jump to last post 1-19 of 19 discussions (112 posts)

Police Officers: Should they wear cameras or not

  1. Meisjunk profile image88
    Meisjunkposted 2 years ago

    If you haven't kept up to date on the issues in Ferguson, here is a drastically simplified version of events:

    1. On  August 9th, a St. Louis County police officer shot an unarmed 18-year-old young black man.
    2. The officer shot him SIX TIMES. With a pause in between. The office shot twice, paused, saw the kid was down, then shot FOUR MORE TIMES.
    3. The citizens have tried to peacefully protest multiple times since that incident over a month ago.
    4. The Ferguson police have responded to the protests by opening fire with military tactics on the peaceful crowds. They have done this each time.
    5. The last large incident was three days ago. This is still going on in Ferguson. The police are still firing on peaceful groups of citizens, even firing smoke bombs into neighborhoods and at homes.
    6. The citizens of Ferguson demanded a city council. They almost didn't even get their 4 minutes to tell the department their voices. The council did not answer any questions, did not respond to any 4-minute session, or offer anything. They did nothing.
    7. The rest of the U.S. conveniently keeps forgetting this is going on.

    Right before then and since then, there have been almost half a dozen other incidents of officers murdering black citizens.

    A month ago, when this first started, I signed a petition on the White House's webpage to have all police officers in the U.S. be required to wear cameras.

    They responded with:

    "And while we understand that there are a number of benefits to having law enforcement officers use cameras, there continue to be many unanswered questions, including:

    What is the most effective type of camera (vehicle, body, weapon) -- and if body, where is it best placed (lapel, ear, belt)?
    What are the privacy implications of having officers record interactions with the public?
    When should cameras be turned on?
    Does every officer on a force need a camera?
    How long should video data be maintained and who should have access to it?
    What is the impact on community relationships?
    The issue of cost also cannot be ignored."

    To me, that seemed like a cop-out (and no pun intended, but! How appropriate.)

    At the end of their email to everyone, there was a link to a survey. I filled out a survey and included my own response. This is my response:

    The questions that seem to be holding up body cameras on policemen are easily answered. It seems like the questions are a tactic to put it on hold long enough to slip under the rug! That is unacceptable. Here are the answers:

    1. What is the most effective type of camera (vehicle, body, weapon) — and if body, where is it best placed (lapel, ear, belt)?

    Body. More specifically, the uniform. Lapel is the best, as it is close to eye level and (unless the wearer specifically moves stiffly to avoid it), will turn along with the head when the officer is looking at something.

    2. What are the privacy implications of having officers record interactions with the public?

    Public defenders are interacting in public. They can be publicly recorded on any public property they step on or go near, and even private property they step on or go near when notice is given. Anything else would be to suggest that they are NOT public defenders. In that case, what are they protecting?

    3. When should cameras be turned on?

    As soon as that uniform is donned. The uniform is the indication of their position, and many have used it to intimidate and prove “status.” As soon as they are able to use that, which is when they are wearing a uniform, is when they need to have that camera on. Discrepancies between when they clock in and when the camera is turned on should be dealt with in terms of disciplinary action that is actually carried out so that the discrepancies do not happen.

    In cases of under cover cops, it’s trickier. I’m sure someone else has solutions for that. For right now, as it’s the openly public defenders who are harming those they’re supposed to be protecting, we’ll stick with uniform.

    4. Does every officer on a force need a camera?

    YES. Why the hell would we be giving special treatment? That would only be encouragement to abuse said special treatment and intimidate and harm those whom they are supposed to be defending and protecting.

    5. How long should video data be maintained and who should have access to it?

    FOREVER. Are you suggesting that the department can secretly keep a file and destroy it, say, after 7 years, like IRS files??? Are you serious? Do you KNOW how many unsolved cases there are, and how old they are? Keep it forever. USB flash drives are minuscule. Do not even begin to protest about the space, since USB drives are now so cheap and small it would be idiotic.

    As for who has access, EVERYONE on the force! Want more trust of your public citizens? Make all of THEM have access too! PROVE you have nothing to hide and are not harming anybody! MAKE YOUR PUBLIC DEFENDERS ACTUALLY PUBLIC AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

    6. What is the impact on community relationships?

    The TRUST might (Again, MIGHT) come back. Just the fact that there are those hesitating to use body cameras at all suggests that they KNOW they behave poorly and against their oaths to keep citizens safe. Prove they do NOT have anything to hide! Wear the camera!

    7. The issue of cost also cannot be ignored.

    So, are you saying cost would be more important than the lives of the citizens of America?

    Other than the obvious reason that is despicable and gross, I’ll fix it for you.

    Stop funding military gear to local policeman. Substitute that with camera equipment and the means to keep the records on file FOREVER.

    There. All answered. Now let’s see if you have more excuses.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    It makes me sick to my stomach that people who are supposed to be keeping us safe continually exploit the citizens of the U.S., particularly black citizens. You know what the statistics are for black men killed in the U.S. by cops? We don't know. How crazy is that?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/2 … -By-Police

    ^ That article breaks down a lot of the known statistics. The problem is that even more weren't given to the author. What's more, the author talks about how often people were actually blatantly trying to not give them records of things that had happened.

    We do not know what the statistics are for how many black people are gunned down by police. We DO know by the chart in the article that the police have more "justified" murders than citizens. So, how many unjustified murders are there? It doesn't say. That couldn't be found, or was purposely withheld.

