ACLU will provide cameras to tape police

[DrMaddVibe]

By Jeremy Kohler
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
Saturday, Dec. 31 2005

St. Louis police officers often say they feel as if people are looking over
their shoulders.

That feeling isn't likely to let up this year.

The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, a frequent critic of
the city police, says it plans to arm residents of the city's north side with
video cameras to record officers' dealings with the public.

The activist group says the department often mistreats and unfairly targets
blacks and said it hopes the presence of cameras will act as a deterrent to
police abuse and result in smoother dealings between residents and police.

The group said the cameras will start rolling in the summer, after a series of
workshops near Fairground Park where blacks can learn about how to protect
their rights during dealings with police. The program is called the Racial
Justice Initiative.

ACLU leaders notified Police Chief Joe Mokwa of its plans in meetings during
the fall. Neither the ACLU nor the police knew of any other previous effort
nationally to put officers under private surveillance.

The department has responded with a shrug. While some commanders are leery of
having their officers taped, Mokwa said, "It's legal and there is nothing wrong
with it."

Sgt. Kevin Ahlbrand, president of the St. Louis Police Officers Association,
said: "We don't expect any negative reports to come out of videotaping. Our
members are under the assumption that in today's society, they should assume
that any time they're in public, they may be being videotaped."

Redditt Hudson, who heads the ACLU's racial justice program, said, "It's not
like we needed their clearance."

Mokwa said his officers are used to hearing criticism. On Dec. 22, the chief
said, he rushed to Barnes-Jewish Hospital to visit a rookie officer who had
been just been shot in the neck.

Mokwa said the first words of the officer, Matthew Greco, were, "I didn't do
anything wrong."

But Brenda Jones, the ACLU chapter's executive director, said some criticism of
police is warranted.

"People are being stopped by the police for no particular reason," she said. "A
number who have run-ins have attempted to file complaints but haven't been able
to get to internal affairs."

The group wants to lessen the "tension and potential for violence that has
occurred with police patrolling some of the poor neighborhoods in the city,"
she said.

Mokwa said he hopes the amateur cameramen don't interfere with officers or bait
them with bogus calls. He said he disagrees with the premise of the action - he
feels most people are happy with his officers' service.

The ACLU only hears from the small percentage of people who feel they have been
wronged by police, he said.

He said he thinks most people want police officers to be aggressive in dealing
with troublemakers in their neighborhoods.

Mokwa said he hopes the tapes depict officers acting professionally. If the
videos expose problems, he said, "we'd want to know about those anyway."





Where's the outrage?:confused:

[blueturk]

And your point is...?

[Warham]

The Al-Qaeda Civil Liberties Union? Doesn't surprise me.

[Jerry Falwell]

I don't see anything wrong with the ACLU targeting the Police... I seriously doubt that this will do much beyond strengthen the City's case in doubtful situations. I see this as backfiring on the ACLU.

[blueturk]

How ironic that the same sheep who defend Dubya's "right" to spy on Americans see something wrong with this. I hate to tell you people this, but "Andy Griffith" is just a TV show. You may find this hard to believe, but there are some bad cops out there that actually beat people up and stuff!

[Nickdfresh]

So? Police can tape you at a traffic stop, why can't you tape them? What would good cops acting in accordance with the law have to worry about?

[Jerry Falwell]

Originally posted by blueturk
How ironic that the same sheep who defend Dubya's "right" to spy on Americans see something wrong with this. I hate to tell you people this, but "Andy Griffith" is just a TV show. You may find this hard to believe, but there are some bad cops out there that actually beat people up and stuff!

I don't think you understood my post... I DON'T have a problem with the ACLU doing this. Sure, there are some bad cops out there, and they deserve to be caught. However, if I look at the big picture, I feel like most cops have good intentions where I live and I would hope that this rings true elsewhere.
Also, even though I don't take issue with the ACLU's monitoring police, I think that this will just be a waste of thier time and money--- like most ideas that they come up with.

PS- Blueturk, your reading comprehension is in question!

[FORD]

Police should be held accountable if they violate the law, just like anybody else. We are all aware of certain well publicized cases where cops were caught on tape using excessive force on civilians.

