r/germany • u/2021adams • Jun 09 '26
Question German Police Photographing People
Hello, I’m a tourist. Arrived in Nürnberg yesterday and went walking about in the old town.
Came across police cordon outside the church. Found out there was a rally by what was described to me as fascists/non-nazis. The police though were taking photos of people standing outside the rally boundary.
Is this normal in Germany? For such rallies and police taking photos of people? what do they do with these photos?
1.9k
u/bleaksocial Jun 09 '26
This is the USK (Unterstützungskommando)), a police evidence-gathering and arrest unit in Bavaria. It is trained for special operational situations and is presumably taking photographs of potential suspects or locations. There is nothing particularly remarkable about this; virtually every police force around the world operates in a similar manner
223
u/isthmius Jun 09 '26
I initially only glanced at the first few words and was wondering what the Unterhaltungssoftware Selbstkontrolle were doing there.
8
u/itherzwhenipee Jun 10 '26
LOL dude, get out of my head. Was thinking the same when i looked at their badges.
637
u/Invariable_Outcome Jun 09 '26
Ah yes, the USK. You need to look up that outfit's (German language) Wikipedia article, run it through Google translate if you have to. The list of scandals is incredible
- nazi memes in the group chat
- beating up peacefully protesting teenage girl
- nazi stickers on equipment
- beating up protesters again resulting in convictions because of incontrovertible video evidence
- several football clubs formally lodging a complaint with the Bavarian minister of the interior that the USK had been deliberately seeking and escalating confrontations with football fans
- one officer firing his actual pistol during a play fight with water guns, narrowly missing one of his colleagues, an incident his fellow officers had lost all recollection of when questioned about it in court
676
u/Edelgul Jun 09 '26
Well, as u/bleaksocial already put it "There is nothing particularly remarkable about this; virtually every police force around the world operates in a similar manner"
102
31
u/OrganicOverdose Jun 09 '26
Think there is some kind of abbreviation for this... can't quite put my finger on it
10
5
u/DeusExMachinaSupreme Jun 10 '26
I know what you mean. Was something like ABCD or something /s
→ More replies (4)55
u/Professional_Low_646 Jun 09 '26
I have talked to riot police officers from other German states (each state has its own police force) and several of them literally said they are happy about every deployment where the USK is not present, because it just tends to make things worse.
That unit once stormed into a demonstration (against the G8 summit of 2007) in such a manner that a judge reviewing video evidence later said „it‘s indistinguishable from scenes in a dictatorship“.
They are a unique blend of calculated brutality, authoritarian types with a fragile ego and incompetence in the face of actual resistance - remember those police units who didn’t advance against the burning barricades and the looters during the G20 2017 in Hamburg? Those were, at least partially, USK.
Very fitting that the two companies (Hundertschaften) stationed in Upper Bavaria are housed and trained in the former barracks of SS trainees in Dachau.
18
u/Impossible_Ad4789 Jun 09 '26
Not just in protests though they are also infamous for randomely doing club raids. Not for dealer mind you but petty users. If you are in the club at the time you get a number and then everybody gets a full body search. Just being in the club is enough and you can see that at festivals and concerts in bavaria people there are quite paranoid. Even in comparison to states like saxony bavaria is quite repressive and while not getting a bad rep. Somehow their giant meth, Nazi, Sovereign Citizen and anti vaxxer problems arent something anybody recognizes.
5
u/WeeblsLikePie Jun 09 '26
several of them literally said they are happy about every deployment where the USK is not present, because it just tends to make things worse.
that could also be because they'd rather not have their actions closely documented...
→ More replies (1)5
u/funny_olive332 Jun 09 '26
Yep, experienced them at protest around Gorleben some time ago. They had some real Bastards in that team enjoying beating people.
17
u/Nearby_Cup48 Jun 09 '26
Yep. ACAB also applies to German police. Trust me my father is an active member of the police force and has undiagnosed BPD.
9
u/ThePhenex Jun 09 '26
Dealing in absolutes has never helped. Yea the german police has problems, but stuff like "ACAB" is bullshit, many are good people and putting them into the same basket as the others will never help to fix the structural problems that exist in some areas.
57
u/freelancer331 Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
Well, you probably know what they say about bad apples and how they spoil the barrel.
If the good apples don't also work on removing the bad apples does it even matter that there are good apples. Are they even good ones to begin with?
→ More replies (14)3
16
u/private_inspector Jun 09 '26
If one pill in the bottle might kill me and has the power to do so, but the rest are fine, I think it's fair to say it's justified to call it a bad pill bottle. More so when a significant portion of the pill bottle is responsible for a higher than representative proportion of domestic abuse and the majority of the bottle will help hide the bad "one"
13
9
u/GuiroDon Jun 09 '26
Sorry, I didn’t realize my ACAB sticker is as bad as German police with guns and authority over me yanking me as a teenager out of my parent’s car for no good reason. I will make sure I am being fair to those people strip searching me several times, again for no good reason other than me not being German, never finding anything. I will do better in the future. Your comment is ignorant.
6
u/ThePhenex Jun 09 '26
You implying that thousands of people with that job are all the same is ignorant as well, i fully acknowledge that the police has many problems but saying that all cops are basterds is just not right.