    I know this is a huge start to a forum, but I need to know I'm not the only one in my white-populated area concerned about this. Racism is wrong; we can say that until we're blue in the face. But until the actions of those in authority who are supposed to be keeping us safe and enforcing the law represent the same, we're in big trouble.

    Ferguson could be your town next.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Couple of questions.  We already video some people on the job (casino dealers come to mind), but would YOU want your every move and word recorded and saved forever?  With a 350 million strong hanging mob demanding access to that video and looking for an reason - ANY reason - to hang you out to dry?  Cops are human, and they make mistakes and errors.  Make those videos public (and I assume you wouldn't have it any other way) and you won't have a cop on the job within a month.  Every one will have made an error somewhere and with the internet blowing every word, every action, into a mountain of evil we'll have to fire them all.

      And why limit it to cops?  Anyone dealing with the public or coworkers should carry a camera, too.  Politicians, cops and the entire country can watch every move you make on the job.  Heck, make everyone wear a camera whenever they step outside their home - walking, driving (what an aid for accident investigation and issuing speeding tickets!), going to the store and cussing out the cashier for being slow - every move you make becomes available for public consumption and gossip.  Better make all military wear one, too, so we can second guess them every time THEY pull the trigger.  Talk about 1984 come to life!

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Many of the police in the UK are issued with cameras. We've had no lynch mobs so far but then our police do not appear to quite so gung-ho as your's.

        Seems to me that it protects them against false accusations which can't be a bad thing.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Many, if not most, cop cars here are equipped with cameras as well.  Can't say that that changes anything I said - the OP wants to video the cop in the bathroom, buying doughnuts and every time they stop for a break.  The obvious desire is to second guess every decision made and "get rid of" any cop that is not 100% right according to the mob - the mob that is not on the spot risking their life to protect the public and has zero training in law enforcement.

          Instead, I suggest the approach in my local area; a special investigator (forget the actual title) that looks into every complaint about police and every shooting.  NOT connected to the police at all, the job is a pretty thankless one as every time he says the police did right he is taken to task for it by that same mob.  Nevertheless it performs a valuable and, with the right person, useful task - I have not heard of a single case where his "verdict" was eventually found to be wrong.

          1. Meisjunk profile image88
            Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Do you think Ferguson, a place that is clearly still segregated in 2014, would appoint anyone except a white cop? Do you think that person, affiliated with the police or not, would be set to the task of real justice devoid of racism? I think more than likely he'd be in the pocket of the already racist and corrupt police department of Ferguson.

            Better to go with the body cameras.

          2. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But a cop who kills a man who isn't offering a threat is not protecting the public.
            A head camera would clearly show what threat the cop was facing and offer unequivocal evidence of the right or wrong of the case.

            It would relieve your ombudsman of that onerous task by presenting clear evidence.

            As you said, cars are already fitted with video cameras and a few cops have been recorded by their own cameras transgressing so I don't really see what difference a body camera would make.

      2. Meisjunk profile image88
        Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @Wilderness: I totally understand the fear of 1984 becoming a reality. The entire idea is so scary. With how much people are fighting to even make this happen with cameras on policeman, though, it kind of gives a sense of hope (Scary! I know! I so don't trust hope either) that all of that won't come to pass.

        This I think is even scarier. It's the case of a cold-blooded murder.

        That murderer hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been charged. He isn't even being pursued. He's on PAID leave. PAID.

        That scares the shit out of me.

        if you have another solution for helping police officers not make actions based on racist (whether internalized or 100% self-realized and accepted), then please help me.

        @John Holden: That is so good to know! Thank you. It makes me feel better, if that makes sense. There is actual, put into practice proof, that it would work.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "It's the case of a cold-blooded murder."  "That murderer hasn't been arrested. He hasn't been charged. He isn't even being pursued. He's on PAID leave."

          And therein lies the problem as I see it.  You appear to have declared yourself on the side of the mob - a mob that makes decisions based solely on emotion and fear instead of allowing the justice system we all operate under to do it's job.  You have already made the call when you declare the cop to be a murderer and the action a case of cold-blooded murder, and don't confuse you with facts or evidence because you have no desire to see either.

          No thank you.  We had enough from the hanging mobs in the old west; we don't need any more of it.  It has been quite educational to watch these forums as every time something like this, or the Trayvon Martin case, comes up and people all over the country do the same thing; declare that they KNOW guilt before any facts are known by anyone.  A fascinating study of humanity and mob rule, and something I do NOT wish to be a part of.

          1. Meisjunk profile image88
            Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "I do NOT wish to be a part of."

            Oh really?

    2. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In following this thread you have made repeated claims of facts that just don't appear to match up with the known facts presented by unbiased sources. Much of what you claim as fact does appear in biased blog posts and sensationalized media accounts, but that does not make them true facts.

      So borrowing from Quill's modus operandi(sp?), I thought maybe some factual sources might help your understanding of the real known facts. Hopefully you will address the known facts as passionately as you have the sensationalized accounts you appear to rely on.

      "2. The officer shot him SIX TIMES. With a pause in between. The office shot twice, paused, saw the kid was down, then shot FOUR MORE TIMES."

