the Michael Brown thread

[rayski]

When the police shot the guy with the knife, there were more than a few citizens around. Wouldn't you think the safety of bystanders would come into play. I guess maybe they knew no one could get in the line of fire. But still, if just one of the officers used a taser and it proved ineffective, the other could execute the elimination of the threat quite effectively I'm sure.

 

[Caligula]

Yes its an extreme example but I think it demonstrates my point. Its a balance that police need to have between security and violence. Right now I feel like its tilted too much towards violence.

There an inherent issue with using extreme examples to back up positions. Let's say Im making an argument that Islam is a dangerous religion. Discussion ensues, people bring up its only a minority of radical islamists... blah blah blah. My response is to show a video of the 9/11 attacks, saying "Yes its an extreme example but I think it demonstrates my point. Tolerance for Islam is a slippery slope".

That's obviously not very fair on many levels, nor does it reflect the reality of things in any statistical manner.

Well your acting like police cameras were just magically put in place one day. I agree it would be great if they did that but its a process. How many protests happened in California before they used cameras?

Not overnight, but I recall it being rolled out over a couple of months in my community. Regardless, its not a matter of availability its a matter of funding. If the funding is there, there are literally DOZENS of companies with storehouses full of this equipment that would love to be the lowest bidder.

Basically, yes, if the money is there the equipment can be in place almost literally overnight.

Also, at least in California, the main obstacle to getting these out (aside from acquiring funding, because while people want stuff they never want to vote to pay for it with more taxes) was the technology itself. Dash cameras on the cars have been around FOREVER. Well before it was even public knowledge (by that I mean that the average person knew they were in police vehicles).

As far as wearable cameras, that's a technology that's only recently gotten to the point where its practical from a size/durability/technological standpoint, but also a price standpoint.

But I would be interested to see examples of police forces resisting the use of vest mounted (or dash mounted for that matter) cameras, sans any financial concerns of course.

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

There an inherent issue with using extreme examples to back up positions. Let's say Im making an argument that Islam is a dangerous religion. Discussion ensues, people bring up its only a minority of radical islamists... blah blah blah. My response is to show a video of the 9/11 attacks, saying "Yes its an extreme example but I think it demonstrates my point. Tolerance for Islam is a slippery slope".

That's obviously not very fair on many levels, nor does it reflect the reality of things in any statistical manner.

Well yes thats my point this is a discussion forum not a statistical paper. I agree taking things to the extreme can be counter productive but in this scenario we are not in fact discussing Islam, thats a flawed point. We are discussing police officers under difficult situations (found in both videos, althought to very different degrees) and at what point their safety needs to be more important than the peoples lives. Both videos have some similarities do they not? Again my point is that there needs to be a balance between police officers safety and firing over six shots. Right now there is a line drawn, the officer needs to be under threat. They cant just shoot because they get a funny feeling. Well similarly, I want this line to be drawn more in favor of the civilians, I feel like it is not balanced. Yes both suspects made poor decisions in the video, I just think there is a better alternative and I wish there could be a systematic change

 

[Madcap79]

Duh? I know I stopped sleeping at my desk when the security monitors went in.

Perhaps instead of protesting 24/7 they could... have a national fundraiser to buy the police cameras? Maybe they could get Bill Maher to host it probono.

Or they could just use the funds for buying SWAT gear on the cameras and better training?

 

[2clicker]

Not overnight, but I recall it being rolled out over a couple of months in my community. Regardless, its not a matter of availability its a matter of funding. If the funding is there, there are literally DOZENS of companies with storehouses full of this equipment that would love to be the lowest bidder.

funding? nah. they could just spend less on tanks and unnecessary shit and bam... there you go. seriously the gov gives our police depts very expensive military equipment. one would think that they could very easily supply these cams if this was a concern of our govt. and id be willing to bet citizens all over this country would be happy help fund the cause. for their own safety!

so yeah... no not funding. i think its more like the police will never gladly accept these cams. why would they? then they couldnt get away with shit anymore. i feel like LE will fight this tooth and nail.

so it sounds to me like the cams are indeed helping in this area. so what are we waiting for? funding...? i dont think so, but ill bet LE uses that as an argument against having to use/wear them.