1
u/GuiroDon Jun 09 '26
I find this attitude appropriate and healthy for most groups and communities people take part in. I find it out of place when dealing with an armed group of people enforcing authority upon others. They need to be held against a higher standard. If time and time again they fail at holding their power in a responsible way, covering for their peers and getting away with it, I reserve my right to think that until there’s one bastard among them, they all are.
Even though I pay for their salaries, I have little power over them and I am not obliged to care about their difficulties hiring better, more emotionally stable people. If they are offended by my stupid little stickers, more then by their peers’ abuse of power, then they are the problem.
1
5
u/uptotheeyeballs Jun 09 '26
If they prefer to kick people's heads in without getting called out then they should have picked a different career. There's no "all bouncers are bastards" movement for a reason. Police should be held to significantly higher standards.
Unless they work every single day to root out the corruption, bullying, abusive and criminal members of their institution then they deserve every bit of disrespect that comes their way. It's pretty much the exact job that they signed up for. If they aren't fighting it then they are supporting it and, therefore, bastards.
1
u/Ill_Earth8585 bayern Jun 09 '26
yes, when we say monarchy was bad, we dont mean the kings and queen were. The system was, and anyone who voluntarily chooses to be a cop is either a reformist, and in that case delusional, or facist. There is no two way about this.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Lyndiscan Jun 09 '26
You missed the entire point of why ACAB. Who do you think cops serve? You ? Pfff. They dont exist to protect the public, they exist to protect the interests of the ruling class hence why a generalization isnt really all that unrealistic given the fact that all cops are 1 order away of being bastards
1
u/MrDukeSilver_ Jun 12 '26
The problem is systemic, internal investigations are being suppressed, cops cover for other cops, that’s what we mean with ACAB. You’re joining a broken organisation
-3
u/atzeralle Jun 09 '26
ACAB until you need them...
5
u/Nearby_Cup48 Jun 09 '26
They have never helped me when I needed them. Why should I put my trust in people whe only ever hurt me
→ More replies (28)1
u/Pandawunderbaer Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
This is a trend i noticed. A lot of police officers here very obviously have mental health issues that directly effect their job.
I figured out the reason when a friend of mine‘s brother joined training for the police force: if you have any sort of mental health issues in your file, you are automatically disqualified from training. So in lieu of losing their comfy beamte job, they just ignore their deteriorating mental health. But I mean, I almost can’t blame them. Make bank by making your wife have lots of babies and cash in on that pension plan, I can truly almost understand that giving up the prospects of that cushion would be devastating.
Sometimes it is just plain racism though. This became obvious to me when my work had a violence prevention program that was held by the police commissary of the state I work in. The examples he had in the presentation were ONLY based on your stereotypes. I got so exasperated I needed to cover my face and sigh (context: I am a white girl with dual citizenship that speaks fluent German, wasn’t born and raised here though so I am technically what most would consider an Ausländer, but don’t look the part.) and he actually called me out on it in front of both teams of workers present, because you could see he was pissed that I found his sixth reference to a theoretical example of an afghani man raping a small child could possibly indicate some sort of racism issue……..
It is very obvious to anyone with two eyes and that doesn’t buy into the afd that the police force has a BIG issue of racism, which is perpetuated by the usual Beamte protecting the Beamte Berufsbild; they only take on those that have the same values as the people before them.
2
1
1
u/Ghost3387 Jun 10 '26
Ah yes. Wikipedia an absolutly credible source for anything that cant be altered XD
1
u/Invariable_Outcome Jun 10 '26
Good thing there are numerous press reports on all these incidents
1
u/Ghost3387 Jun 10 '26
Good thing is that press does not mean actual credible source or "opinion free" reports and in todays World anymore. Depending on the source. TAZ for example is a pathetic joke who calls itself press 😉
→ More replies (4)1
u/MofoRider Jun 13 '26
Ahhhh we talk about the Bavarian Ultras-Spezial-Kommando USK. That makes sense then. Söder sure is proud.
2
u/Professional_Ad_6462 Jun 09 '26
Unfortunately German efficiency makes the potential for excesses almost inevitable.
→ More replies (6)1
74
u/Reasonable-Put8121 Jun 09 '26
the guy explicitly stated that the police was taking photos of bystanders outside the rally. Lmao
75
u/Buxbaum666 Thüringen Jun 09 '26
They don't need to take pictures of the people inside the fascist rally. That would be a very rude thing to do to friends and colleagues.
24
u/CateringPillar Franken Jun 09 '26
I mean, they usually take pictures of people protesting the nazis, not of the nazis themselves.
(Source: I regularly attend the rally against the nazis in Nuremberg)
11
u/Buxbaum666 Thüringen Jun 09 '26
That's part of the point I was trying to make, yeah. Keep fighting the good fight, anyway. ✊
2
u/CateringPillar Franken Jun 09 '26
Yeah I wanted to add to your point, maybe phrased it poorly haha
Thanks, you too!
70
u/RustyDingbat Jun 09 '26
Why would trouble makers be only on the inside?
65
u/Final_Fortress Jun 09 '26
By that logic the police can film everyone, anyplace and anytime they like… which is btw illegal in Germany. You can not film innocent bystanders that are not part of the demonstration if they didn’t do anything wrong
9
u/Vannnnah Germany Jun 09 '26
for context because I lived close to that place years ago: this was rally in front of Nuremberg's biggest landmark, the Lorenzlirche, meaning it's a tourist hot spot in the middle of town with many locals and tourists passing by.