      How do you know this to be true? There are multiple varying witness accounts to the number and sequence of the shots. (but I could find none that said the officer shot Brown four more times after he was down). And what about the shot that may have occurred inside the police car? Even the most controversial witness, Mike Brown's friend Dorian Johnson, who was involved on-scene spoke of a gunshot in the car;

      "I'm standing so close to Big Mike and the officer, I look in his window and I see that he has his gun pointed at both of us. And when he fired his weapon, I moved seconds before he pulled the trigger..." source: CNN Timeline article

      Was that shot one of the six you speak of?

      Also the official, (and non-Ferguson) autopsy results show Brown was hit six times.

      From IJreview.com
      [b]The New York Times reports that the autopsy found that Brown was struck 6 times: four shots in the right arm, and two in the head.

      “This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he told the New York Times. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.”

      Perhaps the most telling piece of information was that Brown was struck in the front of his body, which pokes holes in the account given by Dorian Johnson, the 22-year-old man who was with Brown at the time of the shooting.


      How do you suppose the officer shot him four times when he was down, on his stomach, when multiple autopsy reports say all shots were almost certainly frontal shots?

      A quick Google search supplied more than enough reliable information to refute your further facts, but I decided to stop here because as slow as I am, it finally dawned on me that facts might not be as important to you as a narrative that fits your inclinations. Which you obviously have.

      I think you prove that point by making statements like this:
      "And please ignore Wilderness. He's clearly a racist bent on trolling/spamming this discussion with nothing but an eagerness to try and put people down."

      I think Wilderness, has tried to reasonably address your comments, but with little success because apparently you think anyone that doesn't agree with your facts are racist spamming trolls.

      GA

    3. 0
      cright941posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I am in favor of cops wearing cameras, because 99.9% of cops are in the profession because they care and with the intention of always doing the right thing. For you to categorize every cop in the same category is no different than what you accuse every cop of "racism," which is the foundation of racism, treating a segment of society based on assumption and ignorance.  You are ignorant for the statements that you have made. Don't make statements if you haven't walked in their shoes...it just shows your ignorance.

  2. katesawyer profile image79
    katesawyerposted 2 years ago

    Like the authorities tell us subjects, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't be afraid to allow us to search your car/home/person. Well if they have nothing to hide in their policing then they shouldn't have a problem wearing one.

    1. Meisjunk profile image88
      Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That is exactly how I see it. And here we're not even asking for their bank account information and on which side they sleep. We're asking for proof that they're doing their jobs correctly, especially since so often they are harming the citizens they're being paid to protect! They've lost the trust in their people. Time to step up and prove they're worthy of that trust again.

      Though I doubt that will happen for a long time, with how many people are fighting this.

    2. 0
      cright941posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But you do object.

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    I think a 24/7 body cam is too intrusive, but cams activated by certain events are justifiable.  For example some tasers automatically record once drawn.

  4. cathylynn99 profile image78
    cathylynn99posted 2 years ago

    if i were a police officer, i would want to be recorded 24/7 to make sure no one's false claims against me could stand. in locales where 24/7 recording is done, use of force is way down, as are complaints. can't see how this is bad.

    1. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      24/7 means some third party having access to footage of you taking a piss and every other mundane activity. 

      Monitoring applies when there is a public interest.  There is no public interest in a working person taking a piss.

      Other recording is on a public area like a retail counter or police car dash, not on their body.  if my workplace wanted to do that I would decline thus I cannot in good faith support it for other working people.

      1. Meisjunk profile image88
        Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Do you hold others' lives and safety in your hands? I mean literally. Not in a "oh if there were a tornado I'd have to keep people safe!!!!!" kind of way.

        These people do. Police literally hold our lives in their hands. I think the idea of it gives them a sense of power. It's going to their heads, and they use it to intimidate rather than to serve and protect.

        My worry with cameras that only turn on at certain times would be a police officer saying in court, "I don't know what happened! It must have malfunctioned! It's supposed to turn on as soon as I draw my gun, but it didn't! I swear I thought that guy was dangerous!"

        It just needs to be on. When the cameras are on during mundane things such as driving around, any potential malfunction can (and will) be caught and fixed BEFORE a major event. And then a police officer will have the proof that he behaved properly, and the people will have footage of any perp, and the police officer will also know that any misconduct on his own part is unacceptable.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Police literally hold our lives in their hands."

          So does an airline pilot or bus driver.  So does the truck driver in the next lane.  So does the electrician wiring your home or the gas man hooking up your new range.  So does the nurse bringing you your pill in the hospital.  More than any cop on the beat, the surgeon with his hands inside your body does.  Lots and lots of people literally have your life in their hands - will you watch them ALL 24-7?

          1. Meisjunk profile image88
            Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Those examples are already being held accountable for their jobs, and for the responsibility that they hold.

            Are you a police officer? Just asking. It sounds like you're sticking up for a bunch of people you are really invested in, and it makes me wonder why.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Cops aren't responsible for their jobs?  Seems to me we're ALL responsible for our jobs; it's just that a lot of them can kill people and some can't - I don't see a casino dealer, for example, killing someone by stacking the deck, or a grocery cashier causing a death by scanning something twice.

              Nope, not a cop.  Just someone really tired of seeing the people with perhaps the toughest and most dangerous job in the country always the butt of the mob's wrath.  Always having some untrained person, ignorant of what happened, blaming them for the actions of someone else.

          2. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Are airline pilots and bus drivers, truck drivers and electricians etc routinely armed and placed in provocative positions?

