RTFA: http://www.kutv.com/content/news/local/story.aspx?…

A new bill proposed at the legislature would allow for police to withhold misconduct reports from the public. Supporters of the bill believe that police misconduct should be kept secret from the public so to not discredit police testimony. Others say that a forthright police unit is essential to the community.

In September, Jared Massey was zapped with a taser by Trooper John Gardner. A video of the incident was recorded from Gardner’s patrol car. Gardner can be seen shocking Massey until he hits the ground while Massey’s wife screams from the side of their SUV.

More than a million people watched the video on “YouTube.” Massey was shocked to see his new found fame. The footage may have never been seen had Massey not made a records request to obtain the tape.

Currently, misconduct reports are available in Utah with an official records request. Under the bill SB260, sponsored by Senator Chris Buttars, the video and investigation report from Massey’s tazering might have been kept secret from the public and journalists.

RTFA: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4022717&page…

Robin Garrison, an off-duty 42-year-old firefighter, was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a woman sunbathing topless under a tree.

He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point.

Eventually, she asked to see Garrison’s penis; he unzipped his pants and complied.

Seconds later, undercover police officers pulled up in a van and arrested Garrison; he was later charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor, based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park. While topless sunbathing is legal in the city’s parks, exposing more than that is against the law.

The sunbathing woman is not affiliated with the police department and she was not asked to take part in the sting operation, according to a spokesperson for the department.

WTF?! So this woman was not a part of the ’sting’ operation yet the police had video footage pointed directly at her and were there within seconds? Sounds like the cops are being indecent.

RTFA: http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti…

“Welcome to Snyderville,” a documentary about the political squabbles in Roseland, was among the films at this year’s Notre Dame Student Film Festival.
Click on the video link to the right of this story to watch a clip from the film.
The film was shot last spring by Notre Dame students Jacob Imm, Mike Molenda and Noble Robinette.

Click here for the direct link to the video.

From: Scott Hums
Subject: RE: YouTube Roseland Police video
Date: September 28, 2007 11:51:39 AM PDT
To: farkinga

I am the Web Director at WNDU. You may most definately use me as a source and if you ever have any more questions, please feel free to email me any time.

Like I said earlier, I have no problem with people uploading parts of the video. Completely ignoring the legal argument, it’s the best for both parties. The information is spread and the topic is discussed without “giving away” the power of the full version of the video. Using 20 or 30 seconds is perfectly fine and I wished everyone did that.

The problem comes from people thinking they have a right to just show the whole or nearly whole video. That’s what we are fighting. There’s no reason anyone has to upload the whole thing when we are offering it for free to anyone who follows a link. All they are doing is encouraging us to never put this material on the internet in the first place, which is something that is obviously not good for everyone involved.

“Fair use” is about having access to material to make further commentary without damaging the marketability of the copyright holder. That’s a concept that most YouTube users fail to understand from my recent experience with this video.

Also, to say WNDU is instigating a media blackout couldn’t be farther from the truth. WNDU put the video on the internet before it even made broadcast, we submitted the link to various sites, the biggest one being what appears to be your namesake, fark.com. EDITORS NOTE: I am unaffiliated with fark.com - this is merely a coincidence that dates back to the 1990s. We also sent the video to CNN and MSNBC where it aired numerous times the week after it happened. It was also made available to every NBC affiliate in the country as part of NBC News Channel video sharing system. Shipping the clip to some of the biggest blogs, cable TV networks, and about 200 TV stations doesn’t fit the description of a media blackout.

Obviously it is WNDU’s gain the bigger the story gets, but the only edge we have is the copyrights for the entire 5 minute video. Having someone upload the whole clip is not fair use.

Like I said, we are very grateful for what you did and I wish everyone else had the same understanding of copyright law that you did. In fact, you really didn’t have to put all that fair use and copyright info in your description and video. I didn’t report the other video like yours (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrfRQbdxQFs) because it too falls under fair use guidelines and we are glad it is online. All we ask is you link to the original story and properly credit WNDU, which you did. You can get rid of the copyright information if you so choose, or better yet, explain why your video is fine but the other 95% of the videos out there are not.