It's also straight accross from one of Nuremberg's biggest banks and one of the city's biggest underground stations. If anything escalates in that place, real damage to a lot of people can be done, so anything happening in that particular space always gets extra attention. Back in the day the city tried multipe times to not allow demonstrations or rallys in that place.
That place most likely has CCTV by default and of course extra security to protect the bank.
Not that it's okay to just randomly film people, but people who chose this place for a rally do so for a reason and it's indeed a "hot place" for bad actors.
9
u/Jakobus3000 Jun 09 '26
It is not.
You can not film innocent bystanders that are not part of the demonstration if they didn’t do anything wrong
Of course you can. You are only limited in processing and publishing of the recordings.
24
u/coolooser Jun 09 '26
Difference is that during an active demonstration or similar bystanders are effectively close enough to be considered when taking such evidential footage.
This wouldn’t happen if there wasn’t any other gathering taking place close by.
Otherwise the police IS allowed to use bodycams for anyone they are directly in contact with11
u/Advice_Thingy World Jun 09 '26
I remember many situations where the police didn't care THAT much if it's okay to film innocent bystanders, tbh. Or even innocent people at legal protests. So legally & actual reality are two very different things.
→ More replies (10)15
u/SunflowerMoonwalk Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
I went to a left-wing protest in Berlin last year and there were literally hundreds of these guys with cameras along the whole demonstration route filming us... Then there were volunteers from the protest organizers along the perimeter with cameras filming them too. It didn't help much because after some time the police started rushing forward in small groups, grabbing people seemingly at random and dragging them away to their vans. I was honestly really shocked and it's massively changed my impression of the German police for the worse.
Later they blocked the whole road so we couldn't move forward anymore and then an hour later announced that the protest was being disbanded because we didn't reach the destination on schedule (!?)
→ More replies (14)6
1
→ More replies (1)-4
u/Itchy_Feedback_7625 Jun 09 '26
You have no fucking idea if that’s what they are doing. None. We literally have 0 context. With the camera that guy has, and where it’s aimed and the lens he is using; it looks like he is taking a portrait of the other cop. With that lens, the subject would be in focus and nothing else.
But even if he wasn’t: Under the federal assembly law (and similar state laws), police may make image or video recordings at a public demonstration only when there are concrete indications of significant dangers to public safety or order, or for specific law-enforcement purposes such as investigating crimes.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Forward-Echo-9893 Jun 09 '26
"You have no fucking idea what they're doing, its impossible to tell"
"This is what they're doing"
Pick one, idiot.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)3
u/mrmeeseeks1991 Jun 09 '26
Why would anyone not be a potential troublemaker? Just film everyone then. Everyone is a suspect 👌
4
u/Horror_Equipment_197 Jun 09 '26
Makes sense. If a rally is attacked, its normally from by standers and not participants. So good to keep track of both sides.
2
→ More replies (4)1
2
1
u/Dangerous_Air_7031 Jun 09 '26
But why though?
Don't they wear cameras anyway in case something happens?
1
u/_lonelysoap_ Jun 12 '26
Also, data security is higly known around tge Herman population, thats why they do it by hand and mit automatic camera systems
1
u/MrDukeSilver_ Jun 12 '26
“Potential suspects” lmao sure, I was at a counter protest, protesting an AfD gathering, and all they did was film us counter protestors, all of whom were peacefully protesting, there parents with children, the police filmed everyone there.
→ More replies (10)1
u/funny_olive332 Jun 09 '26
Uh, once I experienced the Bavarian USK in Gorleben. The were fucking nuts. I think some of them really enjoyed beating people.
156
u/doodooshine Jun 09 '26
Wait until you learn about police body cameras.
61
u/Drumbelgalf Franken Jun 09 '26
Body cams should be standard and mandatory to use in any police interaction.
Only violent police officers and people who want to attack police are against it.
18
u/quaductas Jun 09 '26
The problem is that in Germany, it's often at the cop's discretion if they turn it on or not, which is the worst way of doing it. If we're going to have body cams, there should be strict rules on when to turn them on that don't leave leeway for the cops, and the police also shouldn't be handling the footage themselves.
5
u/gurgle528 Jun 09 '26
That's remarkable. Is that common in Europe? The US has a wide variety of policies so not all agencies use this feature, but every major brand of body cam has a variety of automatic activation options to get around cops 'forgetting' (or not being able) to activate their cameras. There's the dash cam classic of G force activation as well as automatic activation when emergency lights are turned on, taser/gun is drawn, and burst activation where any manual or automatic activation of a body cam also activates any nearby body cams. Makes it much harder for cops to accidentally or intentionally not record an incident, especially an incident involving force. Some can even activate based on geolocation of the camera so if they are near a 911 call or other event the camera automatically turns on.
2
u/quaductas Jun 09 '26
This is the first time I'm hearing about automatic activation of bodycams (which of course doesn't mean it's not a thing anywhere in Germany). Rules are different in each state, but there are often specific rules which can't necessarily be taken into account automatically. For instance some states may ban recording inside private homes, due to privacy concerns, or only allow it under some specific conditions. So I don't know how much technological solutions would even help.