            1. psycheskinner profile image80
              psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Basically, yes.  That is why pilots of large aircraft are recorded, but audio only and only in the cockpit. And that is why truckdrivers must log their miles, but only in written form.

              The response must be focus on on recording at reasonable times and places, not just strapping a camera on all day.  Even slaughterhouse workers are only recorded on the floor, not followed into the bathroom or lunchroom and not given a single private minute during workhours.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Those recordings are for an entirely different reason. In the case of truck drivers to ensure that they comply with driving hours.

                In the UK those police with cameras can switch them on and off at will.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, truck drivers log hours to ensure they obey the law, the law intended to keep people from dying from truck drivers hopped up on stimulants or driving asleep.

                  And truck drivers never lie on their logs, never fudge the numbers a bit to make delivery today instead of tomorrow and gain an extra load from it.  Right!  Better put cameras on them.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And bent cops would never lie either!

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I could be wrong, but I don't think you have to have a gun to kill someone.  A moments distraction for the pilot or drivers, a little laziness on the part of the electrician or gas man, maybe a quick liquid lunch for the nurse or surgeon and someone dies.  Better have cameras on all of them.

  5. peeples profile image89
    peeplesposted 2 years ago

    I see no reason why police shouldn't have cameras on them while they are at work. They can choose to quit if they don't like it. I think EMS and Firefighters should also have them. Really anyone responsible for keeping people safe or the people's money safe. Of course these cameras should only be on when they are actually working, not on their lunch breaks or anything, but when they are doing their job they should be recording every bit of it.  We need to hold them accountable for doing their job, good or bad.
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/11445416.jpg

    1. Meisjunk profile image88
      Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That picture is so powerful! Thank you for that.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Cops are trained NOT to shoot to wound; presumably the German cop was just a very poor shot.  Either that or he has no business being an armed cop.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, American cops are trained not to shoot to wound. Other countries they are trained first not to shoot but if they must, shoot to disable if possible.

          And if it took the American cop twelve shots to kill, do you really think he was a good shot?  He must have missed with his first eleven shots!

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I see two cops, two guns in the picture.  What do you see, and what do you infer is outside the camera view?

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            *Shudder*.  That's incredibly stupid.  If the only way to stop harm to the public is to put a bullet out there, make the bullet count, and don't try for the relatively small target of a leg.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              But do you really think twelve hits is reasonable? One would stop anybody without it necessarily killing them!
              And for somebody armed with a knife and not holding anybody, how much harm can they do?
              Sounds like exactly the scenario that tasers were invented for.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "One would stop anybody without it necessarily killing them!"

                One bullet would have to be very well placed to stop a crack addict, or anyone determined to do harm for that matter - people "under the influence" are capable of incredible feats.  And to kill is the objective when the trigger is pulled, not to try and hit a small target in the hopes the knife wielder will stop.

                "And for somebody armed with a knife and not holding anybody, how much harm can they do?"

                Kill someone with it - that should be obvious.  People are killed every day with a knife, you know.  A gun is not the ONLY killing tool around, in spite of the claims of the gun control nuts.

                "Sounds like exactly the scenario that tasers were invented for."

                Tasers are fine...IF one is readily available, IF the suspect is not high on drugs (addicts have been known to take multiple taser hits and keep right on coming), IF the target is hit.  Even a miss, after all, with a gun would give most people pause to think about charging a gun being fired at them, but a taser...well, if I'm hit I go down with no real damage.  If I'm hit with a bullet I likely die.  So no, tasers are not the be-all, end-all to controlling a madman on the streets.  They certainly have their uses but circumstances DO make a huge difference.

                (And there is nothing there that says the guy was hit 12 times.)

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You do realise that if the cop had been fitted with a body camera we wouldn't be having this debate?
                  I would either be agreeing that the guy was a berserker or you would be agreeing that the killing was not necessary!

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    No, can't say as I do.  You would claim the camera showed the guy was simply walking around with a butcher knife and no ill intent, I would be saying "Gee, I don't know.  He looks pretty violent to me", and the debate would rage on with neither of us on the spot, neither of us with peripheral vision and neither one of us trained in law enforcement. 

                    And that's the point - the mob will never agree there was reason to shoot regardless of WHAT the suspect did on camera.  Hang the cop anyway, because he did his job.  Reminds me of a case in our town where a cop was called because somebodies son was high on crank and had an old (WWI I think) rifle, rampaging around the house.  The cop showed up, the kid charged and the cop killed him while still 10 or 15' away; the hanging mob went right to work declaring that that was totally unreasonable.  Of course, the rifle had a bayonet on it, the cop could not know it was unloaded in spite of Dad's assurance, and when he finally shot the kid was within less than a second of skewering him.  Even though the cop had a taser, he made the right decision to shoot, and shoot to kill; probably a good thing as someone on crank won't be fazed by a taser.  My only question was why did the cop wait so long?  A half second, one step and lunge and the cop would have been the one on the ground, not the drug crazed kid. Had the cop missed a running target he would have died on the spot and that just isn't reasonable for our public servants.

                    But that didn't matter to the mob.  The cop had killed and was instantly a murderer.  Just like the one in the photo, and facts and training have no impact on them.

                    Part of the difference, John, is that I don't have a lot of sympathy for a madman looking for someone to kill.  Go after a cop and EXPECT to be shot is my feeling - you made your bed and now must lie in it.  It isn't worth risking someone else's life, and specifically not the cop charged with protecting the public.  Yes there are bad cops (there always will be) but that's the price we all pay for protection.

