Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force 368
An anonymous reader writes: Incidents like the Michael Brown case have recently put police body-worn cameras into the public consciousness, but they're not a new idea to criminology experts. In fact, researchers at Cambridge began a study in 2012 using law enforcement in Rialto, California as a test bed. Their results are now in: "The experiment showed that evidence capture is just one output of body-worn video, and the technology is perhaps most effective at actually preventing escalation during police-public interactions: whether that's abusive behavior towards police or unnecessary use-of-force by police." The simple knowledge that both parties are being watched puts a damper on violence. "During the 12-month Rialto experiment, use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87% against the previous year's figures." This was enough for the city of Rialto to decide it wants to move forward with body-worn cameras; hopefully the study will encourage other police departments as well.
Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
"People react differently when they know they are being watched".
What this cop was too stupid to realize was, the response to his comment is:
YES! THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE WANT THE CAMERAS.
Re: Obviously (Score:4, Insightful)
But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?
Will they actually admit that maybe the thug involved wasn't such a "good boy", and that maybe it's incorrect to claim "but he didn't do anything wrong"?
Will they just repeatedly deny what the footage shows?
Will they start demanding the removal of these cameras, after the cameras repeatedly capture footage of incidents in which the police acted perfectly reasonably, and some thug did not?
The response to the convenience store footage in the Brown case may be a good preview of how they'd react. It clearly showed Brown acting very violently, and clearly up to no good. Yet instead of accepting what it so obviously showed, the "activists" came up with all sorts of excuses, denials, and even outright fabrications regarding it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?
Relief that they don't have to rely on the testimony of a police officer, but can instead use video evidence that is hopefully reliable.
The response to the convenience store footage in the Brown case may be a good preview of how they'd react. It clearly showed Brown acting very violently, and clearly up to no good. Yet instead of accepting what it so obviously showed, the "activists" came up with all sorts of excuses, denials, and even outright fabrications regarding it.
The response was that...there was no reason to release that evidence except to shape public opinion, rather than have people honestly question the conduct of the police officer, who didn't witness any such event, and that even if the Police officer had seen it, that use of a firearm would not have been appropriate.
Of course, you remember the false X-ray claimed to be showin
Dirty by nature (Score:3)
My brother (not from US - so this is not just a US problem) wanted to be a cop in his early 20's. He was training every day to make the physical etc. He would have made a great cop. He was a massive guy but quick and could punch like a mule when we trained together. Good temperament but I had never seen him back down from an asshole (or group thereof) in his life.
He met 3 cops who were on holiday and the obvious
Re: Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
But what will be the reaction of the "activists" when these cameras capture indisputable footage of, say, somebody like Michael Brown launching an unprovoked physical attack against a police officer?
They'd probably ask why he tried to apprehend someone twice his size without any backup. Then ask, why after he'd already shot the guy 4 times he had to put 2 more bullets in his head.
Cops should be able to defend themselves, but they seem to be throwing themselves into needless danger over and over again. He was a moron to try and wrestle with this guy over a pack of cigars. If he got away, so what? Then, I don't think I've ever heard one of these police shootings that didn't involve the cop emptying a 16rnd clip. This isn't a western. That, again, is stupid. How many bystanders had bullets whizzing past them? What if the guys friend then turns on the cop? He's out of ammo! And worst of all, you just shot someone to death over a box of cigars. That's not ok. Maybe we should instal missile launchers in their headlights to? There's a jay walker! Lets nuke the intersection, he might be armed!
Re: (Score:2)
The activists will be activists.
HOWEVER, if they repeatedly deny the scenario that the video shows, it dis
Re: (Score:3)
I believe Eric Garner was on tape in a choke hold... wonder what the activists are saying about that.
Re: Obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the situation doesn't make sense to you. As you just demonstrated (proving the GP right, I may add), you willfully ignore facts that you happen to dislike, leaving behind a nonsensical patchwork of your feel-good fabrications mixed with 5% of the reality of the situation. The picture is actually much clearer and consistent when you stick to the facts of the case, instead of injecting make-belief nonsense like you have a propensity to do, apparently.
Going for cop's gun drastically escalates situatio (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Going for cop's gun drastically escalates situa (Score:5, Informative)
We have no evidence that Brown was trying to take Wilson's gun, only the word of a cop who's been caught lying before. Cops know that "he was going for my gun" are magic words to justify themselves when they commit murders.
