User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » Perpetual "Cop Shoots an Unarmed Person" Thread Page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 68, Prev Next  
y0willy0
All American
7863 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Once cameras go into effect they will feel the need to enforce eveything which may suck more for the general public."


Might suck less for the dead people?

4/9/2015 3:56:08 PM

JeffreyBSG
All American
10165 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^^
it's not at ALL clear to me that attaching a camera to every policeman would save lives. It might EASILY fuck with their heads so much that they'd be less effective at enforcing laws and protecting the public, which would mean MORE non-policemen killing each other.

it just seems like an immensely crude, simplistic "solution" to me.

4/9/2015 3:59:24 PM

y0willy0
All American
7863 Posts
user info
edit post

Isn't it being tried in some cities already anyway? Are there any results yet from those tests?

4/9/2015 4:02:05 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm not against body cameras, but I have some reservations. My biggest concerns are:

A) The camera doesn't capture that officers state of mind of a trained and reasonable officer and that is the true test of reasonableness in a use of force.

B) People who want to report crime, but not be shown. What protections will that person have if they come up to me an just say, "hey the live over there" or "they ran that way" during a call? You already have to turn over in-car footage in felony cases like a robbery, even if you just responded to set up crime scene tape.

C) It takes away discretion. I would feel compelled to give everyone a ticket or everyone a warning to avoid a complaint or civil litigation.

D) Job performance. Sometimes this job is ugly and we have to say or do things that aren't pretty and might look bad to people on the outside. But that is a benefit to the public, not a cost. You pay me to do your bidding.

On the flip side...

They can head off complaints and civil litigation. People do make shit up.

Other than that, if they are mandated, I'll wear one.

4/9/2015 4:03:24 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

Also, where is all this money for cameras coming from? Sure, the fed might create a grant, but that will run out and data storage, maintenance and replace costs money.

4/9/2015 4:04:29 PM

Smath74
All American
93263 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I'm not against body cameras, but I have some reservations. My biggest concerns are:

A) The camera doesn't capture that officers state of mind of a trained and reasonable officer and that is the true test of reasonableness in a use of force.

B) People who want to report crime, but not be shown. What protections will that person have if they come up to me an just say, "hey the live over there" or "they ran that way" during a call? You already have to turn over in-car footage in felony cases like a robbery, even if you just responded to set up crime scene tape.

C) It takes away discretion. I would feel compelled to give everyone a ticket or everyone a warning to avoid a complaint or civil litigation.

D) Job performance. Sometimes this job is ugly and we have to say or do things that aren't pretty and might look bad to people on the outside. But that is a benefit to the public, not a cost. You pay me to do your bidding.

On the flip side...

They can head off complaints and civil litigation. People do make shit up.

Other than that, if they are mandated, I'll wear one."

my post was buried on the last page, but this could solve most of those issues but still capture shooting situations...

Quote :
"Are there such things as gun cameras that activate when taken out of the holster? that way privacy 95% of the time is ensured until a possible shooting situation arises.

(they would have to be small and unobtrusive. i wouldn't want it to make the weapon less effective or accurate by throwing off the balance of it.)"


thoughts from someone who has been a LEO?

(looks like they do exist... http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2008/01/gun-camera.aspx )

[Edited on April 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2015 4:07:42 PM

Bullet
All American
26662 Posts
user info
edit post

I would think that most police departments could sell their unnecessary military equipment to pay for the cameras?

4/9/2015 4:08:06 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"thoughts from someone who has been a LEO?"


I still thank you have issues w/ state of mind, cost and practicality. Plus you will just limit yourself/department to shootings.

4/9/2015 4:21:49 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I would think that most police departments could sell their unnecessary military equipment to pay for the cameras?"


IIRC, federal law would have to change because items procured from the federal government can never be sold to the public. An agency I worked for still has Vietnam era M14's that aren't issued and they can't get rid of.

4/9/2015 4:23:51 PM

synapse
play so hard
60312 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"What Happens When Police Officers Wear Body Cameras

Use of force by police officers declined 60% in first year since introduction of cameras in Rialto, Calif."


