SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Arkansas House of Representatives has passed a bill restricting public records access to photographs, audio recordings, and video (such as body cam footage) depicting the death of a law enforcement officer:
Nearly six years after Arkansas police Officer Jonathan Schmidt was shot to death while pleading for his life, a dashcam video of his final moments still circulates on the internet - sometimes landing in the social media feeds of his family members. "It's a very sacred thing," the officer's widow, Andrea Schmidt, said Wednesday. "It's not just a cop getting killed. This is a human being. This is my husband. This is a father."
Now a newly elected Arkansas legislator, a former deputy prosecutor who used the tape to help put Schmidt's killer on death row, wants to prevent other families from suffering. The first bill he introduced since joining the House would prevent the broad release of material showing officers dying in the line of duty. "It's just a video of a murder. There's no general interest in that," said Rep. Jimmy Gazaway, a Republican from Paragould, whose measure needs only a final successful vote in the state Senate. He said continued interest in a tape of the shooting is "something that just violates our sensibilities." Gazaway was a prosecutor when the Trumann Police Department distributed the 20-minute recording. The video typically shows up in the family's social media feeds around April 12, the day of the shooting. "It's so horrifying to see it happen," the officer's father, Donald Schmidt, said. "I wish to God I had never watched it."
Under the bill, which passed the House on a 94-0 vote Monday, video showing a law enforcement officer's death would be released only if a court decides the public interest outweighs the desire for government secrecy. [...] The bill is one of many being considered this session that would restrict Arkansas' Freedom of Information Act. Open records advocates oppose Gazaway's bill but understand it is an emotional issue and likely to pass.
This bill does not prevent judges, juries, and attorneys from seeing recordings in court, and has exemptions for family members of the deceased officers. It does not prevent the law enforcement agency at which the death occurred, the Department of Arkansas State Police, or the FBI from investigating the death. The recordings can also be used for training purposes. It is not clear from the text of the bill whether the law could be used to justify restricting the release of evidence recorded by and seized from a citizen; it is not one of the exemptions listed under Ark. Code ยง 12-6-601(e).
Partial text of House Bill 1236:
[SECTION 1. DO NOT CODIFY.] (2) During the course of his or her duties, a law enforcement officer routinely relies on audio and video recording devices to record his or her movements and actions;
(3) Due to the inherently dangerous nature of a profession in law enforcement, a law enforcement officer's death that occurs in the line of duty is likely to be captured and depicted on an audio or video recording device;
(5) Presently, there are audio and video recordings that depict the death of a law enforcement officer available in various public forums for viewing and sharing which have the potential to encourage copycat acts of violence against law enforcement officers and to incite other acts of violence against law enforcement officers, and which also subject the surviving family members of the deceased law enforcement officer to viewing the murder or death of their family member on television, internet, social media, and other publically accessible forums - causing the surviving family members to relive the pain associated with the death and allowing the public to view and publically share with others sensitive depictions of the final moments and death of their family member - thereby invading the privacy of the deceased law enforcement officer's family;
[...] [12-6-601(c)(3)] A person or persons designated as the custodian of a record 8 who knowingly violates this section upon conviction is guilty of a Class D 9 felony.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday March 13 2017, @09:39AM (9 children)
Regardless of where you come down on this in terms of privacy vs freedom of information, I would hope that most people would recognise that having a special law that only applies to police officers is asinine. Why not apply the same rules to ALL murder videos regardless of the victim's profession? What's so magically special about the police?
Also, what if it's a retired or trainee cop that gets killed, or a visiting cop from some other jurisdiction? Is there special wording in the legislation to cover these edge cases, or can we expect some future case to get tangled up in court as the lawyers argue for years of the precise definition of "police officer"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @10:17AM
but... but... heroes...?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 13 2017, @01:07PM (1 child)
Only cops are human beings, husbands, fathers.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 13 2017, @09:38PM
Soldiers too.
We couldn't see caskets coming back from W's mess, because soldiers are heroes. You shouldn't count the number of heroes dead for your freedom.
Completely and totally unrelated to what happened in Vietnam when the uselessly dead became too visible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @02:16PM (3 children)
My thoughts exactly. There is no outrage when videos are posted of cops killing members of the community. Oh - boo-hoo-hoo - in this case, the murdered person happens to be friends with a prosecuting attorney or two, and is on a firt name basis with some political underlings.
Arkansas, like most states, gets some things right, and some things wrong. This on is totally wrong.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 13 2017, @02:26PM (2 children)
Honestly, you just struck on a wonderful reason as to why laws banning murder videos should *not* be passed.
Videos of cops committing murder are a powerful tool for generating the outrage necessary to provoke change. Progress is slow, but it is being made. And banning video of murderous cops would slow the improvements down considerably.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 13 2017, @02:39PM (1 child)
Precisely.
Consider the various other criminals we have to deal with. Most of them prefer to do business at night, preferably in dark alleys, or behind closed doors, where they will not be observed. Dope dealers, muggers, robbers, rapists, burglars - they prefer to be unobserved.
Pretty much anyone who strongly objects to being observed and/or recorded has something to hide. There are times and places when privacy concerns are more important that your right to record - but public servants have no expectation of privacy while performing their duties.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Taibhsear on Monday March 13 2017, @03:08PM
Consider the various other criminals we have to deal with. Most of them prefer to do business at night, preferably in dark alleys, or behind closed doors, where they will not be observed. Dope dealers, muggers, robbers, rapists, burglars[, politicians] - they prefer to be unobserved.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Monday March 13 2017, @03:41PM
I wonder why they didn't throw in the firefighters too. And politicians. And really rich people.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday March 14 2017, @07:49AM
But cops are "super-citizens". They've earned the right to gun down lesser-so-called-"citizens" and have the consequences be that they get several weeks paid vacation as a reward for a job well done. Where it's OK to have a drop piece on you all the time, because "you never know when you need to deploy it".