Sorry, coroners reports say there was gun powder residue on Brown's hand. You are severely misinformed.
And of course it's irrevelvant whether Brown tried to get control of Wilson's gun earlier in the confrontation. Brown was not trying to do so when he was murdered, he was (according to the majority of witness testimony) attempting to surender.
You have progressed from severely misinformed to absolutely clueless. Minutes earlier he went for the cops gun, that is highly relevant and it absolutely controls everything that followed. It escalates the situation to "high risk". As "high risk" he is more likely to be pursued than to be left to flee. As "high risk" the officer is consider by training and law to be in danger and justified in not allowing the suspect to get close to him.
Regarding witnesses, many have proven to be lying. Seriously, we have one lady changing her story once the feds showed up and said she didn't really see it, she just repeated what her boyfriend told her had happened because she wanted her boyfriend's story to get out there. Witnesses had claimed he was shot in the back, proven false. Witnesses had said he had his hands up, proven false, a bullet grazed his arm indicating otherwise. Seriously, go read the released testimony regarding the evidence rather than rely on what some guy on the internet told you because your "facts" are way off from reality. There is a problem with cops and the communities they police and some cops are bad but in **this** one particular case these factors are not present. People foolishly tried to use this case to highlight these legit problems before the facts were in and now they are having a hard time coming to terms with the facts, that they picked the absolute wrong case to highlight the issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Accountability is a good thing, and something severely lacking today. We have enough independent footage to know that events that happen should not, but since the footage is from "independent" sources they are all labelled questionable. A source that can be held with fewer questions, such as the body cameras by cops, would add much to a case like Michael Brown. Even if the camera was not facing Michael Brown at the onset of the encounter, audio could have been used to determine who's story was most accur
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that cops were more accountable 30 or 40 years ago? Do you think the mindset that cops are above the law only recently developed in police forces?
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that they were necessarily "better" but I think the attitudes of police towards the public have indeed changed over the past forty years. Forty years ago there weren't SWAT teams. The cops did not bash down your door, throw in flash bangs and shoot your dog to serve a simple search warrant. They....knocked on the door.
Did they always lie (well, they have to and there's nothing wrong with that so long as it's not under oath), plant drugs on people, shoot black people? Yeah. But damn if they weren't more polite about it.
The "us vs them" mentality wasn't so readily apparent. Maybe it was there and we just didn't notice because there weren't cell phone cameras, and they were mainly doing it to black people. Still, I don't remember cops 15 years ago driving APCs, in body armor, all black, and referring to citizens as "civilians." Now I hear that routinely. If we're civilians...what exactly are you? And what exactly is our relationship?
Re: (Score:2)
referring to citizens as "civilians." Now I hear that routinely. If we're civilians...what exactly are you? And what exactly is our relationship?
That's a very curious question. What term would you prefer that is likely to be universally correct way to address any given member of the population?
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Informative)
Citizen? They use the word "civilian" like it's something we are and they aren't. They're civilians, too. They're not in the military.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful. You're ruining his world-view there.
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think that cops were more accountable 30 or 40 years ago?
Before an answer, I will say that a large part of that trust came from being ignorant to the way the world actually works. I was young, delusional, and believed that authorities would never lie. Outside of Nixon and Kissinger of course. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, and looking back I don't believe they were as accountable as I wanted to believe.. but there are several differences between today and then in attitude and training of law enforcement.
Back then, police were not held in a higher regard than the public. Respected, sure.. but a cop's actions were measured by their risk to the public. For example, the commando style raids we see today are a very new phenomenon. 30-40 years ago this would not have happened unless someone's life was in eminent danger. Today we have commandos chucking grenades into houses to serve warrants. We have commando style raids for non-violent crimes like drug dealing. Cops shooting family pets because they claim "I was afraid of the dog". Those things simply did not happen back then. Police were expected to respect the public as much as the public respected them.
There are many other differences in training and actions found to be acceptable then and now. A cop shooting someone today can simply use the excuse "I thought I was in danger", even when it's a kid playing army with his buddies. That would have had an officer suspended without pay 40 years ago, and back then there were many more kids out playing army/cops & robbers, etc.... Toy guns were much more common, hell we brought them to school to play at recess.
Lastly hiring practices are much different then and now. Then, there was more worry about public perception of officers. Cops were expected to outsmart the bad guys, not kick their asses. Today agencies want the ass kickers, bad asses, and bullies. "Gangs" are not something new, so that excuse does not work as the justification.