Quote :
"Sometimes, like the moments leading up to when a police officer decides to shoot someone, transparency is an unalloyed good. And especially lately, technology has progressed to a point that it makes this kind of transparency not just possible, but routine.

So it is in Rialto, Calif., where an entire police force is wearing so-called body-mounted cameras, no bigger than pagers, that record everything that transpires between officers and citizens. In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.

It isn't known how many police departments are making regular use of cameras, though it is being considered as a way of perhaps altering the course of events in places such as Ferguson, Mo., where an officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager.

What happens when police wear cameras isn't simply that tamper-proof recording devices provide an objective record of an encounter—though some of the reduction in complaints is apparently because of citizens declining to contest video evidence of their behavior—but a modification of the psychology of everyone involved.

The effect of third-party observers on behavior has long been known: Thomas Jefferson once advised that "whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching." Psychologists have confirmed this intuition, showing that something as primitive as a poster with a pair of glaring eyes can make test subjects behave better, and even reduce theft in an area.

One problem with the cameras, however, has been cost. Fortunately, fierce competition between the two most prominent vendors of the devices, Vievu LLC and Taser International Inc., which makes the cameras used by Rialto police, has driven the price of individual cameras down to between $300 and $400. Unfortunately, one place where expenses can mount is in the storage and management of the data they generate.

Both Taser and Vievu offer cloud-based storage systems for a monthly subscription fee. Think of it as an evidence room-as-a-service, where vendors are happy to see police departments outsource some of their most critical functions, and be subject to the same kind of vendor lock-in that can make corporate IT managers wary of the cloud.

But Taser's system stores video data on Amazon.com Inc.'s cloud, where prices are falling rapidly, and there isn't much about cameras from either vendor that couldn't be reproduced by an enterprising startup. Given that body-worn cameras use components from the mobile industry, where prices are ground down by scale and competition, it's possible police forces will soon be able to come up with their own solutions, or use off-the shelf products such as Google Glass.

These are all reasons that Michael White, a professor of criminology at Arizona State University and, as the sole author of the Justice Department's report on police and body-mounted cameras, says the cameras, now a curiosity, could soon be ubiquitous. It has happened before: Taser's guns went from introduction to use by more than two-thirds of America's 18,000 police departments in about a decade. "It could be as little as 10 years until we see most police wearing these," says Dr. White.

Not everyone is happy about this possibility. After an order by a federal judge that the New York Police Department equip officers with body-worn cameras in some districts, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association issued a report declaring that they would be an "encumbrance." In the mid-1990s the rollout of dashboard cameras, now standard issue in most patrol cars, met the same resistance, which is why Dr. White says it is important that the adoption of this technology be accomplished through consensus.

"There is a presumption that citizens will be happy with this because it seems to provide more transparency and accountability, but that might not be the case, especially in areas where there are long-term tensions between police and their communities," says Dr. White.

Still, privacy issues abound, and rules about protecting both witnesses and police must be established and tested. Officers would have to turn on their cameras during every encounter with citizens, argues the American Civil Liberties Union, but there might be exceptions, such as when officers are interviewing victims of assault, says Dr. White.

None of these issues have stopped police forces in the U.K., where departments have a decade head start on their counterparts in the U.S., from ever-wider adoption. Police in England and Wales are engaged in large-scale trials, and the aim is to make body-worn cameras standard issue.

In the U.K., where tests with them began in 2005, studies have shown that they aid in the prosecution of crimes, by providing additional, and uniquely compelling, evidence. In the U.S., in some instances they have shortened the amount of time required to investigate a shooting by police from two-to-three months to two-to-three days.

And they represent yet one more way we are being recorded by means that could eventually be leaked to the public.

Of course, sometimes events happen that accelerate the adoption of a technological fix. The tragic irony is that police in Ferguson have a stock of body-worn cameras, but have yet to deploy them to officers.
"


http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-happens-when-police-officers-wear-body-cameras-1408320244

[Edited on April 9, 2015 at 4:38 PM. Reason : ]

4/9/2015 4:32:32 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6501 Posts
user info
edit post

ohhhh noessss, teh cops won't let my white ass off the hook for speeding if they cameras is on.

Maybe we'll actually see arrest rate statistics that are actually somewhat representative of the makeup of society.