                  2. Meisjunk profile image88
                    Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Here here on the body camera! If he had had one, there would be no debate here. There would be clear-cut evidence and facts.

                    (You know, despite the fact that we have SO MANY WITNESSES that it's ridiculous. We've passed the "probable cause" a cop would have used to pull over somebody or arrest somebody. And yet they're STILL not even trying to bring him in for an investigation. Nope. He's on paid leave in hiding. What a coward.)

                    I really think somebody just wants to argue. Has anybody else noticed that he zeros in on very specific points instead of looking at the whole picture?

                    1. Guns are the extreme. They should be the LAST resort.

                    2. IF a taser is readily available???? What cops don't have tasers on them? Are we really fitting our cops with things for extreme actions rather than a stepping ladder? Use an action that fits the crime, not shoot now, ask questions later.

                    (Also, there were 11 or 12 shots TOTAL. He shot the kid SIX times while the kid was RUNNING AWAY. I'm sure some people only like to use "facts" that they think help their own case.)

                  3. 0
                    cright941posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    There are three categories of people in society: those who support the police no matter what, those who hate the police no matter what, and those who can go either way. Let's not pretend that you would have an opinion that would ever fall in favor of the police.

    2. 61
      Alfred Trollposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      O, you pathetic wimps.
      America is doing NOTHING wrong. Those dangerous criminals derseve being sorted out civilzed society - and I'm saying that as a German myself.
      World is overpopulated anyway and resources are scarce, so why feed the anti-social criminals in prison with it for free (on the tax payers' costs) instead of removing them from a place (i.e. the civilzed, lawful world) whre they don't belong and obvs don't want to?
      Get lost, you stupid morons.

      Also, cameras? Are you nuts?!
      Crime fighting (as much as fire fighting or similar) needs no justification. I'd rather have X cases of police brutality than X² cases of rampant killers who couldn't bestopped because the law technically prevented police officers from doing so.
      Whoever obeys the law has nothing to fear and those who don't had it coming anyway and don't deserve anything else.
      Geez, you pathetic dumbasses cost me nerves...

  6. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    I would rather see Congress have to where cameras !

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In the UK we are free to watch the working of government live on television.

    2. Meisjunk profile image88
      Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, me too! We all know they pay themselves to make things worse and not do their jobs.

  7. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    As well as cameras on, all police officers should be required to take a course in multicultural sensitivity. They should be required to undergo role-plays with persons of a different race to ensure correct handling and respect for all citizens.
    The cop in the second flash was aiming for the leg. He was not shooting to kill the white machete wielder. That kitchen knife swatter didn't stand a chance.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "As well as cameras on, all police officers should be required to take a course in multicultural sensitivity."

      What you really mean is to let anyone with dark skin do as they please, isn't it?

      "The cop in the second flash was aiming for the leg."

      And was extremely stupid for doing so.  Any time a gun is fired it should be to kill; there is no other purpose for a gun.  Aiming for a much smaller, moving target just isn't smart.  Not when the suspect is trying to kill the cop or someone else, and there is very seldom a reason to shoot otherwise.

      An example might be a hostage situation; with no immediate death threat the cops will try to talk the suspect out.  A knife wielding man coming for the cop is most certainly an immediate threat; a threat the suspect has CHOSEN to make and one that requires immediate action as certain as possible to eliminate that threat.  Not give the suspect a chance to make good on the threat; a quick, total elimination of that threat.  Were the threat by accident (falling body perhaps?) it would be different, but such people have made their choice and there are consequences.  Deadly ones, matching the threat they pose, not a "Pretty please, put down the knife?".

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No, dark skinned people should follow the law. But there should be the same compassion for each race.
        In the photos, were two instances of threat. True the white man was the bigger threat in that his weapon was much larger, but that is not my point. My point is, only one of those men were "over-killed" and the white man with the big knife was simply wounded. His cop had some thoughts about the humanity of his target...
        Not the case with the murdered crazy man with the darker skin... see we got a "real good" reason to fill him with holes.
        That dark crazy is dead.  The white crazy lives to wield again... as usual.
        Equal treatment for ALL citizens!!! Multicultural sensitivity is a must for police. How can you protect a man you have been taught to hate, from birth, via various avenues?
        The training will at least show him how to respect through the hate. And he should be held accountable when he doesn't.
        All officers... there are a couple black people here who I would not want to meet if they had a badge.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          How do you know he was "over killed"?  All I can see to make that determination is dark skin - nothing else is known at all.  Which is what I said - I did notice you said that " dark skinned people should follow the law" but carefully did NOT say that they should be forced to as all other people are.

          Then you continue with the statement that the dark skinned man was "murdered" without the faintest bit of knowledge as to what happened.  Apparently cops killing dark skinned people is automatically "murder" (for which there is a legal definition) regardless of circumstances, yes?

          If you want "equal treatment", you might want to at LEAST limit it to people living under the same law.  You do understand that laws vary across this globe, resulting in very UNequal treatment?

          "The training will at least show him how to respect through the hate."  Can you present, please, the evidence that the cop hated dark skin?  It isn't apparent in the picture...