Re: (Score:2)
And in cases where officers do show appropriate restraint, these cameras will prove exculpatory. Police officers should want these. If Darren Wilson was innocent, such a camera would have prevented local riots and a national headache.
Re: (Score:2)
"People react differently when they know they are being watched".
Yes, we are quantum beings.
Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers (Score:4, Insightful)
Those lower percentages scare me because it's clear proof that a majority of police officers abuse their powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? How the hell do you get that?
Re: (Score:2)
During their test, use of force by officers fell by 59% and reports against officers dropped by 87%. Anything above 50% is a majority. If they can still do their job properly by using less force and get 87% less complains, that means they were abusing their powers before the cameras. I don't know how to explain that to you in more clear terms.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't really be that stupid. 'Incidences of use of force' is NOT the same thing as 'number of officers'. You do know that, right?
Re: (Score:3)
D'oh!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But if they only reduced their violence output by 60%, why the 90% fall in reports?
The police were more likely to act as we expect them too, and the criminals were less likely to make false claims they knew would be futile. I'd be suspicious if there was any other result.
Re:Don't tell me police doesn't abuse their powers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it proves that putting the criminals in the spot light reduced their violence by 60%, and reduced false "police brutality" claims by 90%
If this is true then it still makes perfect sense to use the body cameras. There are far fewer allegations of police brutality to deal with--whether the reduction comes from an actual decrease in police brutality or from a reduction in false claims of police brutality or an increase of cooperation of the people in-front of the officer--who cares? It's all good to me.
In my mind, the only true downside of the body cameras is the expense of dealing with collection and storage of thousands upon thousands of h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this, but I'm not particularly concerned. I do not think that the general public would be viewing the videos like a live feed or much at all. I think we already have precedent for how this would work--dash cams in police cars. That system seems to work fine and I think it would be the same here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is still a good thing - it eliminates the false reports and shows that the officers are doing their job correctly as well as making the criminals (or suspects) less likely to do something that is harmful to the officers because they know there is footage of the event.
Re: (Score:2)
Won't work the way you think (Score:2)
If the police involved don't want to be recorded, they shut off the cameras or rip the antennas off the car. Not hypothetical - happens all the time. There are few consequences.
I'd predict the citizens will modify their behavior far more than the police will. Citizens can't shut off the camera - or turn the disabled camera back on. People will still be beaten or railroaded or extorted for cash if a cop decides it should be so.
Re: (Score:2)
But citizens can have their own redundant cameras streaming to the cloud. They can get smart enough to fedex cash so the cops won't get it. All of this will happen. It's a race, as always.
Re: (Score:2)
And phones have a back door command, not yet activated, that will be provided to authorities: Camera Use Forbidden. Apple tried to patent the idea of crowd camera control (maybe succeeded); I'd assume it would be easy to implement. And since so many standalone cameras are radio-enabled now, part of the Internet of Things, those could be remotely shut off as well.
Or, they, being police, could have the authority to jam frequencies used by wifi/Bluetooth/cellular devices. Touch a button on their camera, and ev
Re: (Score:2)
links:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/a... [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
they shut off the cameras or rip the antennas off the car. Not hypothetical - happens all the time.
Do you have some evidence of this claim?
This study indicates otherwise. Rather than showing an increase in vehicle damage, there was an observed decrease in reports of inappropriate behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Better to have cameras than not; maybee...... juries can be played by selective use of cams, excluding other cam footage, and plain old laying a trap for the unwary citizen.
You asked: I read the news. Google for you:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka... [forbes.com]
"But it goes both ways; video – or the lack of it – can also damn officers. Two on the Daytona Beach force lost their jobs after a video mysteriously blanked out in the middle of an encounter with a woman who allegedly hid a bag of cocaine in her mout
Message brought to you by Captain Obvious... (Score:3)
Yes. Cops behave within the limits of the law when they're watched and many can't be trusted when they're NOT watched. I don't think we really needed a study for that.
How nice if this would turn in to legislation. Of course, for that we'd need a congress that had focus, a spine and would actually be bothered to consider the will of the people.
Accountability is the name of the game (Score:2, Interesting)
Accountability is paramount in keeping any powerful system in place.
The police would increase their political power by using their unions to make deals with prosecutors, secure reassignments, and avoid real repercussion for improper use of that power. This political obfuscation and inherent force is what allows systemic abuse to happen.