I get that there are some legit concerns on cameras being everywhere, and I do feel some regret with forcing cameras on the respectable, decent cops - but jesus, look around, we gotta try something beyond shitty protests and scolding. In the end, cameras probably won't be the total answer we are looking for, but at least its an effort.

as a compliment to cameras, and to take the sting out of them for the decent cops, I'd try to make cops a more selective force (we are overcopped as it is IMO), more highly trained, and pay them accordingly. I know they get a lot of training now (correct me if you think I'm wrong here) but it should be more intense and difficult, more emphasis on how to defuse situations, how to approach situations to keep themselves safe, mental illness training and sensitivity training, a bit less emphasis on the SWAT shit (unless they are in a specialty position). More difficult training will help to weed out some of the more marginal cops and will automatically add to the prestige of the job (over a period of time). The cops that make it through this should be PAID ACCORDINGLY for their new training and as an acknowledgement that, hey, you are a highly trained professional now and, yea, you get into situations that most of us take great efforts to avoid.

4/9/2015 5:36:43 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"ohhhh noessss, teh cops won't let my white ass off the hook for speeding if they cameras is on."


It's not so much that, but when I do give you a warning and I give another person a ticket and they pull video of every stop I've ever done and file a discrimination suit saying I let you off because you are white/black/asian/purple and they were white/black/asian/purple.

4/9/2015 5:49:04 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6501 Posts
user info
edit post

what is the basis for giving someone a warning vs an actual ticket anyways?

I always thought it was the officer didn't have the evidence they needed to REALLY write the ticket. For instance, you blew by them in the opposite direction, they knew you were speeding (it was pretty obvious), but they didn't have a radar reading to confirm (so they are essentially estimating the entire thing)??

4/9/2015 6:12:50 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

It all depends. Did you run make an illegal U-turn because you were lost? Were you speeding to the hospital because your wife is in labor? Did you know that the car you just bought what improperly registered? It goes on and on. No clear cut and decisive answer.

4/9/2015 6:37:42 PM

eleusis
All American
24525 Posts
user info
edit post

I would only support cameras on officers if they get to upload all of the ignorant shit they put up with on a day-to-day basis onto youtube. It would be like a bootleg version of "COPS".

The dashcam video was released today, showing he took off running but had a passenger just sitting nonchalantly in the car the whole time the chase/shooting is taking place. I don't know what I'd do if I was in a car where the driver took off running from the cops, but I think I would probably take off running in the other direction and not wait for one/both of them to come back.

4/9/2015 6:44:02 PM

BJCaudill21
Not an alcoholic
7999 Posts
user info
edit post

Seems like a good way to make the extra money for the cameras. Sell stupid videos for a show

4/9/2015 6:48:00 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6501 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"It all depends. Did you run make an illegal U-turn because you were lost? Were you speeding to the hospital because your wife is in labor? Did you know that the car you just bought what improperly registered? It goes on and on. No clear cut and decisive answer."


So its arbitrary, and that's a part of the problem. We give cops huge leeway to make decisions, and there is some pretty significant and compelling evidence that it is abused by certain departments on a frequent enough basis that it is a significant national problem.

If you pull over 50 white people and 20 black people (or something perfectly representative of your, population) and ticket 50% of whites and 90% of blacks (don't forget that pregnant wives and other explanations will also be captured on video), then.........don't you think that might deserve some investigation???

Granted, there are some possible explanations for strange statistics in pullover/ticket/arrest statistics. I get that and I'm sympathetic that some of these can be misrepresented, but I'm a big believer in weighing the current problem we are trying to solve versus the possible slippery slope/unintentional consequences scenarios. Its a matter of where do you think we are? Are we in a situation where some isolated shootings are being overrepresented by the media in regards to general, everyday policing in the US, or can a significant amount of policing be represented as two-tiered, possibly racist, overtly violent and callous?

That's debatable, and I'm open to arguments. The evidence from some departments we've seen over the past year in the news is damning. From my personal experience I've mostly just experienced one side, getting off the hook. (but I'm also a white male, and have openly thanked god/fate for that in several experiences in my life). I also realize that there are departments and locations where this probably isn't an overt problem

4/9/2015 7:31:33 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"don't you think that might deserve some investigation?"


