Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday March 08, 2013 @07:05PM
from the to-protect-and-serve dept.

New submitter SplatMan_DK writes "Ars Technica reports that the Obama Administration has filed a brief in support of a Maryland photojournalist who says he was arrested and beaten after he took photographs of the police arresting two other men. The brief by the Justice Department argues that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to photograph the actions of police officers in public places and prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights. Context: 'Garcia says that when Officer Christopher Malouf approached him, Garcia identified himself as a member of the press and held up his hands to show he was only holding a camera. But Malouf "placed Mr. Garcia in a choke hold and dragged him across the street to his police cruiser," where he "subjected him to verbal and physical abuse." According to Garcia's complaint, Malouf "forcibly dragged Mr. Garcia across the street, throwing him to the ground along the way, inflicting significant injuries." Garcia says Malouf "kicked his right foot out from under him, causing Mr. Garcia to hit his head on the police cruiser while falling to the ground." Garcia claims that Malouf took the video card from Garcia's camera and put it in his pocket. The card was never returned. Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct. In December 2011, a judge found Garcia not guilty.'"

No, you sound crazy. This happens all the time. Enjoy your confirmation bias. I'm certainly not an authority ass kisser, but needing to view the world in black and white means you're going to be wrong a lot of the time.

There must be something (besides a dusting of snow) in the DC air - this appears to be an entirely reasonable reaction by the DOJ.

The problem is that an idiot with a camera can manipulate the footage for their own gains. This happened in Australia just recently where a fairly violent arrest was made at the Mardi Gras after a guy 'groped' a stranger (whether it was sexual assault or not is for the courts to decide). The video released initially showed the cops in a very bad light - seeming unprovoked brutality, throwing him to the ground etc. Video and feedback that came out later showed that the cops started by trying to talk to the g

This is a very good point. The recorder should not be arrested. As for the video, I don't see a problem if the police copy it and give the original card back to the recorder so an edited video, as you mentioned, isn't released with rebuttal. I know it's more complex than just those few points.

While it is true that an idiot with a camera can manipulate footage for his own gain http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/07/local/la-me-0308-acorn-20130308 [latimes.com] it's also true that lawyers know how to investigate criminal incidents and can often expose the manipulation. For example, a defense lawyer who deals with that stuff all the time said, the first thing you do is look at the whole unedited tape. If the Obama administration had done that with James O'Keefe's attack on ACORN, O'Keefe wouldn't have been able to get away with his lies. Under US law, BTW, if there is an investigation into a crime, a judge can subpoena the entire video. That applies even to journalists, as well as to fake journalists like O'Keefe, and to bystanders who record it on cellphones.

After an assault or a police confrontation, when different witnesses tell different stories, it's hard to reconstruct the facts. If you have a video of the incident, even part of the incident, that gives you some objective, reliable information to work with. Everybody knows that the video is just part of the story. The video doesn't testify by itself in court. Lawyers have to interview the photographer, consider the circumstances of the recording, and treat the video like any other piece of evidence. If you show a video of the cops beating up a suspect, the cops' lawyers have the right to give their version of what went on before that.

The more evidence you have, the more likely you are to figure out the truth.

When I look at the history of videos of police encounters in the last few years, I see a lot of incidents where the cops blatantly violated the law, committed assaults against innocent people, and committed perjury to cover it up. The videos at least got the false charges thrown out (although very seldom were the cops fired or prosecuted). Overall, the effect of videos has been good.

Everybody who dealt with the cops knew for years that this was going on. Videos are making it easier to prove it. Cities are going to get hit with $500,000 lawsuits like Manny Garcia is bringing. The experience has been that they just settle, don't punish the cops, and don't reform their practices. But maybe if they lose a few millions of dollars in lawsuits, and their taxpayers find their real estate taxes are doubling to pay for it, they'll start to pay attention.

1) The police should have a video recorder on their person which they cannot open or alter. Preferably it should stream to an eternal server whenever a connection is available.2) Any filming by individuals can be compared against that footage.