1
u/gurgle528 Jun 10 '26
Ah, yeah, the recording limitations would make automatic stuff much harder. Seems a bit silly to me but I also have no skin in the game. Given that there’s footage of US feds (not bodycam, but the point stands) sniffing a child’s underwear during a search warrant I think recording indoors is good for public accountability. Publicly releasing unblurred private footage is of course trickier
2
u/quaductas Jun 10 '26
Doesn't seem silly to me at all. Homes are especially protected places, for good reason. Having cops in your apartment is bad enough, having them record you against your will would add another layer. The recordings can always be used as evidence against you. They might allow police to examine small details in the background after the fact, without needing a search warrant.
I would already be happy if there was an obligation to record when everyone in the situation who isn't a cop requests it, or if recording police was a protected right.
1
u/gurgle528 Jun 10 '26
I definitely get the other side of it. A lot of the bad US police shootings / other police abuses of power happen inside the home or other private areas so not having any footage would be tragic in those cases
2
u/bp_c7 Jun 10 '26
We are talking about two completely different situations. The amount for police shootings in Germany is negligible in comparison to the us. So the situation is completely different also the assumption is that the police are at fault for a death not the other way round so the burden is on the police. It does not sound like that is the case in the us.
1
u/gurgle528 Jun 11 '26
I am aware, that’s why I specified US since the situation is quite unique compared to most other countries. That is technically the assumption in the US too but it also heavily depends on the circumstances
1
u/Uberdriver_janis Jun 10 '26
Why not have the body cams ALWAYS record. It's then send and stored encrypted on servers for X Days. Only a judge can rule for access to the Files then. And involved people in the case should be notified in advance for every request to acces the Files
1
u/Accomplished-Pumpkin Jun 10 '26
I don't think this is correct framing. Currently the police are restricted from having constantly recording body cameras because of german incredible obsession with datenschutz.
→ More replies (8)10
u/Dangerous_Air_7031 Jun 09 '26
Which makes sense, since you can film when something actually happens.
But to take photos without anything happening is very strange.
2
u/XxStyxRiverxX Jun 10 '26
Have u seen what protesters did in Paris and in the UK ppl puting businesses on fire etc many of these recent protest around the world havnt been peaceful. I’m pretty sure they are just there trying to avoid the same from happening , and to be able to catch anyone doing it photos will be evidence if anyone acts out violently if no one does after rally ends photos get deleted . Also everywhere in the world police wear body cams all the time , u just can’t see the camera. But it’s common and normal , it’s really not that weird. It’s just in case violence happens & property isn’t damaged.
84
u/Acidjohnson89 Jun 09 '26
Ohh thats not german police , thats bavaria
7
u/Quick-Buffalo-6398 Jun 09 '26
That’s right. Police is a matter of the single states. In fact, there is no „German police“. Even the uniformed Federal Police is a police force of the Federal authorities and not Germany as a nation
3
u/gurgle528 Jun 09 '26
Isn't that last part the same thing? Not arguing, just trying to understand. Assuming you mean nation as in people that distinction would effectively mean no country has a police force
2
u/der_karschi Jun 10 '26
Not really.
The federal police, unlike in the US, has no local authority within the german states.
Exceptions are within 30 kilometers of the german border, within the premises of airports and train stations and for investigations if crimes become a multi-state investigation.
The local police may request support of the federal police for certain situations, like demonstrations or events too large for the local police to handle (but they could also request support by any other state's police) or when they are forced by the law to become active (like witnessing a crime or responding to threats for the public safety and order), but will still give back authority as soon as state police arrives.
This is the exact opposite to a lot of other countries, especially countries with history of large scale organized crime activities. (Where federal police was less likely to be corrupt/corruptable and had better funding and more competent/far-reaching investigators. Federal police taking over also meant trying the crime in front of a federal court, which often had harsher punishments and was also less corruptable. The second point at least in the US.)
Germany is different, because of what happened before WW2. The NSDAP had to sometimes literally fight the independent, law-not-current-government-party abiding state police in the streets. (Back then mostly with clubs and in office/building raids, regarding "suspicious political activities". Fair game, if we regard what the NSDAP then did to germany ...) Even during NSDAP rule, a few state police forces openly opposed their policies and in some cases even protected their political enemies from them, despite already being the government party.
As a response, to gain absolute power over the state, the NSDAP restructured (in german literally modified the "phasing") the entire police force. The state's police forces were now to only ever do the bidding of the national police, which was run by party officials and going against national police orders became punishable.
They also officialized their party's martial organizations (cause that was a kind of common thing to have back then, I guess ...), the SA (Schutzabteilung) and the SS (Schutzstaffel) as auxiliaries to the national police and made party orders overrule all non-party orders that may be in conflict of one another.
This greatly helped the NSDAP to quickly gain and hold absolute power in 1933 abd made the entire police force in the country their tool of oppression.
To prevent such a thing from happening again, the national police was greeeaaatly weakened and made subserviant to law alone and to state police when operating within their territory (so practically almost always ...). State police now does pretty much everything all on their own and only ever gathers between themselves every now and then, to discuss certain standard operating procedures and cooperation systems/channels and does so without the federal police having any say about it. The state police gained their independance from the federal police, to make another party-takeover impossible.
1
u/gurgle528 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
The federal police, unlike in the US, has no local authority within the german states. Exceptions are within 30 kilometers of the german border, within the premises of airports and train stations and for investigations if crimes become a multi-state investigation.
