Cowboy Confessional

People committing crimes do not like to be photographed in the act.

This includes cops.

I grew up with law enforcement officers (LEOs). My childhood friend was the son of the local police chief and I was riding shotgun in squad cars before I was old enough to drive. I discovered that the best part of being a cop is the perpetual amusement of odd occurrences, which might explain why I live in San Francisco these days for it is perpetually odd and amusing.

One night we pulled up behind a poorly concealed tiny Toyota. After the patrol officer (the first female officer on that squad who nicknamed herself ‘Patty Pig’) circled the bouncing vehicle twice, a man who easily cleared 6′4″ unfolded himself from the backseat, attempting to pull up his pants while crawling behind the wheel to make a sanctioned getaway.

Most criminal activity is more serious that backseat coitus. One tool LEOs like to cuff criminals with are cameras. The U.K. is positively mad for them, littering every street corner with snappers. There is even a proposal to put cameras in pubs. Subjects are videotaped in case their presence near a crime scene later becomes of interest to the constabulary. Though the efficacy of such evidence remains in debate, there is little to dissuade the U.K. police from fully utilizing cameras to catch miscreants committing crimes.

Unless bobbies are doing the dirty work.

Under the thin guise of anti-terrorism, it is now criminal to snap a member of Her Majesty’s forces, a member of any of the intelligence services or a constable. The prohibition is based on the corner case that a terrorist group might compile a photographic inventory of peace officers, a theory ignoring the fact that terrorist strive to induce terror in the citizenry and not armed guardians.

Blanket prohibitions are tools of oppression. Fungible laws can be applied brutally against inconveniently honest folks and the loyal opposition alike. Universal injunctions are routinely abused because few if any reasonable exceptions are included. Prohibitive laws need to be specific, not general, which is not what the U.K. now endures.

Restricting surveillance of LEOs in public has a horrific downside. It discourages and perhaps prevents applying justice to law enforcement officer who break the law. It elevates above the law people vested with power, and thus facilitates the abuse of that power.

Which brings us to the late Oscar Grant who is now a household name in the San Francisco bay area. Oscar was shot by a LEO after ringing in the New Year. The event took place on an Oakland subway platform while the train on which he had ridden waited to be released. Sensing that the LEOs on duty were being a bit too belligerent, a number of fellow riders whipped out their cell phones and began gathering grainy videos.

They are a YouTube sensation for self-evident reasons.

I wasn’t there. I’m not a witness. I cannot pronounce guilt or innocence. But at first blush the videos appear not to show a police action but an assassination. The former LEO has proffered explanations that a jury will some day consume, but they will dine up several home videos as well. It will be a wholly indigestible spread.

The videos will be a significant influence … unless the government somehow suppresses them as evidence.

The good folks at the Witness Project have long understood this. In locales less civilized than Oakland – a rapidly shrinking list – the Witness Project supplies video cameras so locals can document governmental abuses. Relief may not come from the regional legal system, but it may come from millions of YouTube watchers and the governments that those citizens command.

Which no longer includes the United Kingdom. They long ago revoked the right of self-defense and now the ability to keep bull bluecoats in line. Little wonder that England and Wales have turned violent – the laws favor the lawless … including lawless LEOs.

Bookmark to: