Police encounter - If you simply obey the orders of a police officer you will not be shot !
What is so evil about obeying the simple , systematic standard directions of an officer in situations of a police , civilian encounter ? You cannot get away with the same poor behavior you're used to encountering with your parents and friends , Why ? Because most of life's encounters demand far more respect than you are used to showing in your lose behavior !
I have an autistic son who looks completely normal but in stressful situations might hesitate or freeze while being yelled at. It's nice to know you think it would be justified for a cop to shoot him for it.
PP, Get real !,......saying lousy and entitled behavior is unacceptable in the actual encounter where an officer alone has to protect him[her ] self as the defender of poor attitude and general rejection of authority , I do understand you're confusion .
So, you believe not moving fast enough when an officer barks an order is punishable by death?
Actually I believe that police officers are there for the better good and TO PROTECT even the lowly enlightened protester !
One of the things that often strikes me in the videos of violent confrontations is that there is often one, or several, cops shouting to "Lie down!" or whatever. Repeated over and over in a long stream of shouted orders.
Most people are not accustomed to drill sergeant tactics and it could very well be confusing. Before they've even processed the order and begun to act, another order, screamed out in anger and/or fear, is received. I can fully understand why some people get confused and don't react by promptly obeying.
I often wonder if a quiet request wouldn't be more effective. Sure, to those that aren't going to cooperate it won't make any difference but for the people who are willing to follow orders if the cop just doesn't scare them to death and confuse them with rapid fire orders it might help a lot.
A reasonable position. My son would very likely freeze or run if screamed at the way I've seen cops do in so many videos. I don't think he needs to die because of that.
I recently watched a video where an officer tased an elderly woman because she didn't jump when screamed at. An elderly person can be easily confused and could also suffer grave effects from being tased. It looked to me like the officer could have easily detained her without violence. She was just standing there crying in confusion.
I think training in nonviolent tactics is sorely needed.
I understand the adrenaline is pumping and the cop is afraid for his life. I understand it is imperative that weapons be dropped, that the suspect stay away from anything that is being mistaken for a weapon, and anywhere a weapon might be obtained. I get all that, and I get the anger of a cop when orders are not followed. I get that it takes a fraction of a second to kill a cop - that seconds are incredibly precious to both cop and suspect wishing to cause harm. I get that it's all too easy to blame the cop because we, sitting in our arm chair and second guessing his motives and actions with almost no information to go on, make calls that cops have neither information or time to make.
Still, it does seem that calm must prevail and that orders, at least initially, need to be calm requests rather than screamed out. In so many cases that only transfers the cops fear and confusion to the suspect. It could also be that we're missing the initial requests in these videos, that a quiet voice is not being picked up, but I doubt it. In the cases where it goes wrong it think the first words are an excited scream from a cop, intended to produce instant obedience, and it doesn't work.
Why ,........... "it doesn't work " .......is more often than not the behavior problems of our youth !
Yes, I've seen police remain calm and professional during extremely stressful times. I realize they are human beings and will lose their cool and make mistakes. However, as in any job, if you lose your cool and make mistakes, consequences should ensue. Think about a bank teller who gets frustrated with a customer and punches them or something. That person would likely get fired. I know a janitor who laid hands on a kid who was mouthing off. It wasn't his job to do so, and he got fired. Cops shoot somebody and the system often (not always) protects them. Not only that, cops who repeatedly show their inability to carry out their duties professionally remain on the job, or if they are fired, get a job in another city.
Again, I appreciate the difficulty of their job and the dangers they face. It is time for good cops to weed out the bad ones. The only way the system will change is from within.
We have , in America , raised a couple of generations of spoiled youth who instantly reject any self -protective police order , Too much pride , ego and rebellious nature isn't good for anyone ! Got to "teach your children well "actually means that ! Not to teach them to assume an entitlement and anarchy in behavior.
Pretty Panther...your son or any of my former students who are deaf who might try to sign to a state patrol officer or police officer and are misunderstood- The death sentence should not be given to a deaf young deaf man so afraid of the police because of past experiences that he drove home and was shot to death in front of his house in aug 2016 in North Carolina. Why is shooting someone dead an option when an encounter is a few min long? Something is very very wrong. Many teachers are in situations everyday that could escalate to tragic ends in a second. They know how to diffuse and de-escalate. I once stood between two 6 ft seniors ready to get into a fight that would ending in unpredictable consequences.. My physical being was in danger. I diffused it by breaking the students' animal-like eye contact with each other. It's not equivalent, but I simply don't see ANY attempt in recent encounters to diffuse situations - only a lot of escalating! The point you made Pretty Panther is excellent.
Here's a point for ALL to THINK about ;
Police procedure , A cop encounters people at every stop that they make in their career , They are placed in potential danger at all of these stops , NOT JUST THE ONE YOU SEE ON TV . That is why they have a procedure that protects both them and the possible perpetrator in a stop , ---Roll down your window , show your hands , don't make any fast moves , don't argue , don't show attitude ,
You don't do stupid things until the cop feels safe . Guess what people , it isn't a book , it's a gun ! Why the procedure is so hard for people sitting safely at home watching the nightly news , is SO hard to understand , baffles a lot of people,.
Standing between two big boys does not put your life in imminent danger. It is very likely that neither one actually wanted to fight each other, and certainly neither one had a burning desire to kill you. Neither one was armed - any damage they do will take some time.
To equate that to someone with a gun and an intent to murder a cop, that requires a fraction of a second to do that, is silly. There is no comparison at all between you breaking up a fight between two bruisers still in the "insult" stage or their shouting match and a cop facing someone that is armed, high on drugs and wanting to kill a cop.
I think she was equating it more to cops who shoot unarmed suspects because they "fear for their life."
hmm... If you read closely, I stated that it is not equivalent - merely an example of de-escalation. There is sonething one can do about de-escalation - nothing that can be done to change either your mind nor mine about the need to have a systemic cultural change of mindset.
De-escalation of two kids arguing and de-escalation of a situation of someone a half second away from murder have nothing in common with each other. Do you feel that they are similar somehow or do you include the example for another reason?
Wilderness? You are doing it again. You are mischaracterizing her point to make it easier to argue against. There are plenty of clear-cut instances of cops choosing to escalate a relatively benign situation. Do you really have to bark orders at a small elderly woman who is standing there crying in confusion then taser her when she doesn't jump at your command? Do you really have to shoot an unarmed mann in the back while he is running away?? Really?
I think we can hold our police, who are servants of the people, to a reasonable standard of conduct and still respect the difficulty of their job.
I remember that! He was shot while running away, and that was near the beginning of the whole BLM thing!
Except he wasn't running away, was he?
It's a popular call, isn't it? Ignore danger to the cop and surrounding population: far more important to "de-escalate" some whacko on PCP with unknown weapons in his pockets. It's a great sounding word - de-escalate - until someone (except the cop - his death won't matter as that's what we pay him for) gets killed. And so easy for arm-chair arguments after the fact, too!
1) Police sometimes have to make split-second decisions to injure or kill a citizen and are completely justified in doing so.
2) Sometimes police are bad at their jobs and their unprofessional behavior results in unnecessary death or injury to citizens.
These statements are both true.
And no argument to either one from me.
I just take exception to the insinuation that 2) is a common occurrence. It's not, and THAT statement is true as well. When two "sometimes" are insinuated to be roughly equal, but are in fact differing by a factor of thousands, I have a problem.
I don't think they are equal but the unnecessary deaths of innocent people must be addressed. Things going right do not require intervention. Things going wrong do, especially when people die.
PrettyPanther, Yes! I would modify #2 by saying that "Sometimes the training of police officers and state patrol officers is not consistent across the board in all states or counties and it APPEARS as if the curriculum involved in various programs is deficient in training officers in specific methods that the fields of psychology, sociology, and criminal justice have found statistically effective; nor do all programs include training on recognizing and understanding the needs of various communities, including the mentally ill and people with physical and psychological challenges. In addition, understanding the cultural characteristics of various communities seems lacking. It is that lack of training that SEEMS to result in unnecessary death or injury to citizens.
When I was working for the Bureau of Hearing Impaired in Madison, Wisconsin we had counselors who also did consistent training with Wisconsin State Patrol on recognizing and approaching deaf people as well as training citizens within the deaf community as to how to respond when approached by an officer. This is one example of the kind of dedicated outreach that has to occur consistently "across the board" . That means purposeful, directed involvement of communities with the law enforcement agencies in the US. I have known of hearing and deaf parents of deaf kids who have taken it upon themselves, to approach the police community and pass out brochures about deafness or actually give little talks. Unless this is a system wide procedure for all communities, we will have mistakes made that shouldn't be made. Since the use of cell phone video, however, incomplete as those fractured pieces of evidence might be, one thing seems obvious and indisputable : WE CAN DO BETTER!