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            For this to be a conversation swerved into justified UNequal treatment is a trip. How do I respond to that???
            Well, all I can say is, no.
            The U.S. should be unified in equal treatment. There was a whole war within OUR borders to end slavery, etc. The Losers never got over it... they built another mud hut underneath...
            The police have ALWAYS been utilised in carrying out the plan.
            12 shots in a man is usually more than enough to kill him. That is what I mean by overkill. 
            The cops decided to kill the black man (again). But for the white man, the cop decided to wound. It is typical case scenario around here. Sensitivity training and no prejudiced cops allowed. That may cut down on the murder.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Who or where is the man that was shot 12 times?  Where can I read about it?

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know. It was on the pic we saw above somewhere with two cops shooting suspects and the one on the bottom you said was a bad shot because he didn't follow his orders/training to shoot to kill.

        2. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Amazing... With the progress us "oldsters," (the ones old enough to perhaps fit your statement),  have made changing our racial attitudes, and the major changes later generations exhibit... you still feel comfortable making that "taught to hate from birth" statement.

          It seems to me that there is more than a white person's racism on display here.

          GA

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            +1

          2. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately, in the hood, my statement is valid. There are people here who roll their eyes at the simple thought of "darkies". Good for you that your part of the universe is cool with blacks but trust me when I say, your love for the black community is not typical in this country. Even some blacks can't stand blacks. But it is based from someone's stereotypes. Blacks are this; blacks are that. The quietest kept secret is that whites are this or that too... they may only cover it up better.
            Money puts a pretty dress on the ugliest of criminals.
            Check Wall Street...

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Are you speaking of white residents of the "hood," or white cops assigned to it? I would question that either way. White folks living in the "hood" would seem to be the least likely to hold the opinions you stated, but since I have no experience to speak from - that is only my thought. And if you were speaking of the cops - wouldn't that imply that only racist cops are assigned to the "hood?" Sounds like a doubtful scenario to me.

              I really believe my part of the universe is much more the norm in America than yours. But again, I can only speak from my life experiences in my part of the universe. Your little segment of the universe must be quite different. I would still venture that my views are closer to the American norm than yours, but I won't bother chasing down the stats to prove it because I get the impression it wouldn't matter to you.

              Just sayin'

              GA

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I remember bringing up how many white cops post-up on the block chatting on the corner in vests. Crazy biz.
                Some black cops hate blacks too; they have bought into the scenario that their blue collar ass is much better than reg n words.
                I do not see the "well-off" enter city security. But that's just my tiny little opinion. I could be wrong, and copping is fun, or something. 
                Many of the movies done by blacks with gangs shooting killings cop corruption... usually based tighly against actual events. Things that happen regularly for blacks with no money. The crime rate is sickening. But everyone is scrounging for some money. Some validation.
                Police are super sh*tty here. Not all of them... but many. I would not be surprised if
                there is ninety percent trash in law enforcement.
                Much easier in big cities. Names get lost. Easier to make it disappear.
                I have nothing to gain by being candid about what I see regularly. I believe what I say. People know how I do.

    2. Meisjunk profile image88
      Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      @Cgenaea: That is a very good point. So many cops only have the mindsets available to them that their parents gave them. I think they need MUCH more training than how to kill or subdue someone.

      And please ignore Wilderness. He's clearly a racist bent on trolling/spamming this discussion with nothing but an eagerness to try and put people down.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hey there smile
        Please excuse my friend Wilderness. We've been through many wars together (well on opposing sides, of course. Lol) but he's a good Christian man! Well, maybe not a "Christian" per se... lol...
        Yes! Officers should be trained to protect even they who get on their last nerve; make them wanna hurl; looks horrible in spandex; do not have a home/clean clothes; are of a different race. This being a nation made up of everybody and all...

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I do believe that's the case, but the question is protect whom?  The killer wielding a knife/gun or the victim being stabbed (including the cop).  In the vast majority of cases even the suspect is protected as much as possible, but the bottom line is that that cop is there to protect the citizenry (and the cop), not a killer wandering the streets.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Pu-leez the Ferguson officer was mad at the boy who allegedly hit him. Cuz maybe he bumped his face hard whilst he was being escorted back into his car. Happens to criminals all the time.
            He took the due process part out of the game. Not legal...

            1. Superkev profile image85
              Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Really? All evidence and 'witness' reports to the contrary huh? You have just rewritten every statement pro and con about this incident.

              The ignorance about this incident and police work in general on Hubpages and in the general public is absolutely stupefying, and I am talking in biblical proportions here. The Hub author does not even get the name of the agency involved correct SMH. 

              PS- There is NO, repeat NO, shooting to wound in police work in the US. It is Illegal, and no police officer is trained or authorized to use deadly force to maim. And yes, I spent 16 years on the job.

              I wish people would quit thinking that what they see on the TV and in the movie theater is what happens in real life. This ain't TJ Hooker.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Hello, Superkev. smile we have discussed this situation before. We are all aware of the little that has been said about the "facts" of the case. No, this AINT TJ Hooker. He liked blacks. Or at least treated them equally. smile
                This is real life. And if police officers are actually trained that if they must release the gun from their holsters, somebody better be dead afterwards, then the police should be taught to keep their guns INSIDE the holster a little longer for black people... they're pulling them just a bit too soon. And many more blacks are dead as a stank result. Whites have their statistics too.
                No! Black people are not more rowdy. No! Black people are not more unruly. And no!!! Black people do not "deserve" their plight, nor their wayward treatment.
                How many times during your career, how many times did you release your gun? How many people are dead as a result? Surely, if you were a "good" cop, you blasted away many and left lots of blood in the streets. Kill any white people???

