Excessesive Force

a reply to: Sillyolme
Morin Silly! How are you this fine morning?
I stared your last, dear.

a reply to: CharlesT

You asked a question. I answered the question as best I could with what I understood your question to be aimed at. You started talking about how buying Sudafed is a pain in the ass for you. I don’t see that as remotely relevant to what you asked or what I answered.

If you want to read that as you made too much sense, go for it.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: andy06shake

You obviously don't know the laws most places have that protect people on their own property. If police do not announce themselves where I am from they are not protected... I'm pretty sure a quick Google search will provide examples if you care to look.

So, what you are really saying is..after they blast you, and maybe your family to kingdom come, a court will later say "he was within his rights"

Very helpful to you..right?

a reply to: LSU2018

This isnt the media making cops look bad, its cops making cops look that bad, and is the reason for this post

a reply to: Shamrock6
It's all tied together. We elect stupid politicians to represent us that don't have the slightest clue about our Republic and Constitution. They start out going after a House seat and then, like Tom cotton, move into the upper chamber where they intended to be all along. I use cotton as an expampe because he and I are from the same state. The only thing of note he has done is to attend the annual Koch brothers annual political event.

A constitution that they have probably never even read or studied in the first place, so they pass asinine do-gooder laws that our constitution prohibits in the first place and expect law enforcement to oversee our strict adherence to these stupid do-gooder laws, that infringe on our liberties while many officers approach the responsibilities with excessive vigor and an attitude that we are their subjects to be treated as such.
It's all tied together. Yes, we are governed by idiots.

I have a nephew that just left the US Army after 8 years as a Captain and Apache gunship pilot that served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Unlike Tom cotton, who I think only went into the Army to pad his record to run for political office, I am trying to get him to seek office in the US House of Representatives. I haven't had any success as of yet but he truly does have the right stuff.

The real problem we have is just to many people just vote for a pretty face or are caught up in all of a candidate's slathering on the BS to convince the ill-informed to vote for them. Once the get there, it is virtually impossible to get rid of them. Corporate monies are lavished on them and they build such a war-chest they can hardly be dislodged. And our Supreme Court is complicit in this subversion by declaring corporate entities have the same rights as citizens. What is going on here is not an assault against Trump. It's bigger than that. It's an international cabal of actors to destroy our Republic and bring us all into their socialist collective.

I could go on but my fingers are getting tired.

Have a good day.

I don't blame the cops. After all, they are human as well and subject to all of the difficulties and temptations as anyone else. I don't begrudge them for trying to do their best at what they have dedicated themselves to. Actually, I fairly well respect them because they do have to put up with so much crap in their daily lives.

a reply to: thefourthjokerscard

Perhaps you should examine the history of law enforcement (and professional law enforcement) in this country. From SWAT to modern day SRT and patrol armed with tactical carbines the evolution of the American law enforcement officer has followed trends in crime and new data on responses to those crimes

What is now called an "active shooter" generally always turned into a barricade suspect in decades past. Whereas the old strategy was to surround & hold and smoke/wait them out nowadays the emphasis is on interdiction and rapid confrontation of the shooter. Reason? It has been shown to save lives while not being significantly more risky for the law enforcement officer.

In short, it isn't the police you should be worrying about. It is gangs, criminals, anti-police rhetoric and a culture that is all too quick to glorify that degeneracy.

When your job is to confront armed and dangerous criminals, apprehend or stop them and save innocent lives there is no time to wait. While this proposal is clearly a non-starter, any attempt to do so would result in immediate mass-resignations

Why are you more concerned about the 1:1000000 case of excessive force when officers are being killed almost every day and attacked violently every single day.

a reply to: thefourthjokerscard

There are about 700,000 officers in the US if you combine the numbers. Around 250 million interactions a year.

We see what, a handful of cases a month that make the news due to accusations of bad behavior?

All disarming them would do is make it easier for criminals and far more dangerous for the cops. I'm sure criminals would be thrilled, but law abiding people, not so much.

I'd imagine the number of times a day an officer deals with finding the person has a gun in an ordinary traffic stop adds up to many. Each of those would have the potential to see an officer shot if they know for a fact the officer is unarmed.

I think you would be talking about a lot more dead cops. Imagine dealing with inner cities gangs unarmed?

I get the idea, but it's clearly a very bad one, with the cops being the victims and criminals being the winners.

38 officers have been gunned down this year so far and 47 officers killed last year with guns. How much worse would it be if they brought a taser to a gun fight? They would be sitting ducks, but of course criminals would have orgasms over that. Sorry, I can't side with dangerous criminals over cops, most of whom are good people doing a tough job few people want.

Maybe stop falling for the myth that all cops are bad, when clearly nearly all of them are good people doing their jobs. Stop buying into the click bait articles on the Internet and the edited video's showing only what they want you to see to support lies.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Grimpachi

One reason is using names of informants.

