pay and give them some time off to reconsider their actions in this instance. No officer is going to endear themselves to any citizen by acting in a manner like this, given the circumstances.
Making a car stop on a vehicle that reeks of pot with heavily-tinted windows and loud music booming from it is ONE thing...this choir event was quite the other.
And someone has GOT to start making the distinction between the two. It will a lot less costlier in the end for everyone involved, believe me.
There ARE certain times when the police do NOT have to react in a manner akin to cuffing and stuffing some druggies after a buy, or chasing down a burglar in some alley.
This was most definitely ONE of those times.
I can understand the ups and downs of wearing the shield, and the fact that any officer is never really OFF duty, but there are a plethora of ways the situation COULD have been handled better for all, and simply wasn't.
I just hope the department LEARNS from this screwup, and that dad manages to recoup most of his $11K legal and medical bills, because NO ONE should really have to pay for someone else's mistake.If there is a lesson to be learned here, it's that while on the one hand, the police department advocates COMMUNITY involvement and wants the public to assist THEM to make the city safer. On the other hand, it tends to allow practices which will defeat their mandate to protect the public and will turn away the same citizens that they wish to work in concert with to make this city safer than it currently is.
Coming to terms with something like this should be EASY, right?
And EASY is a lot more doable than difficult...ask anyone.
2 comments:
I would like to comment on Kevin Leininger’s column of 7-15-08. Given the amount of material and limited space, the article for the most part was accurate. The US Supreme Court as well as Federal Courts has ruled numerous times that photography/videotaping is protected free speech. Anyone has the Constitutional Right to photograph/videotape ANYTHING that can be seen from public property. However, even though you have the right to do so, you may not have the right to sell it. In order to sell an image, performance, dance, choreography, etc, one must obtain the permission of the owner. In the case of Northrop, they needed the written permission of every singer, dancer, musician, the owner of the music song during the show and any copyrighted material used.
What Northrop and Huntington Media Services did was to sell without permission the performers work/property. In simple terms they pirated the property of others for personal gain. The video contract did not give the Videogropher exclusive rights.
When entering Northrop there were no visible signs. The signs were on the doors to the gym and auditorium that were either too far away, blocked by people waiting to enter or the doors were open facing another door to be seen. I walked in with a camera case and tripod clearly visible. No one at the admittance table said a word to me about no videotaping until after I had paid and walked a third of the way across the commons.
A volunteer said they were recording the performances and that I was more than welcome to buy a DVD. I replied “we will see about that.” A performance was taking place. I waited with my mom. Sgt. Glock came up behind and said “If I catch you videotaping I will arrest you.” He did not provide his name or badge number and did not know if any release forms had been signed. The doors to the gym opened, my mom went in front of me and I followed. I did not push by anyone. Mr. HARTZLER, volunteer, in his deposition stated “There was no physical contact, but his demeanor indicated to me that he was, seemed angry to me. I mean, he seemed agitated, but other than simply brushing past me, you know, he didn't make any kind of aggressive move towards me, other than to, you know, dismissively push past me.” "They don't have the right to record my daughter's image," and continued on into the gym.”
I sat down, placed the tripod and camera case on the floor under the chair. Neither my wife nor I had signed a consent and release to sell my daughter’s property rights. With about five minutes before the next show was scheduled to begin, I got up to speak with a Northrop official.
Kevin Demerell’s deposition states I asked “Where did we have permission to video tape his daughter? Where had he signed off that we had the right to use his daughter's image for this tape that was going to be sold?” Damerell first stated it was probably part of the application to compete; then it was the choir director who authorized it; then it was you can remove your daughter from the show. The fact is Damerell did not see the video contract until August 2007 and the application to compete has not been found. Why did Damerell keep trying to BS his way? Why not just say “I do not know, but I will try and find out and get back with you.” Damerell says there were never any raised voices, “Speaking for a number of minutes, he was not combative, he was just argumentative.”
No, we were merely having a question. He was, as I read this over, he was, I guess, trying to find legal loop holes as to "Where did I give permission for my daughter's image? What gives you the right?" I did write, he was making comments that he would sue us, which my reaction has always been, we kind of talked, if somebody wants to contact an attorney, feel free. We are not going to change our actions because you are threatening us. “
No one ordered me to leave. Glock states “I never asked him to leave until after his very rude and insolent conversation with Kevin Damerell, the assistant principal.”
Bill:
Thank you very much for making what transpired that day more clear to anyone that reads this post.
I, for one commend you for your actions, which have seemed to NOT pursue the avenue of anger, nor the level of disobedience that was perceived by others on scene.
Like I said, you had no intention of making copies for distribution with compensation, so WTF (pardon my "French") is the big bug up these peoples' asses?
Far as I see it - you were right, they were wrong.
But I suppose the "law" is always open to interpretation by ANY individual, badge or no badge.
And maybe that's what truly needs to be addressed.
Either laws work for ALL, or they mean nothing, and have no place being written.
And if laws are NOT in place, do not create, amend, or construe other laws to mean something they're not.
Again, thanks Bill for expounding on this. I hope all works out for you and the family.
B.G.
Post a Comment