                1. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  To be fair, and Kev can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that many police officers go their entire careers without ever discharging their weapons at all. Cops don't just willy-nilly go around shooting people. I think we are all a little misguided as far as that goes due to the way television often portrays police work.

                  *and I also think that he didn't mean that if one must pull a gun, someone better be dead afterward. What I read was that if a weapon is discharged, it is to deliver a shot that will kill someone and not just wound them or slow them down. Police draw their guns all the time, but they do not fire indiscriminately.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    But would cops go their entire career and not pull the gun at all?  I find it hard to believe Superkev and Wilderness' assertion that police are trained to kill if they must pull the weapon.
                    However I could be wrong and that is their training (which makes me scared).
                    But my male relatives and friends may attest to the fact that many times, police approach with their guns drawn.
                    About a month ago, a cop approached my son with his gun pointed at my son at a busy mall. I had just picked up my son from work, and since, to them, all blacks look alike, they approached my son, who also wears his hair locked, instead of the dude with the locks who had been seen selling drugs and left... I was there to attest that my son and I had just gotten there and my son had JUST gotten off work.
                    My son was lucky.

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                What! You mean Hollywood isn't real life? smile

                You make a very valid point.

                GA

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Proof, please that the cop was not only mad at the guy, but mad enough to murder him in cold blood?  You REALLY should consider only making statements you can back up, or at a minimum opinions based on something besides racism.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Let me just say this... six shots; two to the dome; four armpit shots. (Hands likely up) I did see the coroner's diagram.
                The shooting was angrily overdone...

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Proof please?????? You are kidding right?

                Proof has already been shown to be unimportant in this thread, so why ask now?

                GA

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you're right - "Don't try to confuse me with facts and truth".  I've had enough of this nonsense - it absolutely disgusts me.  As bad as reading 50 year old literature from the KKK.

  8. oceansnsunsets profile image90
    oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago

    I wish a camera was an affordable option for every officer in every department.  This would help us uncover the truth in these cases that seem so heated on both sides.  If truth is the goal, and fairness is desired, then it would be ideal and optimal.  At this time, I was told its not possible for every officer.  I wish it was though.

  9. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    The camera does sound like more trouble than it's worth; considering the fact that officers will have much say in whether or not the view/sound is "clear."
    Maybe cops could keep an open mic during certain situations. Maybe headquarters should be able to be responsible for opening the mic.
    Someone could hit record when it gets heated...
    But the class should only add 100,000 dollars/ year to the budget for one qualified specialist on staff to conduct classes...or, if not each, a contracted specialist who could handle... oh! The POLICE ACADEMY should require a few hours in the necessary multicultural training and weeding out the multiculturally "dangerous" cop. Police officers should be people to whom EVERYONE (especially little kids) should be able to safely run, if there is trouble.

    1. Meisjunk profile image88
      Meisjunkposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, you have some great points! Thanks so much for adding to the discussion.

      We definitely need to start from the beginning of a cop's role and get to the academies. If police officers were properly trained at the very beginning, then I'd like to think that they'd be able to think, "Oh, okay. Let's get to the bottom of this. I think I might know what's going on, but I want to make sure. I might learn something today" before they enter a situation.

      That would be clear-headed and just so much more mature than, "ON THE GROUND. *BANG*"

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I'd have to think that if it were you being shot, stabbed or raped you would not want that cop to stop and take a 1/2 hour to assess the situation and decide just what's going on.  If it's YOUR child home alone when the house is broken into, you won't want a full investigation of what's happening before action is taken.  No, when it comes home to roost you want the killer/rapist/burglar stopped, and stopped RIGHT NOW.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Even in extreme cases as you've mentioned, the police always assess the shituation first. It's just that the assessment process is MUCH shorter when black faces are at the other end of the barrel.  No cop worth his salt enters a situation shooting, unless he hears fire...

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, police always assess the situation, they just don't always come up with the answer the hanging mob thinks they should have.  Sitting in the armchair days later, beer in hand, seems to give a little different viewpoint.

            Interesting that you have timed the assessment period between black and white suspects.  Can you share those numbers with us?  Along with, of course, the database you used to compile them?

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      On the forces in the UK that use body cameras they report a pay back time in weeks rather than years.
      The technology is such that no training is needed and no supervision. Sound and picture quality are not under the officers control and there is no way of editing or altering the content.

      This thread seems to be concentrated on the use of deadly force. That is very rare in the UK and probably not as common in the USA as films and this thread seems to suggest. So let's look at alternative scenarios.

      The police apprehend a drug dealer. He manages to break away and as he flees, he discards his stash. The police catch him again. They recover the discarded drugs. They know that they were his, he knows that they were his, but he denies knowledge of them.  There is no evidence that they were his and in the unlikely event of the CPS prosecuting, the court says "not enough evidence" and the dealer walks free.
      Second scenario. The police pursuing him have body cameras that quite clearly show him discarding the drugs. The recording is shown to the court and the dealer is convicted. 

      I think those who oppose the use of cameras are anti police rather than pro police.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Or, they know some things we don't about how cops actually get down.

  10. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    Ok, not DIRECTLY armpit, but close enough to determine the boys arms were raised.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Is that in your expert forensic opinion based on seeing and examining the body or some marks on a diagram that only indicates the location of the wounds and not the bullet track or the wound cavity???