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

funding? nah. they could just spend less on tanks and unnecessary shit and bam... there you go. seriously the gov gives our police depts very expensive military equipment. one would think that they could very easily supply these cams if this was a concern of our govt. and id be willing to bet citizens all over this country would be happy help fund the cause. for their own safety!

so yeah... no not funding. i think its more like the police will never gladly accept these cams. why would they? then they couldnt get away with shit anymore. i feel like LE will fight this tooth and nail.

so it sounds to me like the cams are indeed helping in this area. so what are we waiting for? funding...? i dont think so, but ill bet LE uses that as an argument against them.

Interesting point less bullshit toys better use of funding. Only question I have do departments pay for these toys? Are they really cheap since they are hand-me-downs?

 

[Caligula]

You guys realize the feds and DHS supply those armored vehicles and what not, right? These LE forces aren't spending their own funds on them.

Take it up with Obama.

Otherwise you need to convince voters in your area to approve local funding and/or find private means

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

You guys realize the feds and DHS supply those armored vehicles and what not, right? These LE forces aren't spending their own funds on them.

Take it up with Obama.

If that's true I'll just add it to my list of things I wished a true progressive president would do not the sorry excuse we have

My list is getting pretty fucking long

 

[Vicki]

Take it up with Obama.

Why take it up with Obama when the 1033 Program started in 1997?

http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/pages/1033programfaqs.aspx

When and why was the program created?

Answer: In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Congress authorized the transfer of excess DOD personal property to federal and state agencies for use in counter-drug activities. Congress later passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; this act allows all law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission. Preference is given to counter-drug and counter-terrorism requests.

 

[2clicker]

You guys realize the feds and DHS supply those armored vehicles and what not, right? These LE forces aren't spending their own funds on them.

Take it up with Obama.

so why couldnt they also supply cams...? what good are the armored vehicles w/out a war? how about this! replace the armored vehicles with cams! at least they would be useful.

or if the gov doesnt want to do that... i would be more than happy to cough up some cash if i knew my citys police dept was just dying to get cams that watch their every move while working...

and i know thousands more who would also!

its not funding

 

[Caligula]

Why take it up with Obama when the 1033 Program started in 1997?

Because he's currently in charge? I suppose we could take it up with Bill... but why?

.

so why couldnt they also supply cams...? what good are the armored vehicles w/out a war? how about this! replace the armored vehicles with cams!


or if the gov doesnt want to do that... i would be more than happy to cough up some cash if i knew my cities police dept was just dying to get cams that watch their every move while working...


and i know thousands more who would also!


its not funding

Because the government doesn't have stockpiles of surplus vest cams. Either way it's part of a legal action, not because the police forces were demanding the government supply these vehicles.

Like I said, if you want to change that you need to go after the people in Washington not your local police dpt.

And yes, it is a funding issue. Unless you can find where there are tons of readily available funds to buy this equipment.

Im still waiting for an example of a police force refusing to use these devices if given free of charge.

 

[2clicker]

My list is getting pretty fucking long

no doubt. both choices equal the same IMO. we are fucked either way.

 

[Vicki]

Because he's currently in charge? I suppose we could take it up with Bill... but why?

It should have been addressed sooner. Bush saw no reason to stop it.

 

[Caligula]

It should have been addressed sooner. Bush saw no reason to stop it.

Okay. But Bush also had to deal with the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the public sentiment that followed. If there ever was a reason to want armored vehicles in US cities...

Yet another reason to take it up with Obama... other than the fact that he's the sitting POTUS of course.

 

[EveryDayAmnesiac]

Take it up with Obama.

I have been for years!

 

[grokit]

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, Congress authorized the transfer of excess DOD personal property to federal and state agencies for use in counter-drug activities. Congress later passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997; this act allows all law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission. Preference is given to counter-drug and counter-terrorism requests.

Which effectively equates mj use with terrorism as interpreted by many states and/or local municipalities, evidently with demonstrable racial disparity applied in actual practice. The drug warriors will lose a lot of funding if mj is re-scheduled, as most (~90% I think) illicit drug use is mj.