The solution is not to fight back with violence against the inherent force, but to shine a light on the political obfuscation. The protests are best where they ask for accoun
If only the cop had a camera in Ferguson... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, if only the cop had a camera during the Michael Brown stop, then I suppose his killing would have looked more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Don't forget, the cops in that case knew they were being filmed. Here's another case where cops disgracefully killed someone when they knew they were on film. He had a weapon, but was at such a distance that he posed no threat at all ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] ) And another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Any time that cops are in a store, they know they're being filmed on security cameras. Here's another "heroic" action by the cops, committing what any sane human would consider to be murder while they know that they are being filmed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And of course don't expect some of the footage not to go "missing" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com] ), and don't expect the footage to even be released ( http://www.citylab.com/crime/2... [citylab.com] ). And even if it goes to a grand jury, don't expect the District Attorney not to knowingly put a liar on the stand and throw the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Obviously this is all anecdotal and not "scientific" compared with the study in the summary, but it should be clear that this problem of police violence is not going to be completely solved until the cultures of "shoot first and ask questions later" and "protect each other" within law enforcement are changed.
If only the cop had a camera in Ferguson... (Score:3)
...
Obviously this is all anecdotal and not "scientific" compared with the study in the summary, but it should be clear that this problem of police violence is not going to be completely solved until the cultures of "shoot first and ask questions later" and "protect each other" within law enforcement are changed.
The study does not claim that cameras eliminate the problem. To quote the summary:
use-of-force by officers wearing cameras fell by 59%.
That's a good thing, even if it's not perfect. And it provides
Cuts Both Ways (Score:2)
Sure, cameras cut down on the use of force by the police.
It also cuts down on the incidence rate of perpetrators claiming they got roughed up by the police in an attempt to get out of their charges.
Study: headlines which use subjective terms... (Score:2)
Study: Police Body-Cams Reduce Unacceptable Use of Force
Where has the "unacceptable" word come from, which is peppered throughout the article? Isn't it enough to simply report, without resorting to subjective qualifications such as this, that:
Data from the Rialto experiment shows police officers are deterred [...] from using force in general
There will be political opposition. (Score:2)
Fox News anchors have already gone on air claiming that body cameras are insulting to police.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, should give the source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
but what if they're turned off (Score:2)
a surprising number of murders of citizens by police happen when the cameras are not turned on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now now, let's not go bringing facts into this.
The more interesting part (Score:5, Insightful)
While most people on here are focusing on the police portion, the civilian portion is more damning. It shows the amount of crap police have to put up with by people who think they'll file a brutality report so they can not be held responsible for their actions.
I don't have the link, but some on here will remember the video of the woman who was in the back of a police car yelling and screaming for the police to stop hitting her without realizing a camera was recording the whole thing. When she claimed police brutality, the video was shown and the charges were thrown out.
While there is certainly some police abuse going on, there are much more claims by people of police abuse where none exists. Just like dashboard cameras, it works both ways so when people claim they weren't doing anything when they were shot, the camera will show them reaching for their gun (see the most recent shooting in Missouri though we don't have video of the incident).
Eye witnesses (Score:3)
How many of the "eye witnesses" in the Brown case weren't even at the scene until after it happened? No surprise that 87% of claims against police go away when there's a recording of what actually happened.
And who down-modded the parent post? It was at 2, now back to 1. People who do that should be banned from moderating
Ok ... but? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
be careful what you wish for - (Score:3)
Freedom isn't free. (Score:2)
You can't be free without a cost. If lawyers are going to continue to ruin society, we need to curb them... but given how democracy is failing those issues are really sideshow to the real problems. Cutting down on misinformation and ignorance are one of the few things left that can be done to support democracy.
Ammo selection (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or: perps don't go into physical confrontation with police when faced with the fact that there will be video evidence of the event.
It works both ways.
The perps? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or: perps don't go into physical confrontation with police when faced with the fact that there will be video evidence of the event.
Having a camera there makes no difference to the perps - as you call them. The perps were always at a disadvantage because the cops can say anything and justify anything. In other words, the cops are in effect a "camera" because their word is considered fact in court.
The cop says that the suspect put up a fight, then the suspect put up a fight. Cops says the suspect resisted arrest, then it is fact that the suspect resisted arrest.
