What I am inferring is that through careful editing it shows the police in a disparaging light and attempts to show the protestors without fault.  Both videos are not without their own editing.  Although how this particular incident started seems to be understood by both the police and the protestors.  The advance party of the Free March campaign where prohibited from protesting in JM Nicohlson’s offices.  Though both sides contributed to the eventual outcome.  Did Mr. Hunter need to smoke a joint within five minuets of the police officer arriving?  Probably not.  Was it his right to do so, with his MMAR card?  Yes.  Was the police officers statement about the camera being viewed as a weapon, inflammatory?  Yes.  Did Mr. Hunter have to follow closely behind the officer, disregarding his instructions?  No.  He could have waited a short while.  For the officer to gather information from inside the offices, perhaps convince those inside to reopen the offices to the protestors.  Would that have happen?  It is possible.  Did the officer need to act so aggressive?  Yes and no.  Put in the same situation: outnumbered, one larger then you, smoking cannabis and not knowing how it effects him, not obeying your orders, following close on your heels and attempting to fight back; I would have reacted similar to the police officer.  That being said the protestors have endured many aggressive tactics from the police in reference to their cannabis use.  Often using decriminalized laws to seek the arrest or search for evidence for arrest because of involvement with the protest or because of partaking in cannabis.  At about 4:22 in MrXstacey’s edited video and 8:15 in the full length video, the police officers body language completely changes.  Shoulder haunches, head tucked in, firm grip on Mr. Hunter, not making eye contact or giving order or direct the protestors until another officer arrives aside from “calm down”.  This is because a busload of protestors have arrived, immediately voicing opinions and crowding around the two officers.  Many other situations have gone bad at this point.

Around 25 minuets in, in the original video, an officer explains the arrest procedure and processing but not necessarily answers any of Mrs. Emery’s and Miss. Seguin’s questions.  35 minuets in, they notice an RCMP officer who responds because “It’s an MP office.”  Again side-stepping questions about the openness of the office.

There is an overwhelming support involving the event not necessarily the cause.  Mainly revolving around the camera as a weapon statement.  The commenters that disagree have their argument circle around the fact that cannabis is illegal and how it has affect their lives through various crimes.

How this blog relates to policing’s new visibility is through the medium.  By the use of the internet, phones and cameras.  After Mr. Hunter was put in handcuffs you can hear him proclaiming loudly that that device was streaming live to the internet.  As Goldsmith explains through his article Policing’s New Visibility, the rising portability and accessibility of recording devices and the ability to share the information is what makes the police more visible to the public [even to others who where not present].  He argues even increases accountability.  Take for instance, the Rodney King beating, mentioned many times in his article.  Videos focus almost exclusively on the show of police brutality, ignoring what happened just before – Mr. King’s high-speed pursuit because he did not want to go to jail for DUI [Driving Under Intoxication].  But videos like Mr. King’s unnecessary beating can be edited for public release quite differently.  Often times to show more sensationalism.  Media outlets are also going through social media to search for stories.  As the reader may have noticed an increase of Facebook or Myspace citing in your newscast.

The police both fear and respect this new wave of technologies.  They fear it because any slip up, no matter how small may be blown out of portion, causing the police to lose face and ultimately their symbolic power and authority which means that they cannot command anyone to obey.  They respect it, because it offers a unique view into both the offenders mind and offers supporting evidence during trial.  Into the offenders mind, because everyone is as fond of making video as the police are of seizing it.

What I am inferring is that through careful editing it shows the police in a disparaging light and attempts to show the protestors without fault.  Both videos are not without their own editing.  Although how this particular incident started seems to be understood by both the police and the protestors.  The advance party of the Free March campaign where prohibited from protesting in JM Nicohlson’s offices.  Though both sides contributed to the eventual outcome.  Did Mr. Hunter need to smoke a joint within five minuets of the police officer arriving?  Probably not.  Was it his right to do so, with his MMAR card?  Yes.  Was the police officers statement about the camera being viewed as a weapon, inflammatory?  Yes.  Did Mr. Hunter have to follow closely behind the officer, disregarding his instructions?  No.  He could have waited a short while.  For the officer to gather information from inside the offices, perhaps convince those inside to reopen the offices to the protestors.  Would that have happen?  It is possible.  Did the officer need to act so aggressive?  Yes and no.  Put in the same situation: outnumbered, one larger then you, smoking cannabis and not knowing how it effects him, not obeying your orders, following close on your heels and attempting to fight back; I would have reacted similar to the police officer.  That being said the protestors have endured many aggressive tactics from the police in reference to their cannabis use.  Often using decriminalized laws to seek the arrest or search for evidence for arrest because of involvement with the protest or because of partaking in cannabis.  At about 4:22 in MrXstacey’s edited video and 8:15 in the full length video, the police officers body language completely changes.  Shoulder haunches, head tucked in, firm grip on Mr. Hunter, not making eye contact or giving order or direct the protestors until another officer arrives aside from “calm down”.  This is because a busload of protestors have arrived, immediately voicing opinions and crowding around the two officers.  Many other situations have gone bad at this point.

Around 25 minuets in, in the original video, an officer explains the arrest procedure and processing but not necessarily answers any of Mrs. Emery’s and Miss. Seguin’s questions.  35 minuets in, they notice an RCMP officer who responds because “It’s an MP office.”  Again side-stepping questions about the openness of the office.

There is an overwhelming support involving the event not necessarily the cause.  Mainly revolving around the camera as a weapon statement.  The commenters that disagree have their argument circle around the fact that cannabis is illegal and how it has affect their lives through various crimes.

How this blog relates to policing’s new visibility is through the medium.  By the use of the internet, phones and cameras.  After Mr. Hunter was put in handcuffs you can hear him proclaiming loudly that that device was streaming live to the internet.  As Goldsmith explains through his article Policing’s New Visibility, the rising portability and accessibility of recording devices and the ability to share the information is what makes the police more visible to the public [even to others who where not present].  He argues even increases accountability.  Take for instance, the Rodney King beating, mentioned many times in his article.  Videos focus almost exclusively on the show of police brutality, ignoring what happened just before.  Mr. King’s high-speed pursuit because he did not want to go to jail for DUI [Driving Under Intoxication].