Just yesterday, I heard of a local case where cops tazered a 15 year old kid who was already laying on the ground, handcuffed behind his back by a cop who was twice his size. That's excessive force (and no, the kid wasn't wanted for a violent crime either)

It would seem that some police departments have never heard of the Constitution or the Miranda decision, and operate on the principle that they're at war against American citizens. This is WRONG. The streets of American cities are not a combat zone, and American citizens are not fucking terrorists (well, except maybe the BCE - but the police aren't harrassing them)

[Warham]

But you libs have no problems with letting murders getting their sentences commuted, and in some cases letting them out early if they are good little prisoners, only to go out and kill again at the first opportunity.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Jerry Falwell
I don't think you understood my post... I DON'T have a problem with the ACLU doing this. Sure, there are some bad cops out there, and they deserve to be caught. However, if I look at the big picture, I feel like most cops have good intentions where I live and I would hope that this rings true elsewhere.
Also, even though I don't take issue with the ACLU's monitoring police, I think that this will just be a waste of thier time and money--- like most ideas that they come up with.

PS- Blueturk, your reading comprehension is in question!

Actually I was replying to Warham's post, not yours. That should have been fairly evident if your comprehension is not in question. Although admittedly I should have quoted Warham...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
But you libs have no problems with letting murders getting their sentences commuted, and in some cases letting them out early if they are good little prisoners, only to go out and kill again at the first opportunity.

But but but "you libs."

Well, some of you Jesus-Juice swellers have no problem letting innocent people get railroaded by the police, or as in the case in ILLINOIS a few years ago, allowing innocent men to be executed by a corrupt DA and police dept(s)...

[Warham]

:rolleyes:

Next I'll be hearing that Tookie Williams was an innocent victim.

[Jerry Falwell]

Originally posted by blueturk
Actually I was replying to Warham's post, not yours. That should have been fairly evident if your comprehension is not in question. Although admittedly I should have quoted Warham...

My bad then... :(

:D :D

[LoungeMachine]

Too funny.

You dumbass Cons should be THRILLED to have cops taped......

Cons = They truly are their own worst enemy

LMMFAO

But, but.....LIBERALS

LMMFAO


Isn't it funny Warpig your HERO Rash Limpig also HATED the ACLU.............that is until they were on his side to keep his ILLEGAL pill shopping Med Records from being made public.

[Unchainme]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Too funny.

You dumbass Cons should be THRILLED to have cops taped......

Cons = They truly are their own worst enemy

LMMFAO

But, but.....LIBERALS

LMMFAO


Isn't it funny Warpig your HERO Rash Limpig also HATED the ACLU.............that is until they were on his side to keep his ILLEGAL pill shopping Med Records from being made public.

Same Thing with Hannity, Hannity got tooken off the air in Irvine, Ca, for some reason. The ACLU fought for him to get back on the air. LOL

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
:rolleyes:

Next I'll be hearing that Tookie Williams was an innocent victim.

Fuck Tookie. I never said anything of the kind...

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Isn't it funny Warpig your HERO Rash Limpig also HATED the ACLU.............that is until they were on his side to keep his ILLEGAL pill shopping Med Records from being made public.

They weren't helping Rush because they liked his show. They have ulterior motives.

Rush still hates the ACLU.

[FORD]

The ACLU has always defended everybody, regardless of poltical affiliation. That's why they got RIGHT WINGERS like Bob Barr and Dick Armey on their side, once the BCE started shredding the Constitution.

I'm not happy with every stand they take either (i.e. defending KKK and Nazi marches) but they are consistent. Which is more than I can say for Pat Robertson or anyone else who attempts to demonize them.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
They weren't helping Rush because they liked his show. They have ulterior motives.


Yeah, like showing they're not a bunch of two-faced, pompous, hypocritical asshats like a lot of "Christian" Fundamentalist groups...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, like showing they're not a bunch of two-faced, pompous, hypocritical asshats like a lot of "Christian" Fundamentalist groups...

No, they are much more dangerous.

[LoungeMachine]

WHY WARPIG HATES THE ACLU:

American - well, he does hate America after all .
Doesn't trust American adults to make their own choices, or to be free from governmental interference

Civil - Warpig feels the Military and The Government should hold all of the power over it's people

Liberties - sounds too much like "Liberal" The Founding Fathers never actually intended us to have any liberties according to Warpig.

Union - Just another group that he can't belong to.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
No, they are much more dangerous.

Paranoid?

Or just not comfortable with your own liberties?

[Warham]

Actually, Lounger, I'd rather have the government stay out of our lives more, which doesn't jive with your liberal mentality, which is basically letting the government giving you entitlements left and right, holding your hand when you have to do anything, and loving wonderful socialist tenets like income redistribution. Tell me, Lounger, how would you like your income redistributed amongst a few crack-heads and deadbeats?