Watch "Don't talk to the police" on Youtube.In it, a defense attorney and a policemen will both tell you that.1) what you say "can and will be used against you" but legally can't be used for you.2) it's only the policeman's memory of what happened which counts.3) if y

People like you crack me up.
You do realize that a drone is just a weapons platform right? If you can conceive of a reason why the US government might reasonable kill an American citizen with a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a tank, why would the use of a drone somehow be any different? Surely the test is whether or not the killing was legal, not what weapons platform was used to deliver the strike.
OMG, they haz robots!!!!!

"People like you crack me up. You do realize that a drone is just a weapons platform right? If you can conceive of a reason why the US government might reasonable kill an American citizen with a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a tank, why would the use of a drone somehow be any different?"

The problem here is that so far drones haven't been used "reasonably". They've been used to kill people on the President's personal kill list, in violation of treaty, international law, and U.S. law. That's not "war", it's legally murder.

Since ALL the evidence we have (the use of drones so far) points to illegal use of drones, why should anybody expect that they would suddenly be used in a reasonable and lawful manner, once used withing the U.S.?

If you are the sort of person who values real evidence, you should see that there are very good, rational reasons to be opposed to domestic use of drones.

I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution.

I think this is where a [Citation Needed] is justified. At the parent stated, this make believe scenario was created by Rand Paul. In my opinion, it was done for one reason. Rand Paul personal ambition. The nation has always had a top list of most wanted, and dead or alive for a terrorist isn't a problem. It wasn't a problem for Bush, it wasn't a problem for Clinton, and it wasn't a problem for Bush Sr. They don't stop and try to take these folks into custody. If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state.

Police will already shoot and kill an armed and dangerous person if they pull a weapon and the officer fears for his life. Now take that same scenario, apply it to a suspected terrorist with a dirty bomb. I have zero issue with said terrorist getting his ass blown away before he might harm hundreds or thousands in an OKC style bombing, or drastically worse, a dirty nuclear weapon. Walking up to such a person, and trying to arrest them and read them their miranda rights is more likely to just get them to trigger the bomb. A drone can take a person out before they have to to react and do such a thing.

The Constitution already charges the president with protecting it's citizens from threats both foreign and domestic. Holder already stated that using a drone, on a common American Citizen, siting in a Starbucks, would be an unnecessary use of force. That is not an ambiguous statement. I don't care what 'party' a President hails from. Any President who used a drone on innocent civilians without an overwhelming need to protect thousands more, would be impeached, and likely thrown in prison. Rand Paul claiming that this President could somehow do just that, and not face any consequences as a result was pure rhetoric, and beneath the dignity that the Office of the President deserves as a leader of the United States. Even his own party members called him out on it.

Lastly, Rand himself said he had no problem and would expect the President to use a drone to take out a terrorist who was an imminent threat in such a situation.

I must have missed that memo. I looked through my mail for anything with a subject called "The Presidents Personal Kill List", but I'm guessing I'm just not on that distribution.

When even that bastion of conservative outrage, The Huffington Post, has tagged over 25 of their own articles with "Obama Kill List" [huffingtonpost.com] it seems pretty silly to pretend it doesn't exist.

I didn't state it doesn't exist. In fact I indicated that it's common for a sitting president to have a kill list. I do question that this kill list contains anything but terrorists, or suspected terrorists. Making it appear as if he's just randomly selecting people with a dart and a dartboard is disingenuous at best, and outright lying at it's worst.

Just because an article notes a phrase, doesn't validate it as true. I would expect someone from/. to at least do a little due diligence. By your standard, si

Interesting. Do you have a list of these US citizens being arrested and classified as terrorists at a US airport? i see a small number of people over the last few years in the UK arrested under suspicion of Terrorism who were actively engaged in planning attacks and who were fortunately stopped before they could inflict harm, but not much here in the U.S. I found 1 in Dec of 2012 in Atlanta, and one in June of 2010. The two in 2010 were actively trying to join Al Shabab, a group that claims ideological kins

Do you have a list of these US citizens being arrested and classified as terrorists at a US airport

I never said anyone was classified as a terrorist. I said that everyone is being treated like potential terrorists. Since the government quite clearly violates the constitution right out in the open, it wouldn't surprise me if normal people ended up on a list of suspected terrorists.