And even when there are witnesses to the contrary, the cop's word supersedes
Re:No s**t Sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep - seems a no-brainer to me. Anyone who ever went to school knows that the bully isn't going to hammer the snot out of you while the teacher is watching. He waits until Teach has gone back inside to grade paper!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No s**t Sherlock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This way, everyone has an objective look at the entire encounter. The cameras are a win-win for everyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Very often the viral videos you see of police brutality does not show what led up to the transgression, so, a portion of the cases may be misrepresented by way of missing context.
On the other hand, the Police, being the trained professionals, should be able to handle "abuse"... professionally.
Also, 'what led up to it' is irrelevant in many cases. The fact I called your mother a whore 5 days ago, 5 hours ago, 5 minutes ago, or 5 seconds ago doesn't make it right for you to choke me to death, shoot me, or
Re: (Score:2)
Care to cite a single case where that 'twas the sole provocation and the related result?
Re: (Score:3)
Care to cite a single case where that 'twas the sole provocation and the related result?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Howzabout no provocation. When the prosecution got hold of the video refuting everything they said happened, teh lying, and the completely unnescessary violence and needless property damage, the prosecution dropped charges, and the police were put on trial. Watch the whole thing, it was shown that they started going on the resisting arrest rant, busting out the windows, punching the guy, and accusing him of "tring to grab my gun" while his hands were up.
Then again, I
Re:No s**t Sherlock (Score:5, Interesting)
Garner was resisting arrest.
Barely at all.
The police are authorized to apply force to enforce the laws.
But not excessive force, and not when someone is saying they can't breath. Certainly not that choke hold which was against policy.
It's unfortunate that Garner died, but had he not resisted, he'd be alive today.
Why don't you move to North Korea? I don't know if you realize this, but the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Everyone should be extremely cautious and critical of authority figures, not give them the benefit of the doubt or let them off when they screw up (intentionally or not).
If the cops hadn't applied overwhelming force and had actually listened when he said that he couldn't breath, he would be alive. Why don't you blame the people who actually used the force? They made their own decision to do so.
The bottom line is, the cops are supposed to respect people's liberties, have legal authority over others, and are supposed to be trained professionals. They deserve no mercy when it comes to being prosecuted, but prosecutors are of course biased in their favor, so good luck punishing them.
Re:No s**t Sherlock (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you realize that american police officers kill united states citizens at over 50x the rate UK and German police officers kill their citizens?
Do you realize that american police officers kill more children each year (including 7 year old girls) than UK and german police officers kill all citizens (including adults) combined? And basically at an infinitely higher rate.
United states police have reported* killing over 400 citizens per year since 9/11. Meanwhile, germany and uk have killed reported killing under 4 citizens per year in the same time period.
*United states police forces are NOT required to report citizens killed and many do not so the actual number of citizens killed in the united states is higher than reported.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people have thunk it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I cycle in a major metro area and started wearing a highly visible helmet camera for liability reasons.
I also noticed (anecdata!) that the camera tended to have a calming effect on motorists near me as I would (for example) turn to look over my shoulder and the camera profile was visible.
Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
YMMV
Re:Many people have thunk it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I will admit that I am pretty quick to shout heads up and escalate the verbal stakes (e.g. cursing) when motorists honk if I (for example) legally and quickly take the full lane, but I only do so in the interest of encouraging safer driving and cycling. I have zero interest in provoking a fight.
"Quickly?" In other words, you're riding along the right hand side of your lane, and as a car approaches intending to pass you, you quickly move into the middle or left of the lane to force them to quickly slow down to prevent passing. Doing anything "quickly" that obstructs others is a dick move and you know it. You're an asshole who makes the rest of us cyclists look bad. Only in very rare situations would that "quickly" move promote safety. It's unsafe to anger another driver, both to you and the next cyclist they come upon. You're not doing it to promote safety, you're doing it to express dominance, like a gorilla beating its chest.
Next time you try that, think about this - are you doing it to promote safety, or are you doing it to try to express dominance by proving that you can legally be a dick? Believe me, the other driver doesn't care how big your penis is, so be the better person and don't be a dick or a dumbass to cars when you're on your bike, you're making the rest of us look bad, and it hurts us when we actually want to promote safety or policy changes (who wants their tax dollars to pay for bike lanes for a bunch of assholes like you?)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all motorists are calmed when they see my camera, but it seems many are (for example, they'll ease off tailgating me and shadowing my blind spots).
You are on a bicycle. You have no blind spots.
That's ridiculous.