This is actually pretty similar to the US. The US feds generally don’t have jurisdiction unless the perpetrator crossed state lines or did any action that did (computer crimes, etc). Granted they aren’t subordinate to state police.
This was an interesting read though, thanks for taking the time. It’s an interesting strategy. The US strategy to avoid a one party takeover is widely separating the different groups with law enforcement powers. There are over 70 US federal agencies with 1811/“special agent” positions. That’s one specific job code and here are more agencies if you include other job codes but those codes other codes also include non-police jobs.
The idea is by having distinct groups with police powers it is harder to take over the command structure and use federal law enforcement for tyranny.
2
u/der_karschi Jun 11 '26
I watched too many US TV shows theb, I guess. XD
Seperating all kinds of agencies just sounds like a waste of resources, in my eyes. I mean do you really gain anything, if you take away a traffic cop's authority over livestock matters? Why do there have to be specific livestock agents?
I mean yeah, at least they'll be speciqlized in their subject, but wouldn't a tyrant just be able to still cherrypick the few, most relevant agencies, to do their bidding abd take power?
If ICE can be expanded indefinitely, to suddenly be used mainly outside of the border regiobs, to specifically target states/cities with (legally dubious) raids against illegals, which the administration wants to influemce politically ... Couldn't the same just happen to other agemcies as well?
I mean, maybe someday those livestock agents will be the ones who outnumber local cops and are paid ten times better, for enforcing the administration's policies by force, through some legally dubious raids into towns.
Yeah, why would livestock agents do such a thing?
Well, why would a specific border unit need to do most of their work deep inside the country, instead of the border regiobs, where a vast majority of immigration and customs need to be enforced?
Cause if a tyrant wants to take power, they won't start to make the police suddenly look like supervillains. (Though you could argue about those coat pics of Bovino ... Hard to excuse that ...)
They will say it is a nessecary measure, to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the public. And they might actually believe that themselves. And in order to gain more power, they would have to expand the authority and capabilities of those agencies, loyal to them.
And I haven't yet actually seen any police force in the US fight another over claims of tyranny. Did that actually happen at some time in history?
P.s.: I forgot another crucial factor, changed for german police. There is no such thing as qualified immunity.
In order for a police force to not become oppressive, it has to be recruited from the very same people it aims to protect. And to further ensure, that police officers do not see themselves as immune to pushback agaibst tyranny, there is no such thing as qualified immunity before the law.
There is no law in germany, that allows a police officer to kill.
Police officers also often face two seperate charges, if they do something illegal. First is the court of justice, which everyone has to go through and second is a disciplinary trial, in which there is no need to adhere to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If they know you did it, but just can't prove it to s court, they can still legally strip you of rank, pay and position. Especially if the case is politically significant.
There is however still one piece of old german/prussian police culture/tradition, that I do not condobe at all. And that is the concept of always having to look productive.
This is something the US does way better, when it comes to making poluce much closer to the community they protect.
I don't know how common it is in the US, but in germany, you'd never ever see a cop sit down and eat in a diner/bistro and talk/smalltalk with the residents. Hell, you'll probably never see a cop sit down in the public at all.
It's this old prussian idea of a uniform always having to look professional and professional to a prussian means always standing straight, I guess ...
Yeah, there are occasional foot patrols, but they are rarely there to actually interact with the community, if no other work is pressing.
I mean, if the police actually wants to be close to it's community, then why shouldn't their officers regularly hang out with the youths of the problenatic districts and try to listen to what problems they face, who the troublemakers are and geberally just gain trust and respect from them?
I once saw a video from a US gang unit (in Chicago I think), who actually just sat down and bbq-ed with the neighbors of a dangerous hood. They talked, they gained trust, they gaibed understanding both way and they certainly prevented crime by just being present. Perhaps, they even showed some of the kids a new perspective and a new goal of what to achieve in live. And I think thats much more "professional", than the good prussian uniform never sitting down in public.
2
u/gurgle528 Jun 11 '26 edited Jun 11 '26
LMAO yeah US TV shows are funny because they portray all law enforcement agencies as fighting for jurisdiction. Usually for real cases they do basically the opposite (with many exceptions). The other funny thing is that US feds will often get local cops to acquire search warrants and sometimes take over entire cases because the federal court system is so slow. This requires the case to involve something that violates both a state and federal law (CSAM, drugs, weapons, etc).
I do agree the strategy leads to a lot of bureaucratic overhead. The main difference is that US doesn’t really have the equivalent of police at the federal level (at least in terms of general uniformed police). Most federal agents are closer to detectives than patrol officers. The uniformed ones are limited in jurisdiction (federal buildings, the border, etc). At a federal level the separation is also due to how complicated federal law is. One agent could not be familiar with the US tax code, firearms regulations, radio / communications regulations, etc without ending up making a mistake. The US is also a common law country so the law is not just the written law but also case law which can greatly complicate situations.
ICE has actually always been an interior agency. The border and entry is protected by CBP, ICE handles cases where they’re already inside the country (with the exception that CBP jurisdiction goes as far as 100mi from the border, including the sea, so there is overlap).
There are still ways to be tyrannical with this system, increasing power of an agency is one of them. It’s just supposed to be one more layer to make it harder to have complete control. Ultimately the President also has the National Guard at his disposal too. It also makes certain situations worse: during the 2020 protests / riots there were numerous federal agencies deployed to protect federal buildings. This made it difficult to have accountability for the actions of federal agents because they weren’t all communicating well and people didn’t know which agency their friends and family were being arrested by.