No, because I don't pull people over because of the color of their skin. Nor does that play into the arrest/cite decision.

[Edited on April 9, 2015 at 7:40 PM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2015 7:36:27 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6501 Posts
user info
edit post

for you, and I believe it based off solely off your posting. What about some of these stats we've seen from other departments? Ferguson, NY and Chicago stop and frisk stats? Keep in mind these are some of the few departments that have received investigations. Do some of those officers, as individuals, need some more scrutiny?

4/9/2015 7:59:15 PM

Smath74
All American
93263 Posts
user info
edit post

in theory police are there to uphold the law and serve the public to the best of their ability. If there was a genuine traffic mistake (etc) sometimes a warning based on their professional judgement is the best call... It builds respect between the person pulled over and the police, saves the person who made the mistake unnecessary time and/or money, and reduces the chance the person will make the same mistake in the future. and sometimes a ticket is more appropriate, especially if it's a repeat offender, etc.

4/9/2015 8:05:25 PM

OopsPowSrprs
All American
8383 Posts
user info
edit post

I get the leeway argument but I don't trust the majority of cops to apply it as judiciously as the "good" ones do

4/9/2015 8:05:26 PM

Smath74
All American
93263 Posts
user info
edit post

but if every single judgement call for minor traffic infractions is put under draconian scrutiny, officers are more likely to just write more tickets (to protect them and their jobs), negating the very real positive benefits of a warning.

4/9/2015 8:09:14 PM

OopsPowSrprs
All American
8383 Posts
user info
edit post

Right. That's preferable to the current situation in my opinion.

4/9/2015 8:11:00 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
6501 Posts
user info
edit post

But only a portion of the population, in some cases, is receiving that positive benefit. What about those that are being left behind?

4/9/2015 8:14:17 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

I don't believe in stop and frisk at all. I'm not sure how they actually get away with it.

4/9/2015 8:37:53 PM

Str8BacardiL
************
41620 Posts
user info
edit post

See cameras give us gems like this too.....

4/9/2015 9:30:17 PM

EMCE
balls deep
89403 Posts
user info
edit post

haha, that is cold blooded

4/9/2015 9:34:05 PM

BlackJesus
Suspended
13089 Posts
user info
edit post

4/9/2015 9:50:02 PM

Big4Country
All American
11833 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Ya know, when you see shit like this, you can kind of understand why some people think best course of action when seeing a cop is to run as fucking fast as you can in the other direction."


But that is the worst thing you can do. Just stop and let then do whatever they are going to do. I'm glad the cop is getting charged in this though.

4/9/2015 9:50:40 PM

TreeTwista10
MyYouthIPrayToKeep
144670 Posts
user info
edit post

Yeah seriously. Just stop and let them murder you. Running away from a murderer is the WORST thing you can do.

4/9/2015 9:54:39 PM

EMCE
balls deep
89403 Posts
user info
edit post

4/9/2015 9:54:50 PM

BlackJesus
Suspended
13089 Posts
user info
edit post

Just say yessir and look at the floor boi

4/9/2015 9:57:52 PM

EMCE
balls deep
89403 Posts
user info
edit post

just let the police do whatever they're going to do. If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, ya know?

4/9/2015 10:02:08 PM

Big4Country
All American
11833 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Yeah seriously. Just stop and let them murder you. Running away from a murderer is the WORST thing you can do."


The article I read said they shot him with a stun gun first and then he got up and ran. That isn't a bright idea. Just surrender and go to court. I am glad the cop is getting charged though.

4/9/2015 10:18:48 PM

EMCE
balls deep
89403 Posts
user info
edit post

Eric Garner let the cops just do what they were going to do

They choked the life out of him on the sidewalk. Remember that?

4/9/2015 10:22:12 PM

MrGreen
All American
1660 Posts
user info
edit post

there are no good cops. there are bad cops and there are cops that look the other way. fuck the police. all of them.