It also goes to show just how clueless some people are. Honestly, if they would have sent me an email asking me why it was deleted or why it wasn’t fair use, we could have very easily come to an understanding. Instead people just assumed we want to hide the video, which doesn’t make any sense since we are the ones who originally put it on the internet, marketed it, and left it on the internet. I’ve only been contacted by one organization asking for permission to use the clip or asking about what we would allow. I have no problems clarifying anything. In fact, if they ask, I’m more than likely going to give them a little more slack in using the video just because they asked. I am not an unreasonable person.

There is an obvious middle ground out there on this topic and I’m glad you managed to find it.

First, I must apologize for the delay in posting the full text of the explanation. I realize now that other people wanted to comment on the attack, but without this full text, they weren’t sure where their fair use claim would be valid.

As I read the WNDU-TV letter, it appears they sanctioned my “fair use” video of the attack because it used such a small portion of the raw video. However, “fair use” is notoriously inconsistently applied, and it may not be the case that the next fair use claim would stand so firmly on the “quantity argument.”

As I understand it, there is now another video of the attack that is MUCH more informative, as it provides a great deal of context for the situation. The amount of commentary is really fantastic. [EDIT: 2007-10-20]I am assuming that the author of the video has used the DMCA counter-claim provisions to get the video back online, and so has been in direct contact with WNDU-TV. To be clear, this is just inference, and hasn’t been confirmed yet. The author states they have been in touch with YouTube, not with WNDU.[/EDIT]

The author, BadCase, describes the video as:

“This is a updated version of the one that was removed. All aspects of fair use laws are met in this version. It is only a small amount of footage in relation to the entire work,it is transformative, educational, not for profit, and does not hurt the market of the copyright holder instead it will benefit the copyright holder by increasing traffic to their site.”

I tend to agree.

[EDIT: 2007-10-20]
I must clarify that this email is a correspondence, and not an official statement of WNDU-TV.
[/EDIT]

RTFA: http://www.wndu.com/home/headlines/10210306.html

The St. Joseph Prosecutor’s Office will present evidence to a Grand Jury forinvestigation regarding all parties involved in the physical incident from the Roseland council meeting on September 14, 2007.

The incident in question was the altercation between David Snyder and Marshal Jack Tiller.
The Grand Jury will convene on December 17th and evidence will be presented starting the next day.
WNDU has been informed that a subpoena will be issued for the footage aired on NewsCenter16 and WNDU.com.

That darn footage keeps coming up… Fortunately, we have a fair use version of the attack linked right here:

RTFA: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UClIdjK6WB4

Graphic violence: video of David Snyder, attacked by a police officer

It has been confirmed by a representative from WNDU-TV that the above video qualifies as “fair use.” This is really great news. The biggest problem with fair use is that it’s not consistently enforced. Even the copyright office bitches out of accountability.

So, since the United States crawls along at the inexorably slow snail’s pace of precedent, I present for your litigious inspection the opinion of Scott Hums, Web Directory at WDNU:

…I have no problem with people uploading parts of the video. Completely ignoring the legal argument, it’s the best for both parties. The information is spread and the topic is discussed without “giving away” the power of the full version of the video. Using 20 or 30 seconds is perfectly fine and I wished everyone did that.

The problem comes from people thinking they have a right to just show the whole or nearly whole video. That’s what we are fighting. There’s no reason anyone has to upload the whole thing when we are offering it for free to anyone who follows a link. All they are doing is encouraging us to never put this material on the internet in the first place, which is something that is obviously not good for everyone involved.

“Fair use” is about having access to material to make further commentary without damaging the marketability of the copyright holder. That’s a concept that most YouTube users fail to understand from my recent experience with this video.