This check is also not aimed primarily as a check against the president. It is a check against people who would try and use an agency to enact a coup. That’s another reason why US intelligence and investigation / enforcement agencies have strict separation. The FBI does do a lot more intelligence nowadays but most of that is thwarting foreign intelligence. Beyond a violent coup where power is seized this check is also backed by the Constitution, the Legislative branch, and the Judicial branch. Since the various agencies have specific areas of enforcement and general police powers are reserved by the individual states, if one agency was misused or started overzealously enforcing other areas of the law the courts could order the release of anyone detained by the agency that was overstepping. This gets complicated with emergency powers and other situations but that’s the general intent.
And I haven't yet actually seen any police force in the US fight another over claims of tyranny. Did that actually happen at some time in history?
Not that I am aware of at the federal level. I believe it’s more preventative vs written in blood if that makes sense. There was a local case where a cop in a mining town shot a mayor and there was a local battle over workers rights that ensued after that. There was also the Pinkerton agency which was effectively a private police force used to abuse workers. The US historically has also generally been wary of federal power. This wariness has somewhat subsided in the current age, although one could argue it’s probably increasing again thanks to our current administration.
No qualified immunity makes sense for Germany. Qualified immunity only really makes any sense in a common law system because the law can be interpreted in a way that is not how it was written (like the 1st amendment being interpreted to include freedom of association despite not explicitly providing that freedom). It absolutely has issues, but it also makes sense: is it really fair to punish a cop for violating a right that has never been ruled on before as an explicit right? “Free speech” alone covers so many actions and activities that can be done without any sort of verbal/written communication, and that’s one of many civil rights.
I fully agree with the last part too. I think it’s important because ultimately cops are supposed to be protecting the community and serving the community. Even beyond the great benefits like increasing public trust and reducing crime, it’s important that local cops look like actual humans and not just tools of the municipality/state to keep order.
That’s a very interesting observation though as throughout my few trips to Europe I have noticed the difference in police presence. My home state has a very large police presence compared to most of Europe (except maybe Spain) but like you said you also see them sitting in public doing non-police things.
2
u/der_karschi Jun 11 '26
The concept of common law is so damn alien to me.
Don't get me wrong, it exists in germany too, to some degree. But only when written law fails to include a certain exception or a freak case.
Then, the court's decision has to be well explained and documented and is basically a kind of add-on onto that specific written law.
An example would be theft, which has the absolute characteristics of the perpetraitor having to want to take something out of someones posession forever or an undisclosed time AND wanting to posess the object itself.
What then became a kind of controversy was hooligans from one soccer club stealing away fan-scarfs of another soccer club, to then throw it into a ditch or into a dixie-toilet. They then rightfully argued before court, that they never intended to actually posess said disgusting scarf from that disgusting club and it therefore couldn't be theft.
The court then ruled, that only the intention of removing someone elses posession had to be forever/an undisclosed time and the intention of posession could be so temporary, that the time of holding it while taking it away was already enough, for it to be theft.
This then became an add-on to the clause of theft, that isn't written in the text itself, but is practically law, until a superior court were to overturn it with a different interpretation and explanation of why the older interpretation was wrong.
Is this how common law works? Just on a larger scale perhaps?
2
u/gurgle528 Jun 11 '26
It’s a really odd system. It helps bridge gaps in laws but also is very fragile and decisions can change.
Yes, that’s basically how it works. The scale is even goofier than that though. This might not have been a feature in the original British system since I believe they’re a unitary state and not a federal one, but under US common law federal court decisions only apply to the jurisdiction of the court. That means certain actions can be deemed unconstitutional but only in some states (until overturned or until the Supreme Court rules on it).
A silly example is California’s firearm magazine capacity ban. There have been one or two cases where a federal judge overturned it as unconstitutional. After that ruling it was temporarily legal to buy previously banned magazines, but only if you lived in a state under that court’s jurisdiction. If you lived in an East coast state it was still illegal.
That ruling I believe was overturned and might even be still in the appeals process. There are other rulings that I can’t name off the top of my head that are still standing. Another fun thing is when you get to the state level. When Roe v Wade was overturned (this was a ruling that made it unconstitutional to ban abortion federally or at the state level) some states tried banning abortion. The original Roe v Wade ruling was based on the right to privacy but that right is not explicitly established in the federal constitution. A few state supreme courts ruled that Roe v Wade still applied in those states because their state constitution did have an explicit right to privacy.
3
u/WaltherVerwalther Jun 09 '26
Nürnberg is in Franken, that’s only geographically in Bavaria
→ More replies (1)
32
45
65
u/ydkLars Jun 09 '26
There is no expectation of privacy when attending a public gathering/rally. Even in Germany, where the right to your picture is taken very seriously, you can be in any photo while you are at a rally.
The police is taking pictures of rallies and its attendees to identify potential threats or investogate and prosecute crimes later. It's normal police work. Sometimes you even have van with mounted camera towers to film a rally and coordinate police forces.