I disagree with the courts. The courts can say whatever they want, but I think it's pretty clear that they're not standing for people's rights at this point.

As I said, if they were treated as potential terrorists, they would be arrested, or put on a no fly list.

But they do hope to find terrorists. They check everyone because they want to see if they have anything suspicious. Everyone is thought to potentially be a terrorist. The thing is, though, that they have no evidence that anyone is even a terrorist, but they're still being treated as potential terrorists in my book.

If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state.

I think in many situations, such as where someone is colluding with a terrorist cell but hasn't declared their intentions, that they deserve a trial. The problem is that the government is likely to claim that particular actions function as a declaration of intent. Here's a ridiculous but not entirely implausible situation:

Say an American pyromaniac moves to Pakistan. He doesn't align himself to any terrorist cause, he's just obsessed with blowing things up and his freedom in the U.S. could be jeopardized by such actions. He buys several explosives from a terrorist cell and this action is observed by a CIA spook who doesn't realize the guy is just a pyromaniac who intends to harmlessly detonate these devices in the middle of the desert. Our pyromaniac takes his explosives to his little desert shanty only to be blown away by a drone attack while he's setting up his new toys.

Let's say the guy's family finds out about it and they're outraged. They all know he was just a pyromaniac, they know he wasn't allied with terrorists. But the government is likely to claim that 1) his actions and associations with terrorists warranted treating him like a terrorist and 2) by buying items from terrorists he was in effect funding them, which makes him an enemy of the state.

The problem with allowing some government agency, agent, official, or whatever decide what constitutes a 'declaration of intent' or 'clear collusion' is that it could be abused. Say a hacker who, although he loves the U.S.A., is disgusted by the unconstitutional activities of certain agencies, decides to move to Iran. He moves to Iran so he can protest in the form of attacking the computer systems of these agencies and he's fairly certain the Iranians won't extradite him for such activity. While this is certainly a criminal act, does it make him a terrorist? Does it make him an enemy of the state?

Or one last hypothetical. Say Bradley Manning was informed that he was ratted out by the filthy rat Adrian Lamo before getting arrested. And somehow Bradley smuggled himself out of the country and was granted amnesty by. ..let's go with Syria. More than one politician has declared Manning to be an enemy of the state, to be guilty of treason, to be guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy. Are we to let the president send that drone after Manning? To leave it up to the president's discretion?

I think Rand Paul approached an important issue, and hopefully his stunt made people consider the moral repercussions of drones, the way our government deals with terrorism, the rights of the citizen, and warfare in general; but it appears to me that, like you said, Rand was just politicizing an issue and drawing attention to himself. Maybe his little filibuster will draw attention to the important issues but I doubt that was his intent - his intent was to spew FUD.

In your first scenario, the hypothetical is too ridiculous to be believed. I would classify that in the same vein as Rand's rant. It seems the rhetoric is relishing creating these wild fantasies, when simple reality says that any civilians killed in such a strike will most definitely result in investigations by either extreme.

The second hypothetical is more much relevant. Lets say this person does move to a country classified as an 'axis of evil', albeit far fetched when such a hacker could do the same from

The nation has always had a top list of most wanted, and dead or alive for a terrorist isn't a problem.

Yes, it is actually. Authorizing the execution without trial of an American citizen, even one accused of terrorism, is illegal, a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process. And authorizing the assassination of a citizen of another county who is not a combatant or a military commander is a violation of international law.

Now you are equating a suspected terrorist in the midst of causing imminent harm, to assassinating someone while they are asleep? Really? Perhaps you should go back and read Holder's reply. It's very clear. Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work.

You might also try to remember that during military action, or war, civilians can and do get in the way. It is unavoidable. Claiming the President is sitting there directing civilians to be shot is bullshit. it's also bullshit claiming those deaths are all du

Agreed and point taken. If the Pakistani military believes that 80% of those were militants, than I find that ratio acceptable during military action. Given that a handful of people killed thousands of Americans in the course of 90 minutes. Those would be what I would consider acceptable casualties. Given their MO of using civilians as meat shields, it is unavoidable.