4/9/2015 10:24:32 PM

0EPII1
All American
42299 Posts
user info
edit post

So apparently the car was/is in pristine condition, no broken lights.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3032646/First-picture-tail-lights-Mercedes-driven-Walter-Scott-shot-dead-South-Carolina-cop-shows-NOT-broken-brother-believes-victim-stopped-racial-profiling.html

His brother believes it was racial profiling, and nothing to do with the car. Car pics within link.

4/9/2015 10:25:01 PM

EMCE
balls deep
89403 Posts
user info
edit post

Oscar Grant was just letting the police do what they were going to do.


They ended up handcuffing him, and shooting him to death. Remember that?

4/9/2015 10:27:01 PM

0EPII1
All American
42299 Posts
user info
edit post

Dashcam footage released

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/09/police-dashcam-video-walter-scott-traffic-stop

4/9/2015 10:28:37 PM

EMCE
balls deep
89403 Posts
user info
edit post

Kelly Thomas was just letting the police do what they needed to do.

Several officers beat him to death. Remember that?

4/9/2015 10:31:07 PM

synapse
play so hard
60312 Posts
user info
edit post

I can't believe people are fucking victim blaming, in this, of all fucking scenarios.

I mean I'd like to think it's trolling or something, but even if so, at what price?

4/9/2015 10:33:40 PM

Big4Country
All American
11833 Posts
user info
edit post

^I'm not blaming, I am just saying I think I would remain still instead of running after getting shot with a stun gun.

Here is what the Onion had to say about it...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-pros-and-cons-of-body-cameras-for-police,38405/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:1efault

4/9/2015 10:42:30 PM

synapse
play so hard
60312 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I'm not blaming,"


In fact that's the exact fucking thing you're doing.

4/9/2015 10:43:18 PM

Str8BacardiL
************
41620 Posts
user info
edit post

I am watching the dashcam video on the news, tail lights definitely work, so underlying stop was on false pretenses.

4/9/2015 11:16:17 PM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

I really don't know much about the case other than the videos, but you don't have to tell the exact reason why you pulled them over.

I do it all the time w/ drunks. I'm not going to say, "ma'am/sir, the reason I pulled you over is because I think you are drunk...are you drunk?" I might tell them that their brake light is out and get them talk so I can try and smell alcohol or listen to their speech.

4/9/2015 11:46:07 PM

BridgetSPK
#1 Sir Purr Fan
31378 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm confused why this thread went past a page.

It doesn't matter what dude did. He coulda been pulled over with his wiener out and "Fuck the Police" scrawled across his bare chest.

He got shot in the back in 2015.

4/9/2015 11:55:35 PM

Str8BacardiL
************
41620 Posts
user info
edit post

I swear I am not looking for these, they are just popping up now in my news feed.

http://7online.com/news/exclusive-brooklyn-deli-manager-says-video-shows-detective-stealing-cash-during-raid/644309/

Quote :
""They said, 'Oh (expletive),'" Abdullah said. "'He's going to lose his pension, lose his life, for $2,600?'" "


If there were no video, the man would never have known who stole his rent money. Since there was, he found out it was the law who robbed him. smh

4/9/2015 11:59:38 PM

TreeTwista10
MyYouthIPrayToKeep
144670 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I do it all the time w/ drunks. I'm not going to say, "ma'am/sir, the reason I pulled you over is because I think you are drunk...are you drunk?" I might tell them that their brake light is out and get them talk so I can try and smell alcohol or listen to their speech."


So, you wouldn't say "The reason I pulled you over is because you crossed the double yellow line" or "because you were swerving"...you'd just make shit up about their brake light being out?

4/10/2015 12:04:16 AM

The E Man
Suspended
15268 Posts
user info
edit post

Man I'm gonna be so mad when this guy is acquitted

[Edited on April 10, 2015 at 12:09 AM. Reason : like nc state blowing a lead]

4/10/2015 12:09:04 AM

Restricted
All American
15536 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"So, you wouldn't say "The reason I pulled you over is because you crossed the double yellow line" or "because you were swerving"...you'd just make shit up about their brake light being out?"


Not all the time. You know know when its appropriate. The art of a traffic stop is a long topic.

4/10/2015 12:17:26 AM

 Message Boards » Chit Chat » Perpetual "Cop Shoots an Unarmed Person" Thread Page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 68, Prev Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2022 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.38 - our disclaimer.