Just as when driving your blind spots are at 7 o'clock and 5 o'clock. And just as when driving, one compensates by turning one's head or using a mirror.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that when one cycles, a mirror doesn't provide the same kind of "rear view" as a rear view mirror does while driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Never ridden a bike, have you?
Cameras only a partial solution (Score:5, Interesting)
If a cop is alone and fears a person may try to take his gun he will not let that person get close enough for a wrestling match. He will shoot.
If a cop is not alone he is far more likely to use a less-than-lethal weapon such as a taser or baton since his partner will have a lethal weapon at the ready should the person get ahold of the cop's gun.
Cops are paranoid about losing control of their gun, according to the FBI about 10% of those cops shot are shot with their own gun. Having a partner greatly helps reduce this fear.
Re:Cameras only a partial solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem with the recent shooting of the kid with a toy gun was the cop's arriving in a car at full speed and stopping literally a few feet away from the kid. They then had no opportunity to assess the situation and instead pulled out the guns and shot him because they now where afraid they might get shot.
Since the park was empty it would have been far more appropriate to stop and assess from a distance.
So a (possibly) correct reaction to the circumstance they arrived at. But they arrived at that
Re:Cameras work (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need to record her to change her behavior, your relationship is doomed. I wonder what she does when you aren't around.
Re: (Score:3)
If you need to record her to change her behavior, your relationship is doomed. I wonder what she does when you aren't around.
The usual stuff. Spit in his food, starch his underwear, throw out / erase his pr0n, set up a dating profile for him under "men looking for men", drive the car until there's just enough gas left to get home and park, unplug his phone at night while it's charging and plug it back in just before he gets up, redecorate the house, bake chocolate exlax chip cookies, stop replacing the toilet paper when he uses the last of it, ball up his clothes so they get good and wrinkled before she puts them up, wash his fav
Re:Cameras work (Score:5, Funny)
how about when she's feeling kinky and feisty? does that put the damper on or stoke her fire?
links to video in your reply as proof, please
Re: (Score:3)
Antonio Martin was armed and likely robbing a gas station.
For that matter, can we stop equating Eric Garner, who was murdered, with Michael Brown, who was not?
And can we start talking about Victor White III, who was assassinated in the back of a police car? [vice.com]
Re:Good timing... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm still furious about the flashbanged baby thing.
The entire circus around Michael Brown was media-generated. Perhaps I need my tinfoil hat adjusted, but I think deliberately so. It's like it was purposely pushed to make black people get up in arms, when clearly, most people looking rationally at the case can wish it didn't happen, but can hardly blame the cop. Brown wasn't innocent; he robbed a store. He wasn't just minding his own business until cops hassled him because he was black; he was walking in the middle of the street. I want cops to stop people walking in the middle of the street and ask them wtf they're doing. He was not an "unarmed teenager;" he was a 300lb man who punched the cop. What the hell? When you drive that story in the media, people like my father who don't think police brutality is a problem take notice of the story, say "this is what the liberals are complaining about? They're morons!" it confirms his biases and he goes right back to ignoring the problem.
Where's the outrage and the marches and protests and media helicopters over flashbanged babies? SWAT teams busting down doors at 3am to serve search warrants? "Overwhelming force?" Budgets that rely on "civil forfeiture" which is literally highway robbery? No, the media pushes the non-story of Michael Brown. Muddies the issue. Ignores the real problems.
It's a conspiracy. A C-O-N...spiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty hard to come up with a different explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, he was walking down the middle of the street, blocking traffic. That is a weird and dangerous thing to do, and is obviously a matter of public safety, which is exactly the kind of things cops are supposed to look after.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Then why should the police care about violence against you?
Re: (Score:3)
Then why should the police care about violence against you?
The police in question... already don't care. So it's kind of a moot point.
Violence against police ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't care about violence against police, but if this bullet points helps convince PD's to adopt cameras then super!
What an ignorant statement you offer. Violence against police is why police react so forcefully. According to the FBI nearly 10% of police officers who get shot are shot with their own gun. That is why unarmed people who try to get into a wrestling match with cops get shot, because the cops are very afraid of losing control of their own gun.
People who are compliant tend not to get shot. People who react violently are far more likely to get shot. So if you actually care about people getting shot you should care about violence against police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Violence against police ... (Score:4, Insightful)
an MRAP makes the average citizen think he is in danger from an armed military invasion. if the police did not behave as if they are an occupying force, then maybe the citizenry would be more receptive to dealing with them.