They didn't give the Americans any such luxury, where I would guess that a high 95+ percentile were just civilians. The only military target w

I consider a drone strike to be along the lines of a missile strike, and Obama made more of these in his first term, that the four Presidents preceding him combined... I feel that this is unconscionable and can only indicate a disrespect for life, the risk to innocent civilians, and the population at large. There is a big difference between shooting a person with a bullet, and lobbing a shrapnel grenade, dropping a bomb, or firing a missile at a target. It's not just *deadly force* it's the risk to nearby

I suppose we can at least be happy at the improvement that this time responsibility is being taken for assassinations instead of a stupid weasel pretence at "deniability" where the President or others are supposed to pretend they don't have a personal kill list (right from the attempts on Castro during JFK's time up to Bush's drone strikes that he pretended didn't happen). Maybe the next administration will not only take responsibility but also discontinue assassinations.We only have to look at Russia toda

People like you crack me up. You do realize that a drone is just a weapons platform right? If you can conceive of a reason why the US government might reasonable kill an American citizen with a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, or a tank, why would the use of a drone somehow be any different? Surely the test is whether or not the killing was legal, not what weapons platform was used to deliver the strike. OMG, they haz robots!!!!!

Agreed, but I can't think of any possible way in which an american in US soil could be killed by a drone strike in a legal fashion.

The way I see it, there are only three manners in which the government can kill someone in US soil:

1. Self defense when attacked by a criminal, which rules out the drone.

2. Armed resistance to a legal arrest, which includes being holed up in a building, which I believe should require the officers to make every effort to take the criminals alive, so they can be tried in a court

I am from Atlanta. The principal whether or not American citizens can be targeted by military force if they are engaged in combat against the US was settled there in 1864. The method used is merely tactics.

As I recall, the illustrious civilian population of the city of Atlanta did not consider themselves citizens of the United States of America, but instead of something called the Confederate States of America.

As I recall, the illustrious civilian population of the city of Atlanta did not consider themselves citizens of the United States of America, but instead of something called the Confederate States of America.

But the US government, and the Lincoln administration, did consider them to be US citizens, since secession was considered to be illegal by the Union. They also considered them to be enemy combatants and treated them accordingly.

As has been demonstrated a number of times, drones aren't especially selective with targeting. We routinely read of some guy being targeted, and incidentally, three children, two women, and a bystander were killed, and six bystanders were hospitalized.

Yeah, it depends on which weapon is mounted on that weapons platform how many people might be in the kill radius. Still, history suggests target selectivity sucks.

Yes, someone in the US may reasonably be killed by most types of weapons platforms in certain situations.

The outrage over drones specifically is that they have been verifiably used in two cases against US citizens who were not an immediate threat to anyone, and there was never an attempt to arrest them by conventional means. If there had, and they had presented a forcible resistance, due process would have been satisfied and lethal use of force justified.

You are appalled that they would consider the use of a drone to attack an American citizen if that citizen were collaborating in another Pearl Harbor or 9/11? Because that's what the actual letter says - that drones will not be used to attack American citizens (because we have a functioning legal system such that they are never beyond the reach of law enforcement here), but that in the event of extraordinary circumstances like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the president would be advised about the legality of it.

You are appalled that they would consider the use of a drone to attack an American citizen if that citizen were collaborating in another Pearl Harbor or 9/11? Because that's what the actual letter says - that drones will not be used to attack American citizens (because we have a functioning legal system such that they are never beyond the reach of law enforcement here), but that in the event of extraordinary circumstances like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, the president would be advised about the legality of it.

Well that will work out fine then. Just like the tasers that are only ever used by police in their own self defence and only when the alternative is shooting someone. I mean these kinds of things would never be abused would they? Oh. Wait.

Rand Paul is the one who thought up the scenario, so we should be appalled and outraged at Rand Paul?

Yes we should. Senator Paul was just obfuscating the real issue. Killing citizens with drones is not an issue: the rules should be exactly the same as any other use of deadly force. It is not different because it is "with a drone". The issue is spying on citizens. When it comes to spying, drones are a game changer (in good ways and bad).