: When I saw this new video/shooting, my mind immediately went to the meme of the british leo that shot the CRAZY DUDE WITH A SWORD in the leg to stop him. Sure he could have pierced an artery and the dude would have bled out, but the point is intent; he took the guy down and I wouldn't have been surprised it he administered a leg tourniquet (after he disarmed the CRAZY DUDE WITH A SWORD of course).

Anyways here's something we can all do, I forgot to post this earlier when I signed it:

"Tell Congress: "Support the 'Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act' and restore free speech now!"

 

[Caligula]

If that's true I'll just add it to my list of things I wished a true progressive president would do not the sorry excuse we have

My list is getting pretty fucking long

True story. Check out my InstaGram post from a few months ago:

http://websta.me/p/702259486500408402_503080082

Sadly I don't have the high rez picture anymore, and IG downsizes the resolution all sorts but the black lettering behind the left rear fender says "Paid for by the Department of Homeland Security".

 

[2clicker]

Unless you can find where there are tons of readily available funds to buy this equipment.

Im still waiting for an example of a police force refusing to use these devices if given free of charge.

again. IMO communities all over would be more than happy to help. if LE. and cops really wanted them. they would have them. each patrol car has so much shit in it. just saying that im sure the cams would be worked into the budget if it was some hot new weapon.

and nobody claimed to have an example of LE refusing them. why are you waiting? has anyone even tried to look yet? i havent, but i would think there is something out there. i will take a gander in a bit.

 

[Caligula]

again. IMO communities all over would be more than happy to help. if LE. and cops really wanted them. they would have them. each patrol car has so much shit in it. just saying that im sure the cams would be worked into the budget if it was some hot new weapon.

and nobody claimed to have an example of LE refusing them. why are you waiting? has anyone even tried to look yet? i havent, but i would think there is something out there. i will take a gander in a bit.

I'm not sure about your area, but here in So Cal funding for police, fire departments, and other public institutions are SEVERELY lacking. Its bullshit to say that if it were something else they would find funding for it, especially when they are cutting hours as well as staff. Furlough days, pension cuts, and reduced man-hours are all happening as we speak.

I have no doubt in my mind that almost any police department would be more than willing to accept and use these cameras if they were provided to them through public/private funding. But as I said, I haven't seen a single case of a public funding for this purpose. You can give all the hypotheticals you want about how you're "sure" people would donate their money to this, but the fact is that it hasn't happened yet.

If you want action taken, take it up with the feds, your local voting groups, or find a private fund and donate to it. What you shouldn't be doing is laying blame on your local Police Department for not having the cameras already.

 

[grokit]

so it sounds to me like the cams are indeed helping in this area. so what are we waiting for? funding...? i dont think so, but ill bet LE uses that as an argument against having to use/wear them.

What we need is a national mandate, and because of the dysfunctional house of representatives we'll never get one without executive action. Lets see if they sue him for that, I certainly wouldn't put it past these idiots. Hopefully something will be enacted before too many more mb-type of incidents, but don't bet on it.

So yeah obama like it or not, we can sign petitions but the ball's squarely in your court

 

[2clicker]

heres a good read on the subject
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/07/142016109/smile-youre-on-cop-camera

another
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...74b3b6-da20-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

and here is the refusal you have been waiting for @Caligula
http://kansasexposed.org/2014/05/28/corrupt-wichita-cops-oppose-body-cameras/


here they say ferguson police ALREADY have cameras, but do not use them...
http://benswann.com/ferguson-police-have-body-cameras-but-dont-wear-them/

btw... there are petitions at change.org and the white houses website to get this shit goin. sign up!

 

[Caligula]

heres a good read on the subject
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/07/142016109/smile-youre-on-cop-camera

another
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...74b3b6-da20-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html

Agreed, good reads. And I've never said that having these cameras was in any way a bad idea.

and here is the refusal you have been waiting for @Caligula
http://kansasexposed.org/2014/05/28/corrupt-wichita-cops-oppose-body-cameras/

Not quite. Thats a story about 13 individuals officers who didnt want to wear the cameras. What was it that I was looking for?