Re:Violence against police ... (Score:5, Informative)
Uh-huh. Why, just look at the violence [youtube.com] from this unconscious asshole! Why, that threatening way he got thrown from the car when it rolled over at highway speeds - Heck, even I felt intimidated by him, just watching the video!
People who are compliant tend not to get shot.
Right - They just get tased, pepper-sprayed, and/or choked out [washingtonpost.com] for shits n' giggles.
The only good cops know they have a camera trained on them (and can't just smash it and harass the photographer [aljazeera.com]), period.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact remains that when cops use deadly force it is almost always out of fear.
Re:Violence against police ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You see all those "good" cops standing around "just doing their jobs" in those videos?
The guy choking the drunk college kid out doesn't prove the rule. All those "good" cops doing nothing, however, do.
For every bad cop we hear about, know that an entire fucking department has facilitated his behavior, making them every bit as worthless as the "bad" ones.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
For every bad cop we hear about, know that an entire fucking department has facilitated his behavior, making them every bit as worthless as the "bad" ones.
Even if this were true (which it is not), the number of police officers and police departments who do not condone this behavior FAR outweigh the number who do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then why don't these 'good' cops, who "do not condone this behavior", I dunno... ARREST the cops who do this stuff?! I mean, letting people get away with something is pretty much the very definition of "condone".
At the very least, all the 'good' cops should take the 'bad' cop out for a drink, and 'explain' the situation to him- "Hey Bob, we've noticed that you like to break the law sometimes, choking suspects, illegally searching them, etc. Well, we just wanna let you know we won't stand for this, and wil
Re: (Score:3)
And bystander videos do not exactly tell the whole story. The cops on the scene may see or have seen many things that the bystander never did, or the bystander failed to record. That is why police body cams are so much more useful. We get to see a far more complete portrayal of events.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have an odd definition of "exceptions", when I specifically included both the bad cops and the rest of their departments. "But you left out that one really really good cop in a coma for the past 30 years!"
And bystander videos do not exactly tell the whole story.
True enough. Why, in that first video I linked, you don't get to see the context - That the guy had just run over a spike mat, lost control of the vehicle, and almost hit a cop. Clearly that miss
Re: (Score:3)
Again, exceptions don't prove the rule. You have an odd definition of "exceptions", when I specifically included both the bad cops and the rest of their departments.
Not really. The exception I referred in both my posts was a video showing bad behavior by police. A video is what we call anecdotal, not statistical. The number of police is a single video is irrelevant.
Why, in that first video I linked, you don't get to see the context - That the guy had just run over a spike mat, lost control of the vehicle, and almost hit a cop. Clearly that missing details justifies half a dozen armed thugs beating the shit out of an unconscious guy lying bleeding on the side of the highway
You have an odd definition in "context". When a spiked mat is layed out they are generally dealing with a fleeing suspect who is endangering civilians in some manner, i.e. high speed chase. Getting dragged out of the car, forcibly put on the ground and handcuffed is a pretty reasonable response. Also the odd
Re: (Score:3)
For every bad cop we hear about, know that an entire fucking department has facilitated his behavior,
And the police union, for getting the ones so bad they were fired reinstated with back pay.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct about "the rule", the problem is that one instance of vile behavior can totally cancel out over a hundred instances of good behavior. Depending on how bad it is it can cancel out over a thousand. And while there is a definite limit as to how good a cop can be, the limit as to how bad he can be is extremely high. And they don't effectively "self police". Even the "good cop" tends to feel that he must protect the bad cop, no matter what he is guilty of. And tends to act to protect him.
OTO
Re:Violence against police ... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it goes both ways. Police who are overly aggressive and verbally abusive tend to provoke ordinary citizens with a sense of dignity and self respect. When citizens reply verbally in kind to unfair and abusive treatment from the police, the unfair, abusive police escalate and turn the situation violent where the situation should not be violent. This is one of the reasons police cameras work. The police tend to self-monitor and self-censor their overly agressive and abusive behaviors before a confrontation begins to escalate. So a cop is much less likely to start a traffic stop interaction with an angry comment like "What kind of fucking moron drives forty eight in a residential area?" if they know it is going to be on camera for their boss to see.
Not all cops, of course. I have been pulled over by many polite and respectful police officers. And of course, police typically have to deal with drunken belligerents more than church choir members. But someone who is drunk should still be treated with respect, not verbally abused, even while they are being arrested and jailed.
Re: (Score:3)