No. First of all, prior to Paul's filibuster, the official policy of the administration on killing us citizens on us soil was that it was perfectly legal and hypothetically possible. No further conditions on that. At least now they've narrowed it down to people engaged in "combat"...though we have no way of knowing how broadly that is defined, so in a practical sense it doesn't change much.

The real issue though is that Paul did not go far enough. Done strikes are just as unconstitutional in Pakistan as they would be in Minnesota. The Bill of Rights is not some list of privileges given to us by the government. It is a list of rights, inherent to all human beings, that the government may not violate. Doesn't matter if they're inside our outside of our borders, and it doesn't matter if they're citizens. If we haven't declared war, we're required to give the accused a trial. It's that simple. There's no declaration of war against Pakistan, for just one example, so we can't legally use drones there.

Just as Gen. Hayden made the Bush administration position on the 4th amendment quite clear:

Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's point man in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration?

Atty. General Holder made the position of the administration quite clear in his letter to Sen. Paul.

Yes, Holder's letter says that the National Security Council can order a strike on an American like Chris Hedges [wikipedia.org], who still fits Judge Leon's definition of "enemy combatant", which is standing law and enhanced by the 2012 NDAA.

When lawyers say things, it's all in the legal definitions. The more skilled ones use terms that sound like ordinary English but have precise meanings to the courts.

When a lowly citizen kidnaps and beats a reporter, strong-arm robs them of an expensive camera, and then commits perjury by accusing them of a crime in open court, then that lowly citizen goes away for a VERY VERY long time.

Support is not writing a brief. Support is indicting the officers in question for Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law [fbi.gov]. These officers deserve the same treatment Obama's DOJ gave Aaron Swartz.

we need a system that treats INCIDENTS as a whole and not "crimes". The charges were grievously wrong, as was the action of the police. In the course of dragging the person into court, the judge should be able to COMPEL the state's lawyers to file criminal charges against the police, and as officers of his court, compel the state's lawyers to do their best or face disbarment.

This is a case where it sounds fair to prosecute each person individually, but an increasing number of cases have prosecution giving

Lashes wouldn't cut it when the police inflict head injuries, which they have a fondness for doing. And the charges filed to prevent charges from being filed against your officer for brutality, civil rights violations etc are commonly known as "cover charges".

The strategy generally works perfectly too. As long as the charges are serious enough. The charges against me completely prevented me from suing them, which I probably would have done otherwise. The cops know that they can beat and even kill people wit

I also think we need to bring back public whipping and a few other things. the punishment for these police needs to fit the crime, in this case PUNISHMENT is in order... seven lashes with a seven-corded whip would fix them right up. Right out on the court steps where everybody can see it.

Reducing civil rights abuses by violating additional civil rights seems really foolish to me — and in the case of your suggestion, would mean and a complete abandonment of our rights under the Eight Amendment. [wikipedia.org]

The difficulty with charging and convicting cops who behave like animals is a separate issue which needs to be seriously addressed, albeit in a manner that complies with the US Constitution.

im more for striped naked and caged right out in the open for their stay in the county jail.... where all the other inmates can taunt them, but not quite touch them. maybe be generous and offer them a rope to hang themselves for disappointing society.

Well, since the DOJ is involved, I'd make it a Federal Civil rights abuse case as well against the officers. The police in this nation have become more like paramilitary thugs in most places. Here's just a recent more pointed example. [huffingtonpost.com] They do have a difficult job to do and yes, there's nearly a 100% chance that every time they arrest somebody or go about conducting their business, they'll be recorded by a phone or some other device. They just need to get used to it and do their job and stop abusing the public!

The officers should be charged with theft and assault. They should also be fired.

How often are the police held accountable for anything they do? In LA during the Rampart scandal out of the dozens named none were fired or charged except the whistle blower. He was fired and threatened. I saw video tape of a cop in LA slamming an unconscious kid against the hood of a car. He was beaten unconscious before the camera was turned on then woke up when he was slammed against the car. No charges were filed but they did arrest the guy filming it. There have been numerous cases of unarmed people sh

The brief explicitly says "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the publicâ(TM)s and the mediaâ(TM)s rights to record here".

The brief explicitly says "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the publicâ(TM)s and the mediaâ(TM)s rights to record here".