[Warham]

Merry Christmas, ACLU

Richard Mullenax
Richard Mullenax
December 8, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the most dangerous legal organization in America today.

The ACLU demands that homosexual tolerance-training be required in certain schools or else lawsuits will follow. Not only does the ACLU want women to have the choice to have an abortion under any circumstance, but it wants the rights to be extended to the age of fourteen and without parental consent. It also demands oral sex training be taught in schools while calling abstinence a dangerous practice.

Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project said:

"Today's report offers concrete evidence that abstinence-only sex education curriculums are all too often based on ideology and religion rather than science. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of parents want their children to get all the information they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including information about contraception, how to use condoms properly, and about abortion. The government needs to stop censoring lifesaving information."

Abstinence doesn't save lives? Well it does, but it might have some religious context to it, according to the ACLU, so that makes abstinence "dangerous." Did the ACLU ever stop and think that giving sexual tools and instructions to kids to use will actually increase dangerous sexual activity? Sex is never a 100% safeguarded against sexual diseases or unwanted pregnancies.

The ACLU is always finding new ways to outrage traditional America. This month, the ACLU's biggest focus is censoring Christmas, a national holiday. The ACLU is clamping down on school districts, trying to deter them from promoting Christmas in any way. No Christmas tree, no carol singing, and by no means, any mention of the name of Jesus Christ.

The ACLU says that we cannot publicly celebrate our own national holiday unlike Halloween or Thanksgiving, which is celebrated in public schools without much prejudice.

The ACLU believes that Christmas offends the beliefs of non-Christians. Yet homosexuality doesn't impose on other people's values? How biased can one organization be? Not even Ramadan or Hanukah were discriminated against by the ACLU last year.

In the First Amendment, it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. "

If the leaders of the ACLU ever took the time to find out why this phrase was there, then maybe they would reform its views.

England, the country that the colonists came from, had only one church and it was the Anglican Church or the Church of England. All others were illegal. King Henry the Eighth had a falling out with the Catholic Church some years back over a divorce issue and outlawed the Catholic Church. He established the Anglican Church and allowed no others to exist.

Our forefathers saw this as religious tyranny, and some groups like the Quakers came to America to escape from religious persecution. One of the fundamental principles laid down by the founding fathers was the concept of religious freedom, without repercussions from the government.

Today, it has been bastardized into the popular notion that religion (especially Christianity) has no place in our society or in any public forum. It is ironic that the laws of this nation are based upon the laws laid down in the Ten Commandments.

Some Christians are fighting back. People in the "Public Advocate of the United States" will sing Christmas carols at noon on December 8 in front of the ACLU office building in Washington, D.C. But they are not alone in this fight. In Maplewood, New Jersey, parents of the Columbia High School brass ensemble, are fighting for their rights to sing Christmas carols at the school's holiday concert. Since the ACLU will not defend the students' rights, Attorney Demetrios Stratis, affiliated with the conservative civil liberties group Alliance Defense Fund, will do so.

Let the battle for Christmas begin.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mullenax/041208

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Tell me, Lounger, how would you like your income redistributed amongst a few crack-heads and deadbeats?

Considering his former career, isn't that a silly question? :D

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham

Our forefathers saw this as religious tyranny, and some groups like the Quakers came to America to escape from religious persecution. One of the fundamental principles laid down by the founding fathers was the concept of religious freedom, without repercussions from the government.



And now the Quakers are wiretapped by the BCE because they exercize their religious doctrines and oppose the Chimp's illegal and immoral wars.

So are you on the side of religious freedom, or government oppression?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Merry Christmas, ACLU

Richard Mullenax
Richard Mullenax
December 8, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is the most dangerous legal organization in America today.

The ACLU demands that homosexual tolerance-training be required in certain schools or else lawsuits will follow.


Perhaps you didn't hear some of the Ads today on the ROTH stream, but if you did, you'd find out that gay teens have the highest rate of suicide...

Oh, God forbid we have more tolerance...


Not only does the ACLU want women to have the choice to have an abortion under any circumstance, but it wants the rights to be extended to the age of fourteen and without parental consent. It also demands oral sex training be taught in schools while calling abstinence a dangerous practice.


You mean the ACLU is pro-Choice and wants gov't off women's bodies, oh God forbid...

