Police Misconduct Catch All Thread

[TomC]

If this rapper used their likeness without their permission for monetary gain, then, yes, I would say they were.

You and I often agree on this subject. Blue Lives Matter. All Lives Matter.

But not here.
Joseph Foreman had video footage, taken in his own home, of intruders, and used it as he wished. He had every right to do that by my standards of personal freedom and home ownership.

I strongly suspect there's some back story. Maybe Foreman is the victim of a SWAT, I dunno. Maybe someone set up the cops, I dunno.

But to pretend that Foreman is "invading their privacy" is ridiculous.
To be charitable about it.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

But to pretend that Foreman is "invading their privacy" is ridiculous.
To be charitable about it.
Tom

Totally agree. Sounds like Putin complaining about Ukraine invading Russia.

 

[Derec]

Joseph Foreman had video footage, taken in his own home, of intruders, and used it as he wished. He had every right to do that by my standards of personal freedom and home ownership.

An individual also usually has rights to use of their own likeness. That rapper used their likeness for commercial purposes without their consent.

I strongly suspect there's some back story. Maybe Foreman is the victim of a SWAT, I dunno. Maybe someone set up the cops, I dunno.

There aren't many details given. If cops were set up in some way, I do not see how they did anything wrong by conducting the raid.
So why should their likeness be used that way?
Should other public-facing employees be used by rappers in their videos for monetary gain?

But to pretend that Foreman is "invading their privacy" is ridiculous.
To be charitable about it.

Depends on laws in Ohio I guess. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

Interesting timing. I am sitting at a Starbucks and am watching two cops try to take some guy into custody. He is on the ground, but it's still taking a while. Now another ATLPD car just pulled up.

 

[TomC]

An individual also usually has rights to use of their own likeness. That rapper used their likeness for commercial purposes.

Mr Foreman used video footage from his own home.

Usually, people do have rights to their own image used for commercial purposes. But when you broke down a door on camera,
Sorry, no fucking way.

Even if the cops had actually found evidence for a crime they've got no reasonable expectation of privacy. Regardless of the law, sorry, they just don't.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

An individual also usually has rights to use of their own likeness. That rapper used their likeness for commercial purposes.

Mr Foreman used video footage from his own home.

Usually, people do have rights to their own image used for commercial purposes. But when you broke down a door on camera,
Sorry, no fucking way.

Even if the cops had actually found evidence for a crime they've got no reasonable expectation of privacy. Regardless of the law, sorry, they just don't.
Tom

How does one have an expectation of privacy when one is doing one's job in public?

These officers and their shyster lawyers are wrong.

On the otherhand, at least these officers left the man alive so that they could sue him.

 

[robnisch]

Recording the Police: Legal?

The First Amendment gives you the right to record the police, except in certain circumstances.

www.nolo.com

WTF.

 

[scombrid]

Yes. Appalachia extends into Ohio.

 

[blastula]

The Fairfax County, Virginia, police officer who shot and killed Timothy Johnson during an alleged shoplifting incident last month was fired, the police chief said Thursday as bodycam video showing the fatal encounter was released.

Johnson should not have been stealing sunglasses. He should not have ran. If he actually reached, he should not have done that. The footage is not clear, because it was dark. When it's dark, that increases the danger of misidentification, like what most likely happened in this case.

From what is known in this case, that one cop should not have been fired, and the cops should not face charges.

sez u

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An individual also usually has rights to use of their own likeness. That rapper used their likeness for commercial purposes.

Mr Foreman used video footage from his own home.

Usually, people do have rights to their own image used for commercial purposes. But when you broke down a door on camera,
Sorry, no fucking way.

Even if the cops had actually found evidence for a crime they've got no reasonable expectation of privacy. Regardless of the law, sorry, they just don't.
Tom

How does one have an expectation of privacy when one is doing one's job in public?

These officers and their shyster lawyers are wrong.

On the otherhand, at least these officers left the man alive so that they could sue him.

More than once movies have been shot in our local casinos with them in normal operation in the rest of the casino. When they're doing that there will be big signs at all the entrances saying they're making a movie and by going past that sign you are consenting to being in the background in a movie. Thus even in public you have a right for your image not to be used for commercial purposes. Thus I'm inclined to say the cops are in the right on this one--he could have released the videos without a problem but when he used them in his music that crossed the line.

