They say there's no more privacy in today's world.
Might be right.
Take the case of public official Paul Lindemann. He's a member of the York County, S.C., Council (key part of local government.) That means he holds elected office in York County.
Now he's in trouble.
Police stopped him in Columbia a few months ago and charged him with drunk driving.
After giving him a sobriety test, police arrested and handcuffed Mr. Lindemann and put him in a patrol car.
Police say he was "highly intoxicated."
Innocent until proven guilty, folks, and Lindemann has not yet gotten his day in court.
He's requested a trial.
Meanwhile, The (Rock Hill, S.C.) Herald filed a freedom of information request and got the police video of Lindemann's arrest. (He didn't do such a good job on the sobriety test.)
The video is now on the Internet (obviously).
More info. than we want to know?
Gossip?
Or legitimate news?
You be the judge. Click on the link in the headline above and watch. This could be you on camera. Or me. Or a member of our family.
Whaddya think about personal privacy, people?
15 comments:
Did he fail or did he make a 71? He seemed somewhat alert at times. Decision to arrest seemed too arbitrary. As I sit here trying to count backwards from 32 to 18, I inserted a 39 and I've only had coffee and water.
Yes, easy to get nervous in the presence of being pressured by a police officer.
As an aside, what do you think about this police video being available for 1 billion Chinese to see?
it satisfies our voyeurism, but I don't know if it's all that newsworthy.
It satisfies our voyeurism but I'm not sure it's all that newsworthy. Still, it's public record and the newspaper has every right to post it.
I think it's fair to post that video. This guy is a public official and his arrest is newsworthy and items that help tell the story, such as the video, should be used.
We, however, shouldn't post such videos every time someone in our community is pulled over. But, a public official should be aware that any arrests will be reported and broadcast nowadays via television or the Internet.
Thanks for your comments, Dudley. Others agree with you.
On the other hand, some people I've talked to (who have seen the video) wonder about the newsworthiness of it. Guess it's a judgment call.
As a newspaper editor, I have no objection to posting this video. It's uncomfortable and I wouldn't want to be that councilman. Yet this is a public official who is suspected of criminal activity, and activity that is potentially harmful to others. If the officer had let him go and he had driven off and run over someone, people would have howled outrage at the police, and justifiably so. This doesn't equate to a guilty verdict by any means. It doesn't help his case, but I think most educated people understand the criminal justice system well enough to recognize that there are nuances in play and that that person on tape could be them or a loved one. The privacy argument was erased when this possibly-intoxicated guy headed out on a public street where his car could have encountered yours or mine.
Appreciate your comments, Tiny Cornbread. If you get this and/or are still reading, what's your view in general about the fact that newspapers are transmitting such police video on their Web sites? Do readers go the site, watch the video and think twice about having a few drinks and getting behind the wheel? Disincentive for them to drink and drive? What think you?
I suspect that for a few people, increased public exposure may be a deterrent to criminal behavior, but that's probably a small percentage of the population. People watch the TV show 'COPS' all the time, and domestic violence rates aren't on the decline. The value of police videos being publicly available is it serves as a check on the police, who have needed to be checked as many incidents over the years have showed.
I hadn't thought of the potential deterrence aspect. And the point you make about subjecting police to public scrutiny also intrigues.
Appreciate your thoughts, TC.
I think the video is taking it too far. We already know he was arrested, no need to see the video. If he is guilty or not is left up to the judge, unless he asks for a jury trial. Sure, he's a public offical, and if he was arrested, the people should be informed, but a video? Come on.. Posting a video seems rather childish in my opinion.
For a person of his public status, he should know that anything crazy or completely wrong that he does will be brought to light. But the counting backwards from 32 to 18 was just ridiculous. I get tied up counting from 10 to 1!
Thanks for all your comments, everybody. Maybe have gotten more traffic from this particular blog post than any on my site.
People really seem interested in that police video and whether it should be available for public consumption on the Net.
Is it newsworthy? Since he is a public official, I guess.
Is it necessary news? That's questionable; isn't the reporting of it (without the video) an embarrassment enough?
Is it an invasion of his privacy? Absolutely not, his "privacy" is nullified the minute he becomes a danger to the public.
Will the public seeing it before the trial bias the jury? Probably (but he does appear guilty--say what you want about the counting backwards but the guy couldn't say his ABC's). On the other hand, I agree with TC, it could also show oversights on the side of the law enforcement. For example, why was he not asked to do more physical coordination tests like walking a straight line, standing on one foot, or touching the tip of his index finger to the tip of his nose).
In general, public officials, celebrities, ministers, and others in the lime light should expect to be scrutinized more closely--occupational hazard.
Thanks, Brian. Others sound a similar theme, but you put it extraordinarily well.
Always good to get a comment from a writer such as yourself.
Post a Comment