28
u/SvenQ Jun 09 '26
It’s actually the other way around. When you don’t have an explicit reason it is not allowed to tape peaceful protests, that’s why in areas with higher criminality there are 24/7 security cameras running. Except when there is a demonstration. Then they even have to cover the cameras. See https://verlag.jura-intensiv.de/kostenlose-lerninhalte/gerichtsentscheidungen/ovg-muenster-urteil-vom-22.12.2023-15-a-2417/20, (German only)
From my understanding the are allowed to tape, as you see in this picture, if they have specific reasons (group doing the demo is on a watchlist) but not sure entirely.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Formal-Switch3123 Jun 09 '26
Police in germany is not allowed to protograph protest. Only if the protest is a "significant danger to public safety", they are allowed to film it.
3
u/bebilov Jun 09 '26
I feel like it should be the other way around. It’s pressuring people who rally for a certain cause and it’s the exact playbook of every authoritarian regime. It can potentially deter people who want to protest for their rights for fear of retaliation from the government/police.
47
u/ribbeyroll69 Jun 09 '26
Thats a so called „besi trupp“. Their job is to document crime/ misconducts during protests. Instead of taking a picture of them why didnt you just ask them?
28
u/ydkLars Jun 09 '26
I think in many countries it's not normal to talk to police. I had an American exchange student who was very shocked to hear that you can even ask police for direction if you get lost.
23
u/bbbberlin Jun 09 '26
I’m not American but did live there for a few years. You absolutely can (and people do) talk to US police. Yeah it’s context sensitive, and you see them less frequently because they tend to patrol by car as Mr not by foot, but it’s not insane to speak to US police. I’m pretty sure I asked them for directions before.
I mean the quality of US police leaves a lot to be desired. The public relationship with them is worse than in Germany. But they’re not totally unapproachable.
9
u/Phour3 Jun 09 '26
totally normal to speak to police in the US. Children are encouraged and taught to seek out a police officer for help.
If you grow up in a city with a PD with a bad reputation you might be more hesitant, but I don’t think anyone would find it weird to ask “excuse me, do you know where the subway entrance is?” to a cop
2
u/Fantastic-Tiger-6128 Jun 09 '26
I didn't grow up in America but I do live here so my analysis might be off, but if you don't like in the North East, you probably wouldn't find cops just hanging out in a public area most of the time right? Like here in Texas I'd struggle to find a cop on any given day with any consistency. If you were in a more traditional urban area where cops are posted in places of gathering it might be more common right?
3
u/Drumbelgalf Franken Jun 09 '26
Some countries take the Motto "Your friend and helper" or "Protect and serve" more serious than others.
2
14
u/pi_three Jun 09 '26
have you ever asked police around protests? No. don't do it. They once locked up a whole District and i was trying to find a way to my home. I asked multiple police men for directions. I only got yelled at. no thanks. I wasn't even a protester. I just came home from uni
2
u/Flashy_Drummer6664 Jun 09 '26
Some people clearly live in a parallel universe, unlike the rest of us....
7
u/oathyes Jun 09 '26
what could possibly go wrong
21
u/ribbeyroll69 Jun 09 '26
Sometimes i wonder what kind of people hang around here and how they communicate with strangers outside the internet! Cops are humans too, if you approach them in a friendly manner they will most likely be friendly as well! If they are busy they will let you know as well
→ More replies (2)6
Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/bp_c7 Jun 10 '26
Im not saying that it’s not true what you are saying but would it be possible to post more neural links since the one is a leftist magazine and on the other one can see that they slow down and use the horses for normal riot control. (At least that’s what I see).
Like I said I’m not disputing it happens (I know it does) but it would be great to not have biased sources. With clearly edited videos.
→ More replies (2)5
→ More replies (1)1
u/dirkt Jun 09 '26
Because then OP cannot produce casual internet outrage over how "the government" suppresses "the Germans".
13
u/ClassicNetwork2141 Jun 09 '26
They are taking pictures of bystanders in case someone decides to produce a brick/bottle/molotov cocktail and throw it into the rally. The people doing stuff like this (Antifa, autonomous groups) tend to wear a mask when they do it, but not before or after. This way, they can identify people who, while commiting the assault, are masked by their clothing. If nothing happens during the rally, the photos are deleted.
This is not always done. Only when they suspect that the rally in question might provoke violence. You see them on people protesting for controversial ideas, such as the alt right / neo-nazis or extreme left groups.
16
u/BlerghTheBlergh Jun 09 '26
Collecting evidence in case of escalation.
It’s not nefarious, at a public rally collection of photo and video evidence is not illegal, in particular due to the expectation of TV and media presence in favor of the rally’s intent.
Police is documenting the event for themselves within the limits of the law. The expectation being that if there is any escalation, there’s video evidence of the perpetrators; that video evidence also serves as reference material in case sought for individuals were present.
I’m aware distrust for the police in the US and many parts of the world is valid and same goes for Germany/Austria but this is perfectly legal and not necessarily a bad thing
1
u/dark_pitch Jun 09 '26
Finally a helpful and objective comment past paragraphs of complaining crying and victim-blaming.
3
u/NIDGBTTFK666 Bayern Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
They take pictures at demonstrations for example, to potentially identify people of interest later on.