They want to support the "journalists" other wise it would mean "everyone" this way they can come back and arrest/prosecute non journalists.Maybe someone should start a society of citizen journalists and let anyone join so everyone can be a journalist.

They want to support the "journalists" other wise it would mean "everyone" this way they can come back and arrest/prosecute non journalists.

This argument becomes harder to maintain when you read the actual government brief [archive.org], and realize that while Ars Technica (and, following them, the Slashdot summary) use language that makes it seem like a government defense of special privileges for journalists, the actual brief takes the exact opposite position, arguing "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street" and "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media, and the Court should not make a distinction between the public’s and the media’s rights to record here."

... that until I read the summary, I actually wasn't sure if the headline meant the Obama administration was on the side of the journalist, or was on the side of arresting journalists who record cops...

Also can we stop saying Obama Administration? Is the US gubermint. When we are talking about Obama let's bring these issues back into context but when we are talking about the DoJ, calling it Obama Administration is just insidious bickering.

The DA won't press charges because then the police unions will make any investigation the DA is involved in "not work out," assuming the unlikely event that the DA is willing to charge any police officer with a crime at a time when the charges are otherwise avoidable.

Even better question, there was at least one cop on the scene witnessing the assault, why did he not intervene to protect the citizen and arrest the miscreant?

DAs will not prosecute dirty cops because the department as a whole would then get them back by sabotaging other case - which proves the department as a whole is corrupt. This is not an exception situation, unfortunately, it is the norm. This is the same reason that the other copy on the scene would not dare to do his job, even if he wanted to he wou

TFS is (and so is TFA) misleading when it says that the government argues that the Constitution "prohibits police officers from arresting journalists for exercising those rights", as the actual brief filed by the Justice Department [archive.org] explicitly argues (heck, its a bolded section heading) that "Members of the Public and the Media Are Both Entitled to Protection Under the First Amendment", and, more specifically, "The First Amendment protections afforded members of the public and press when recording public police activity are coextensive" and "Although Mr. Garcia alleges facts here that show that he is a member of the press, this makes no difference to the analysis under the First Amendment",and "Courts have long held that recordings made by private citizens of police conduct or other items of public interest are entitled to First Amendment protection".

The DoJ isn't arguing that police can't arrest journalists from recording police activity, the DoJ is arguing that "that both the First and Fourth Amendments protect an individual who peacefully photographs police activity on a public street", and that "core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis" for discretionary charges such as disturbing the peace, etc., and, finally, that "the First Amendment right to record police officers performing public duties extends to both the public and members of the media" without distinction.

So your theory is that cops who are willing to beat you up and take your camera will be unwilling to beat you up and take your geek glasses?

I think the reference is more to the fact that, as a device that is normally connected and uploading to the internet, the fact that beating someone up and taking their "geek glasses" won't actually let you seize and destroy the recording, and just makes it more likely that, on top of whatever they were recording that made you want to seize the device getting out, the video of your beating them up to seize the device will also get out, which sort of removes the whole incentive for the beating-and-seizing behavior in the first place.

I think it might end being a HARMful idea if thugs with badges (as opposed to actual servants of the law) started jamming wifi and mobile whenever they wanted to beat someone. It's not like someone might EMPathise with the victims, after all.:)

All punning aside, it'd be a seriously bad idea. That kind of escalation would only end in tears, and hopefully the administration's statement in favour of an individual's right to record the police indicates that TPTB realise this.

but you can only file a lawsuit for MONEY... you can't file a lawsuit say to compel the court to disolve their marriages and send their kids to CPS. You can't file a lawsuit to have them striped naked and paraded through prison for a week.... I'd even settle for a 7x7 whipping on the courthouse steps.

THOSE are the kinds of things that need to happen to stop these abuses.... hurtful, spiteful, public punishments.

You might still be able to file a private prosecution depending on where you are in the US (or the world).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_arrest#United_Stateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States

The problem is that police unions in many States have commissions empowered to overturn even a completely legitimate termination of an officer's employment, and they frequently do so.

My city and county have each had an officer re-instated following a justified termination (one for lying, impeding an investigation, and conduct unbecoming, and the other for public exposure) in the last three years.