There can be nefarious reasons for doing anything. That doesn’t mean there are only nefarious reasons for it. I’m glad you’re “sure” nobody would want to see that and I admit it was a bit of a silly example. The fact remains that those who demand continuous recording and access to the recording by anybody who wants it are pushing for things they have zero reason or right to.

If there is footage of informants that could be handled by blanking it later or not releasing it by the purview of authority through the legal system. Otherwise, recordings are accessible to the public through FOIA requests. As for continuous recording officers that can be made mandatory. It should be part of the job. Surveillance of employees is a common thing when they are at work. I think a middle ground should be longer buffers for the cameras. Instead of the 30 seconds prior buffer extend that to an hour both before and after. The good cops are under more scrutiny because of the actions of the bad ones. If they self-policed the bad ones the public would have more trust in them, but because that doesn't seem to be happening the police are sure to see things like continuous surveillance of themselves in the future because the trust has been broken far too often.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If there is footage of informants that could be handled by blanking it later or not releasing it by the purview of authority through the legal system.

All that does is change who it is that’s censoring the video, effectively kicking the can down the road. I get that officers manipulating video is a problem, but simply letting somebody else manipulate the video isn’t really a solution. It’s already logged when an officer activates and deactivated the camera, and when it’s muted.

As for continuous recording officers that can be made mandatory. It should be part of the job. Surveillance of employees is a common thing when they are at work.

Employees aren’t surveilled in the bathroom. You haven’t addressed that at all.

The good cops are under more scrutiny because of the actions of the bad ones.

Not really. Good cops are under more scrutiny because everybody has a cell phone, a Facebook law degree, and a media who’s foaming at the mouth for anything they can spin into a police brutality and/or racial incident.

If they self-policed the bad ones the public would have more trust in them, but because that doesn't seem to be happening

Meh. It happens. Getting to watch video of cops taking a crap on the job isn’t going to change it for the better, or worse.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Meh. It happens. Getting to watch video of cops taking a crap on the job isn’t going to change it for the better, or worse.

It may stop them from pulling evidence out of their asses.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Shamrock6

Meh. It happens. Getting to watch video of cops taking a crap on the job isn’t going to change it for the better, or worse.

It may stop them from pulling evidence out of their asses.

Touché, hadn't thought of that angle lol

a reply to: Shamrock6

We're polar opposites but I still like you, you have a sense of humour.

a reply to: Shamrock6

All that does is change who it is that’s censoring the video, effectively kicking the can down the road. I get that officers manipulating video is a problem, but simply letting somebody else manipulate the video isn’t really a solution. It’s already logged when an officer activates and deactivated the camera, and when it’s muted.

What I am saying is if there is an actual record then that would solve a lot of things. Maybe you are right and the video will be manipulated by a superior back at the precinct, but I think that wouldn't happen very often because it would be obvious manipulation and a jury of peers 9 out of 10 times would see it for what it is.

The first video I posted was of an officer that wasn't even turning in his videos. The second was where the officer turned off his video and claimed ignorance then turned it back on to say I found something in the same place that was already cleared. The proverbial evidence out of his ass.
Right now I don't think cameras are doing a good job of catching the bad cops because they have ways to manipulate what is seen but they seem to be doing a decent job of catching the dumb ones.

Employees aren’t surveilled in the bathroom. You haven’t addressed that at all.

I thought you admitted you were being silly. OK, so how about he takes the camera off and puts it in his pocket for bathroom breaks. Unless he arrests someone while on the crapper I don't think anyone will be questioning the lack of footage. Maybe a new code for bathroom break 10-B2

Not really. Good cops are under more scrutiny because everybody has a cell phone, a Facebook law degree, and a media who’s foaming at the mouth for anything they can spin into a police brutality and/or racial incident.

The media doesn't report on even half of what is caught on people's cell phones.

a reply to: Grimpachi

it would be obvious manipulation and a jury of peers 9 out of 10 times would see it for what it is.

It’s already obvious. That’s how the officers you mentioned get caught: it’s logged when a BWC is activated, deactivated, and muted. When policy dictates a BWC has to be activated during certain situations and an officer routinely has no footage to upload, it’s noticed. It doesn’t happen immediately, but it catches up eventually.

I thought you admitted you were being silly.

The example is silly, that doesn’t mean it’s not a good example nor does it negate the premise of the argument. Privacy is still an issue. Putting a BWC in your pocket doesn’t do anything since a BWC on your vest won’t see you taking a dump anyway. It’ll still hear it.

The media doesn't report on even half of what is caught on people's cell phones.

Bold statement for something you can’t possibly provide a source for.

The bottom line is that a BWC is a tool, like anything else on an officer’s belt. And like any other tool, it can be abused and misused. BWCs work but they are not infallible or fool proof. No amount of trying to make them so is going to change that.

The ACLU of all places wrote a pretty illustrative paper on BWC policies and pitfalls. Even they don’t believe a policy requiring continuous recording is a cure-all, and some of their reasons are ones I’ve touched on here. The best solution for everybody is a good policy, with good compliance, and good enforcement.