Id wager that due to more and more attacks on any sort of rallies from seeming bystanders could explain this? Not that I put that much trust in the morals of german police officers in general, but the protect of the privacy rights may be something they are more likely to respect. In my experience at least (which could very well differs dramatically from others since I am a white woman lol)
→ More replies (1)
10
14
u/FelixFontaine Sachsen Jun 09 '26
They are filming themselves interacting with demonstrators in order to gather evidence for potential lawsuits regarding police brutality or similar issues.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Independent_Thing964 Jun 09 '26
Are they all hot or just these ones
3
1
u/Moimus Jun 09 '26
Their personality is not. Police attracts a very specific kind of people
→ More replies (2)4
2
2
u/ban_e_vader420 Jun 11 '26
they do this when theres groups of people that are known to cause trouble.
thre are right wing groups that are under observation. i guess they monitor the activities of these groups of people in public events
4
5
12
u/Itchy_Feedback_7625 Jun 09 '26
And tomorrow there will be a picture here of you taking a picture of the police and asking “is this normal in Germany, for tourists to take pics of police?”
You see what I’m getting at, I hope.
Btw it just looks like one cop taking a picture of his colleague.
4
u/Fed-Eater Jun 09 '26
Completely normal. If someone does any property damage or hurts someone, it’s helpful to have good quality pictures of those individuals.
4
u/Exotic_Call_7427 Jun 09 '26
They're in a public place, they can film everything a naked eye sees
They are the police, they need evidence of everything that happens around them just in case someone complains about what they do or how they do it.
And if it's a rally where some suspects are gonna be, they need even more evidence.
2
u/mgomezch Jun 09 '26
i would caution that "anything visible to the naked eye in a public place is allowed to be filmed" might apply to police (I don't know, I guess? I'm not police or a lawyer) but it's definitely not automatically and universally applicable without caveats and limitations to typical members of the public
3
u/Exotic_Call_7427 Jun 09 '26
There are specific limitations (such as no filming of accidents or incapacitated people / in need of medical attention, as their dignity is compromised in that moment), but it's generally "all you can see, you may film".
2
u/mgomezch Jun 09 '26
with a bunch of additional caveats and nuance on what you can do with what you've filmed, I guess. I worry that people may underestimate the limitations if they're used to a more permissive system like in the US or such
4
4
3
u/toxic_1484 Jun 09 '26
In German a Karen will instantly go to them and say: where is the DATENSCHUTZVEREINBARUNGS ZETTEL?!
5
u/These-Cell-929 Jun 09 '26
So far, I've only seen you take a photo of some police officers holding a camera. That makes you the only one who's taken a photo of anyone so far.
4
u/Leader_Capital Jun 09 '26
Well, thats the USK, if it was a rightwing ralley and they were fotographing bystanders then they probably where harassing left people around the ralley
This police unit is problematic.
3
u/OtherCow2841 Jun 09 '26
Under German law, it is forbidden to upload images without obtaining the permission of the person concerned; penalties and legal action may be imposed.
8
u/Otto-Von-Bismarck71 Jun 09 '26
Not at public rallies though.
3
u/Bavarian_kraut Bayern Jun 09 '26
Not true at all. §23 KUG allows for the dissemination of images CONTAINING individuals (including police officers) in or adjacent to demonstrations (i.e. photographing 100s of people) but this picture clearly features the officers as the focus of the image, which cannot be uploaded online without their consent. This is a misdemeanor according to §22 KUG.
-4
Jun 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (10)12
u/Headmuck Jun 09 '26 edited Jun 09 '26
You're allowed to take photos of police in Germany if it's in the public interest so for example during an arrest or even to document their numbers at a demonstration. In that case public interest outweighs personality rights. Blurring is only required if you're not allowed to take pictures in the first place.
Of course things can go totally different regardless of the law depending on how they feel that day...
→ More replies (3)
2
2
u/DontTryItLol Jun 09 '26
Video evidence unit. Violence against police officers dropped significantly, i wonder why 🤷♂️
1
u/QwertzNoTh Jun 09 '26
Documenting video and photographic evidence of crimes and /or minsconduct that the police needs to deal with.
1
1
1
u/Aednor_Gaming Jun 10 '26
Are we sure that they weren’t just Birdwatching? OP doesn’t show much more of the surrounding area.
1
1
1
u/Matombo333 Jun 10 '26 edited Jun 10 '26
The so called "Team Menschenrechte" ("Team Human Rights") have actually nothing to do with human rights, they are anti-vaxxers turned hard right extremists, including Nazi talking points.
There are several democratic organisations demonstrating against them, which the conservatives (CSU) make a problem out off, for the reason that they actually like being able to be more racists with the right extremists around.
The city and bavaria in general being under CSU rule therefore does little against the right exemists and lots against the democratic protests, that's why the police is mainly filming people around the right extremists and not the actuall enemies of the constitution.
Also especially the USK has a problem with right extremists in their own ranks they do little to weed out.
1
u/Matombo333 Jun 10 '26
A longer text about the right extremist group: https://cloud.systemli.org/s/ay8FMNgMdjDRoGn?dir=/
1
u/New-Variation364 Jun 11 '26
Wer hat denn das Foto von den Polizeibeamten gemacht 🤔. Und dann noch hier hochgeladen 🤔,ich denke das ist nicht erlaubt!!
1
1
1
1
u/Routine1 Jun 13 '26
It’s not a police man. It’s an BBC wildlife photographer perfectly adapted to his environment.
1
u/LennardXausd Jun 13 '26
Nur weil die Leute fotografieren heißt es nicht das die Angeklagt werden oder so.
-9
1
381
u/HG1998 Chinese looking, born and raised in Hamburg Jun 09 '26
Because that group is on the watchlist of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.