Image: DDS 47 / CC BY-SA-4.0
They shattered, the terrible scenes of police power, through which George Floyd was killed. But beware! Who films in this country in police actions, the police are considered a crime and must expect the immediate seizure of his mobile phones
And because the police like to fall in their abusive videography too much powerful intervention, and anyway conflict situations or at least adopted surpasses form the regular occasion of such recording situations, for the police opposite with ads for resistance and tatomic attack or official failure often still adds a lot to further penalty.
Place references and ingested for the suppression of the facts constructed by the police as well as a deprivation of freedom for the identity detection or to the arrangement of friction in the form of blood amptions yield the terror scenario, the video graphic in such case constellations in Federal Republic Processors to worship. There is nothing with declaration first (see as example the case of Marvin Oppong).
"No Pictures – Please"
Batmans court, but determined election is also high in the German police police. Photo and videography were always a thorn in the eye. Far from all-related smartphones in our everyday life, police officers have always seen the right to their own picture (paragraphs 22/23 and 33 KunsturHebergesetz) to be taken against unpleasant photographing with criminal matches due to potential violation of personal rights and then especially with immediate seizure of the respective recording can be done.
Effective legal protection against such a practice one had to do this first – after all, decisions in the matter last rang to the Federal Scarf Court. Which means that the police were able to act largely unmolested in their spirit over many years, because the vast majority of such mammals can not afford effective protection and in the cases relevant here in the case of intent usually does not help insurance or affected maybe even glad to get back to the evaluation protection and prevention confiscated recording apparatus at some point at some point or even months of the evaluation again.
Many ads and victims of such ever-asked criminalization later prevailed a case-law that blocked the police, above all, the path of immediate seizure of the reception certificate. With the flux production of a recording is not yet infringing personal rights. Such has been entered only with an actual publication of the work and that they do not necessarily be amed at the time of making a recording. In addition, it was often questionable whether recordings that capture and mapped a daily in public space in its entirety can be considered to violate a personal right of policemen in individual cases.
In any case, due to this final decision-making practice for the police, the child first had fallen into the well, because where no facts, since no possibility for immediate criminal proceedings or substantially hazardous confiscation of recording rates. Today in times of all-related smartphones particularly bitter, because the actual purpose of the constructed silent has always been clear in neighborhoods and quarters or demonstrations about the years also clearly beyond the individual case, that photo and video graphics of police actions even not welcome and in doubt also be prevented.
The police stylize himself to the victim
The fear of the police in front of photos and videos therefore has a very long-fear history and you may have to have room that this fear is in a sense, because even completely legal and legitimized violent effective violation of the police laws is not so out in a video! Anyway, police authority from such shots is not recognizable from the outset as legitimized by law.
Apart from that, however, the police play the card of their own sacrificial role in Schooner regularity in a particularly fragile way. Above all, their on the moss loudspeaker vocational councils are the protagonists of a omniproaches "Lack of respect before the uniform" and "increasing violence" not of, but rather "Against policeman * inside".
An already existing example of the construction of property truths can be found in the so-called "Blastener study" (NRW study violence against police officers), which was used domestically, above all, once again to complain about the supposedly enormous victim numbers in the ranks of the police.
In the study, police officers were interviewed in their experiences in the police service company with violence. In the study ultimately summed-up agent experiences of policeman * inside results mainly from so-called "non-tutiled" Attack. Paid for this "Insults (verbal or by gestures), shouting, verbal provocation, fortifying, spacers, threatening (counter-) displays, threatening physical violence, photography / videography, witness of violence against college (inn), witness violence against third parties , uble despite, slander, hitting campaign, enforcing, encrypting, threatening material damaging, sexual loading, exhibitionist actions" – It was also possible to say in summary, to the armed experiences of police officer (s) apparently pays everything possible.