 

[TomC]

More than once movies have been shot in our local casinos with them in normal operation in the rest of the casino. When they're doing that there will be big signs at all the entrances saying they're making a movie and by going past that sign you are consenting to being in the background in a movie. Thus even in public you have a right for your image not to be used for commercial purposes. Thus I'm inclined to say the cops are in the right on this one--he could have released the videos without a problem but when he used them in hi

That is not the way I see it at all.
The reason your casino anecdote is utterly irrelevant is simple. Everyone involved in that were informed and competent adults. They could just avoid going in the space designated by the casino staff as a movie set. The movie company, casino staff, and patrons all knew what was happening and made their own choices.

That didn't happen at Foreman's home. The cops busted in and ransacked the place. They stole stuff. On camera.

Sorry, they picked this outcome. Foreman did not, he didn't even know it was happening.

He posted a video of undeniable events. He put a sound track behind it. Sorry snowflake cops you're shit out of luck. Just like Foreman was while you were trashing his place.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

A lawyer responds to it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More than once movies have been shot in our local casinos with them in normal operation in the rest of the casino. When they're doing that there will be big signs at all the entrances saying they're making a movie and by going past that sign you are consenting to being in the background in a movie. Thus even in public you have a right for your image not to be used for commercial purposes. Thus I'm inclined to say the cops are in the right on this one--he could have released the videos without a problem but when he used them in hi

That is not the way I see it at all.
The reason your casino anecdote is utterly irrelevant is simple. Everyone involved in that were informed and competent adults. They could just avoid going in the space designated by the casino staff as a movie set. The movie company, casino staff, and patrons all knew what was happening and made their own choices.

That didn't happen at Foreman's home. The cops busted in and ransacked the place. They stole stuff. On camera.

Sorry, they picked this outcome. Foreman did not, he didn't even know it was happening.

He posted a video of undeniable events. He put a sound track behind it. Sorry snowflake cops you're shit out of luck. Just like Foreman was while you were trashing his place.
Tom

If he stands to profit at all from posting it it's improper commercialization. To simply post it with no monetization or promotion would be legal.

 

[Patooka]

More than once movies have been shot in our local casinos with them in normal operation in the rest of the casino. When they're doing that there will be big signs at all the entrances saying they're making a movie and by going past that sign you are consenting to being in the background in a movie. Thus even in public you have a right for your image not to be used for commercial purposes. Thus I'm inclined to say the cops are in the right on this one--he could have released the videos without a problem but when he used them in his music that crossed the line.

Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels prosecution is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked. It really is that simple.

 

[Derec]

Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels prosecution is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked. It really is that simple.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a prosecution.

 

[Patooka]

Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels prosecution is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked. It really is that simple.

It's a civil lawsuit, not a prosecution.

Don't care.

 

[ZiprHead]

Hmmm, no one has commented on what the lawyer I posted above has said.

Actually there were two other lawyers that posted saying the lawsuit was ridiculous too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More than once movies have been shot in our local casinos with them in normal operation in the rest of the casino. When they're doing that there will be big signs at all the entrances saying they're making a movie and by going past that sign you are consenting to being in the background in a movie. Thus even in public you have a right for your image not to be used for commercial purposes. Thus I'm inclined to say the cops are in the right on this one--he could have released the videos without a problem but when he used them in his music that crossed the line.

Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels prosecution is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked. It really is that simple.

Prosecution? It's a civil matter!

 

[bilby]

More than once movies have been shot in our local casinos with them in normal operation in the rest of the casino. When they're doing that there will be big signs at all the entrances saying they're making a movie and by going past that sign you are consenting to being in the background in a movie. Thus even in public you have a right for your image not to be used for commercial purposes. Thus I'm inclined to say the cops are in the right on this one--he could have released the videos without a problem but when he used them in his music that crossed the line.

Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels prosecution is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked. It really is that simple.

Prosecution? It's a civil matter!

Don't care.

I don't think he cares. But if it makes you feel better, try:

"Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels a civil lawsuit is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked. It really is that simple."

I'm confident that that summarises @Patooka's position fairly well, though he can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Patooka]

More than once movies have been shot in our local casinos with them in normal operation in the rest of the casino. When they're doing that there will be big signs at all the entrances saying they're making a movie and by going past that sign you are consenting to being in the background in a movie. Thus even in public you have a right for your image not to be used for commercial purposes. Thus I'm inclined to say the cops are in the right on this one--he could have released the videos without a problem but when he used them in his music that crossed the line.

Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels prosecution is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked. It really is that simple.

Prosecution? It's a civil matter!

You're right. You are absolutely right. What I should have said was "Anyone who claims to be a law enforcement officer that feels action is necessary because of what Afroman did deserves to be sacked."

Yes it is that simple. I'm glad you cleared that up. Thank you.

 

[Patooka]

I'm confident that that summarises @Patooka's position fairly well, though he can correct me if I'm wrong.

I just did. But only because you type faster than me.