Im still waiting for an example of a police force refusing to use these devices if given free of charge.

here they say ferguson police ALREADY have cameras, but do not use them...
http://benswann.com/ferguson-police-have-body-cameras-but-dont-wear-them/

I said I didnt see the reference to the cameras. Had to look at the very end. Just like the article she copied and pasted from (lol? its almost verbatim), it was in the very last sentence. Seems odd since that's the whole title of the article, but I digress.

I obviously I missed that, however I need to see some citation on that reference in either article (speaking about the WSJ piece). Officially the local government and the FPSD have stated they do not have these cameras. This is why there's such a discussion now on the topic and is the information I'm going off of.

In fact the city itself, stated they will try to raise money to buy cameras for their officers:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ferguson-pledges-to-get-wearable-cameras-for-their-police-officers/

"Along with committing to diversify the nearly all-white police force, the City will raise money to equip their officers with vest cameras and dash cameras."

Dont know, seems more believable than an uncited 1 sentence blurb thrown in at the very end of a WSJ opinion piece (or the blog of a college student who clearly plagiarized her material).

 

[grokit]

Not quite. Thats a story about 13 individuals officers who didnt want to wear the cameras.

It's also about a court case and resulting settlement that backs their refusal up,
essentially awarding them a paid vacation for their "brave" stand.
So in addition to a national mandate we need a us supreme court decision

 

[Chill Dude]

I have no doubt in my mind that almost any police department would be more than willing to accept and use these cameras if they were provided to them through public/private funding.

I respect your opinion Caligula, but I disagree with your assertion that any police department would be willing to use these devices. That's pure speculation on your part. I think they would prefer to continue to operate in the fashion they always have. In their view less transparency is good. They don't want the public to see all the wrongdoings of the police force because with that comes more lawsuits, more public scrutiny and more difficulty covering their asses from all the fucked up shit some officers engage in.

You may have no doubt, but I have major doubt they would want to use these devices. In fact, I would think most departments would fight hard not to use them.. Sadly.

 

[Caligula]

I respect your opinion Caligula, but I disagree with your assertion that any police department would be willing to use these devices. That's pure speculation on your part. I think they would prefer to continue to operate in the fashion they always have. In their view less transparency is good. They don't want the public to see all the wrongdoings of the police force because with that comes more lawsuits, more public scrutiny and more difficulty covering their asses from all the fucked up shit some officers engage in.

You may have no doubt, but I have major doubt they would want to use these devices. In fact, I would think most departments would fight hard not to use them.. Sadly.

This technology has only been around for about 5 years, and has only broken the $1000 per unit cost point within the last few. According to *Gizmodo as well as the WSJ, the average cost is now ~$600 (at least the ones worth a shit). Furthermore, the early models of "on person" cameras werent anything like what we have today. There was no wireless streaming to "the cloud" so data space was always an issue, batteries were bulky and didn't last long, and of course the units were very expensive... all the way back in 2009.

Looking at the facts, its not hard to understand why some police departments have yet to get these, especially the smaller ones.

Also you're right, it looks like PDs all over the country are fighting this tooth and nail so they can stay corrupt and keep the man down. Please note some of these articles are from before the MB shooting.

*http://gizmodo.com/ferguson-police-will-finally-get-the-one-device-they-re-1623312960

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/jun/10/san-diego-city-council-set-approve-police-body-cam/

http://abc7.com/archive/9395264/

http://richmondconfidential.org/2012/10/30/bart-pd-to-wear-on-body-cameras/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...partment-to-begin-using-body-mounted-cameras/

http://www.click2houston.com/news/police-body-cameras-tested-in-houston-harris-county/27617850

http://www.adn.com/article/20140818/video-bethel-police-shooting-comes-amid-two-investigations

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140821/NEWS/140829940

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/lyn...hasing-bodyworn-cameras-for-officers/27666652

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2014/08/21/unf-police-body-
cams/14408009/

http://www.news-leader.com/story/ne...ringfield-police-cameras-keep-watch/13915491/

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2014/08/20/baltimore-police-officers-may-get-body-cameras/

http://www.courierpostonline.com/st...lantic-city-police-get-body-cameras/14385111/




Is it still "pure speculation" on my part?