Does that move things forward at all? A little…

RTFA: http://youtube.com/watch?v=108oxzLvl80&mode=relate…

On Sept 14, 2007, David Snyder was beaten by a police officer at a town meeting

This youtube video has a strange story behind it. For some reason, it was taken down along with other videos related to the Roseland, Indiana Police attack against David Snyder. It’s not clear what the problem is with the video - copyright? Does it have something to do with the terms of service?

It could be something completely legitimate motivating YouTube’s actions, but the fact that the video and account simply disappeared is shady.

Meanwhile, the “fair use” version of the Roseland Police attack remains online. Not only that, but WDNU has actually confirmed the fair use claims in the attack video!

So what is going on? Is some griefer other than WNDU-TV picking on these videos? Is it possible that the take-down was not copyright-related?

RTFA: http://youtube.com/watch?v=UClIdjK6WB4

Roseland, Indiana, USA

On September 14, 2007, David Snyder was thrown out of the Roseland, Indiana town hall meeting for speaking while he didn’t hold the floor. As the police escorted David from the meeting, violence erupted. The video evidence speaks for itself.

This video has been online through WNDU-TV for more than a week. However, attempts to comment on the event using YouTube have been thwarted by repeated copyright takedown notices. Finally, fair use versions of the event are beginning to surface through YouTube and otherwise.

The story now has two elements: what will come of the Roseland Police, and will YouTube keep this video online?

RTFA: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_frie…

The defendant would only be justified in killing the deceased when you should find that the circumstances showed that the deceased had so far forgotten his duties as an officer, and had gone beyoud the force necessary to arrest defendant, and was about to kill him or to inflict great bodily injury upon him, which was not necessary for the purpose of making the arrest.’
This charge was duly excepted to.
We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policemen had the right to arrest the plaintiff in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist it.
The evidence as to the facts immediately preceding the killing was contradictory; the prosecution showing a killing when no active effort was at that very moment made to arrest, and the defendant showing an intended arrest and a determination to take him at that time at all events, and a move made by the deceased towards him with his pistol in sight, and a seeming intention to use it against the defendant for the purpose of overcoming all resistance. Under these circumstances the error of the charge was material and prejudicial.
At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.

This is a Supreme Court ruling in which the defendant killed a cop who was illegally attempting an arrest. The ruling states that if the police aren’t acting legally, then the act of killing the arresting officer is not murder, but is rather reduced to manslaughter. Of course, this particular case is very nuanced, so RTFA. This ruling makes it clear that the police are still subject to the law. An illegal arrest is still illegal. The police do not have special protection from the law. If the police action is not predicated on the law, then the police are NOT free to act as they choose.

Applying this ruling to the “UF Taser” case, we find that a citizen may reasonably resist illegal arrest, even to the point of slaughtering the arresting officer. The police must tell you they are arresting you, they must have good reason to arrest you, and if they don’t, then your actions to resist arrest are legally defensible. By resisting, the police may (illegally) brutalize you, but at least YOUR actions are legal. Be warned that the the modern police will probably murder you if you defend yourself, irrespect of the SCOTUS ruling. Just know that, from the grave, you can smile because you were morally right. Hmph.

To hilight the key opinion of the Supreme Court:

We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policemen had the right to arrest the plaintiff in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist it.

Say it with me: the officer did NOT have the right to erroneously arrest the plaintiff, so the officer did NOT have the authority to use force to accomplish the arrest, and the plaintiff DID have the right to resist.

Although you might temporarily lose your freedoms, so long as justice is alive, those officers will be dismissed, and you will have sacrificed for the advancement of US justice. Of course, if justice were completely healthy, then there would be no reason to get beaten up and imprisoned by the police, but that’s the essence of the “security versus freedom” dilemma.

In the UF Taser situation, this kid was charged with resisting arrest. Well, that charge clearly needs to be dropped.

Once again: RTFA. This stuff is edgy.