      See you are like the way Ronald Reagan described democrats; It's not so much that they are stupid, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

      You know less than nothing about police work, certainly even less than that about forensics and evidence, but you have YOUR version of what happened and by God no amount of facts or evidence to the contrary is going to change your mind.

      One thing I have learned is to never argue with someone who will not agree that 2+2 =4 because to them facts don't matter and you will never win the argument no matter how many facts you have.

      And for the record, I have un-holstered my weapon dozens of times. Been shot three times, survived each due to the miracle of Kevlar and a ceramic trauma plate. First guy who shot me was a white biker type, he didn't make it.

      I've been in 5 shootings total, not counting the military. In only 3 of those instances did someone die, none of them were me, one of them was a good friend and partner.

      I wish I could tell you what I really think of your ill-informed, utterly ignorant racist ranting, but it would likely get me a week long ban, and I don't want you thinking I'm afraid to respond to such drivel.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Is that in your expert forensic opinion based on seeing and examining the body or some marks on a diagram that only indicates the location of the wounds and not the bullet track or the wound cavity???
        Following hysterical laughter,  I must say, yes, that is as expert as I may get being a person who has been aware of the sum of two and two for a long time now. wink
        The shots along the inside of his arm and armpit tell a cute lil story.

        1. Superkev profile image85
          Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Really, please tell us that cut lil story and please provide the forensic evidence including autopsy photographs and measurements that provide a factual basis for your assertions. And just so you know "Because I think that is what happened" is not admissible in court.

          But please tell us all how those wounds prove beyond any doubt that MB had his hands in the air.

    2. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well if it did prove his arms were raised high in the "I give" position, why did the arm/arm pit shots enter the body instead of flying past him? Or do you mean raised as in not by his side? Or as in chest-high running pump raised?

      GA

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Pause... stand in the mirror.
        Raise your arms high above your head. Notice the side of the arm that faces the mirror? 
        Now look at Michael Brown's diagram from the coroner.
        Come back and tell me what you see...

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I see three shots in the back of the arm. So what does the autopsy report  showing three shots to the front of the arm tell you?

          GA

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Now see... you just cheated.
            He has all frontal shots. Please look again. wink

          2. Superkev profile image85
            Superkevposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Nothing she wants to hear or accept that's for sure.

            The wound tracks will tell the story, something the diagram, probably by design, isn't showing. And never mind the fact that the "pathologist" that did the second autopsy is not a licensed or trained pathologist and that Dr. Baden did not even attend the actual autopsy but simply reviewed this not-a-pathologists report and signed off on it.

            That is probably why the normally media-whorish Dr. Baden has not given one interview on the subject since.

            Again, these people don't want justice, they want a lynching, the facts and evidence be damned.

            To quote Garrison Keillor "I believe in looking reality straight in the eye, and denying it."

  11. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    Is that diagram showing trajiktry lines??? If so, the bullets originate from one point?

  12. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    Thanks for sparing a wee sparrow your speech on math and science with more pikchas.
    'Nite! smile

  13. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    I am so glad that there is the wise Garrison k... and the admission of the honest quoter. But that will not be successful in assisting others to help with the race issue in my tiny corner of the world.

  14. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago

    On my FB feed came a video.
    Picture this...
    Two white cops follow slowly, two young black dudes into the lot of a loc
    l  restaurant.
    As the d.
    des exited their car, one tells the other,  "It's crazy, he almost hit my car."
    The cops follow them in.
    One cop approched the "mouthy" dude ans asks, "What did you say?!?"
    The guy responds with what he said or something.
    So now the cop asks for I.D.  ???
    Now the dudes want to know why. They argue. They want to know why their I.D.s are being requested.
    One officer reaches out to the dude and dude knocked his hand away. So the cop swung and caught BOTH dudes in the jaw. A fight ensues.
    The dept. gave thumbs-up to the officer's "procedure" and the boys (one a law student and the other I think criminal justice) were not arrested.
    Any thoughts?.

  15. aware profile image69
    awareposted 7 months ago

    People need to know when a police officer stops you or confronts you. You do not run . You don't get belligerent and evasive. You govern yourself accordingly. Teach your kids not to get shot for being a holes.

    1. ahorseback profile image50
      ahorsebackposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      ++++++++++

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Yes, they should wear cameras as it keeps everyone honest and accountable. Law enforcement should welcome it as a way to avoid legal consequences for application of lethal force.

      No, I don't trust the "Mayberry" mindset of the opponents of this simple preventative measure.  If you have nothing to hide then the cops would have nothing to fear.

  16. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 7 months ago

    I have to believe that cops have to wear  enough equipment as it is . Have you really ever looked at their belts ?   The cars , sure  ! But body cams  ? No , I don't believe they should have to ,  just why is it all of a sudden our cops are doing it all wrong when for  all the previous  decades   everyone respected them at least enough not to act like entitled morons .    If you ask me , anyone getting harassed by a cop  probably deserves it for their attitude .

    Today , social behavior basically sucks .

  17. aware profile image69
    awareposted 7 months ago

    Cops are not judges

  18. aware profile image69
    awareposted 7 months ago

    Why? Cuz black folks be making accusation

  19. JG Hemlock profile image87
    JG Hemlockposted 7 months ago

    When the S hits the fan...all those cameras will be the first to go. I can see the rock throwing as I type. LOL

 
working