And I'd really like to see the case regarding teaching teens oral sex and allowing 14-year olds to get abortions, but could it be the 14-year old was impregnated by her own father in a particular case?


Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project said:

"Today's report offers concrete evidence that abstinence-only sex education curriculums are all too often based on ideology and religion rather than science. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of parents want their children to get all the information they need to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including information about contraception, how to use condoms properly, and about abortion. The government needs to stop censoring lifesaving information."


O-M-G...

You mean that teens that have proper sex education have less abortions/unwanted pregnancy? I mean, studies HAVE IN FACT shown that the more teens are sexually aware, not only do they have less pregnancies and STDs, they may actually have less sex. But hey, let's just bitch about abortions, then support unwanted pregnancies by keeping people uneducated. BRAVO!! This is an utterly stupid article, isn't it?


Abstinence doesn't save lives? Well it does, but it might have some religious context to it, according to the ACLU, so that makes abstinence "dangerous." Did the ACLU ever stop and think that giving sexual tools and instructions to kids to use will actually increase dangerous sexual activity? Sex is never a 100% safeguarded against sexual diseases or unwanted pregnancies.

The ACLU is always finding new ways to outrage traditional America. This month, the ACLU's biggest focus is censoring Christmas, a national holiday. The ACLU is clamping down on school districts, trying to deter them from promoting Christmas in any way. No Christmas tree, no carol singing, and by no means, any mention of the name of Jesus Christ.


By "traditional America", you mean censorship and hysterical idiots running around citing rare cases as the norm, then yes I guess that's un-Amerikan...


The ACLU says that we cannot publicly celebrate our own national holiday unlike Halloween or Thanksgiving, which is celebrated in public schools without much prejudice.

When did they say this?


The ACLU believes that Christmas offends the beliefs of non-Christians. Yet homosexuality doesn't impose on other people's values? How biased can one organization be? Not even Ramadan or Hanukah were discriminated against by the ACLU last year.

Really? More war on Christmas crap? Seems like a nice cottage industry...

Funny, I saw nothing but Merry Christmas stuff among all the rudeness and consumerism of the Christmas season.;)


In the First Amendment, it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. "

If the leaders of the ACLU ever took the time to find out why this phrase was there, then maybe they would reform its views.

England, the country that the colonists came from, had only one church and it was the Anglican Church or the Church of England. All others were illegal. King Henry the Eighth had a falling out with the Catholic Church some years back over a divorce issue and outlawed the Catholic Church. He established the Anglican Church and allowed no others to exist.

Our forefathers saw this as religious tyranny, and some groups like the Quakers came to America to escape from religious persecution. One of the fundamental principles laid down by the founding fathers was the concept of religious freedom, without repercussions from the government.


No. They saw the abuse and corruption of religion as a political tool to oppress...


Today, it has been bastardized into the popular notion that religion (especially Christianity) has no place in our society or in any public forum. It is ironic that the laws of this nation are based upon the laws laid down in the Ten Commandments.

Some Christians are fighting back. People in the "Public Advocate of the United States" will sing Christmas carols at noon on December 8 in front of the ACLU office building in Washington, D.C. But they are not alone in this fight. In Maplewood, New Jersey, parents of the Columbia High School brass ensemble, are fighting for their rights to sing Christmas carols at the school's holiday concert. Since the ACLU will not defend the students' rights, Attorney Demetrios Stratis, affiliated with the conservative civil liberties group Alliance Defense Fund, will do so.

Let the battle for Christmas begin.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mullenax/041208

Well, why would the ACLU deprive Rev. Jerry FALWELL and his merry band of Christmas lawyers of their opportunity to enforce the right of Christmas Carols?

[Warham]

Jerry Faldwell wouldn't have to do that if the ACLU would keep their lawyers from changing Christmas trees to Holiday trees, now would he?

If there's one Democrat I'd agree with, it's Tom Menino in Boston, who told the ACLU to shove it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Jerry Faldwell wouldn't have to do that if the ACLU would keep their lawyers from changing Christmas trees to Holiday trees, now would he?

Um, do you like inventing shit? That never, ever happened...It was the City of BOSTON that was the wicked pissa' with the "holiday" trees...


If there's one Democrat I'd agree with, it's Tom Menino in Boston, who told the ACLU to shove it.

Really, let's see the article on that...

When did the ACLU demand anyone change the tree names?

[Warham]

The ACLU threatens lawsuits constantly! Please. If it's not about trees, it's about displaying religious scenes on public property.