There is a problem here. You want your cop to be thoroughly trained in psychology, sociology and criminal law in all its nuances. You want him trained in hearing disability and, presumably, all the other possible disabilities we see in our country (blindness, diabetes, missing limbs, heart conditions and everything else that affects how people behave). You want him to be an expert on not only mental illness, but the physical effects of those illnesses. He must be expert in all drugs, legal and illegal, and the effects they have on people both mental and physical.
Others want cops to carry 50 pounds of equipment while retaining the ability to subdue a PCP addict without harming them. They must be in better physical condition that 99% of the population in order to chase suspects until they drop rather than using force to stop them. We want every cop under constant video surveillance all the time they are on duty, with zero privacy and with zero errors being made.
A fine and noble goal, but there aren't a dozen people in the entire country with those abilities, or even with the ability to learn all these things before old age. And we need nearly a million cops! You will have cops spend their entire career simply training without ever stepping foot into the street.
Like it or not, cops have limited ability, limited training and are not perfect. Nothing is ever going to change that, and we're never going to even approach the goals you would set up.
The unrelentlessness of this dialog is a great metaphor for the topic itself.
Like your first statement suggests a good citizen should do, I raise my hand; I say "Yes, sir. No, sir." But as powerlessness to convince you of any thing other than your own opionion becomes an ingrained and deepened feeling of hopelessness, the result is that nothing changes. Over and out.
I'm thankful your nihilistic attitude toward problem solving is not the norm.
Do you find a lifetime of training and requirement for multiple degrees is reasonable in order to be a cop? I know you put no limit on the load they're forced to carry around - you've said as much - but do you find a half dozen college degrees reasonable as well?
I've never said I put no limit on the load they carry around.
I've never said they need six college degrees.
Many jobs require a lifetime of training so even though I also never said that, I'll say it would be perfectly reasonable to expect a person who carries a gun and makes decisions that could result in death to receive yearly training. Many professions require periodic training and refresher courses.
You said nothing is ever going to change. A true statement of it were up to you. I am so glad it is not.
But I didn't mean some "refresher" courses each year or two: I mean a constant attendance at a university in order to gain the knowledge of several different degree fields. Say, 4 degrees, each requiring 4 years: a total of 16 years of full time college.
No, you didn't say the weight being carried should have no limit, but you never responded with a limit, either. Just would require more junk to be packed around without ever discarding any.
Lol,, I'm sorry wilderness but you are amusing me today.
I have suggested that body cameras be required for all police officers. Body cameras weigh 2-3 ounces. Are you suggesting that would be onerous? My feeble 87 year old mom could have handled that on her worst day.
It is not up to me to decide how much weight an officer can carry but since many already carry body cameras I'm using my rational mind to say that 2-3 extra ounces is not over the tipping point, but if you can show me evidence otherwise I would be glad to look at it.
Since I never suggested 16 years of college why are you arguing with me as though I did?
Yeah - everything they carry (except perhaps the vest and gun) weigh only a few ounces. And everything reduces their mobility only a small amount - the mobility that is necessary to take down a suspect without harming either them or the cop.
So it's always "just a few ounces"...as it adds up to pounds and constriction. But the easy way out is to always go back to that "just a few ounces" argument, isn't it?
No you didn't, but the post above had quite a litany of education needed and we both know the constant cries of "He should be trained for...". It is a never ending cry - that our cops should know everything there is to know about human behavior and possible abnormalities before they ever hit the streets.
Again with the exaggerations.
"It is a never ending cry - that our cops should know everything there is to know about human behavior and possible abnormalities before they ever hit the streets."
No, asking cops to get some training on how not to shoot innocent people is a far cry from the above statement.
And, like I said, if that extra 2-3 ounces is the tipping point I would be glad to know it. Any evidence of that you want to show me? Since many officers already carry body cams without complaint I think there is evidence that the extra 2-3 ounces is acceptable.
I have had a problem with Wilderness in regard to this discussion before. Considering the importance of gathering evidence to support a proper encounter with a civilian as opposed to an inproper one, the almost negligeable weight of a camera should not be a consideration. The only people who resist the concepts are the ones that just as soon not have police be put on the spot for inappropriate behavior, allowing for nothing but their word to support or deny the facts of an encounter with a civilian. I can't imagine how anyone who seriously wants to hold everybody accountable for their behavior would be intimidated by the suggestion? Wilderness is an 'all or nothing guy'. He says that because there is a general climate toward attacking cops anyway, the fact that there is available evidence of an objective nature is irrelevant.
I'm truly puzzled about the objection. Employees with much less challenging jobs that would never or rarely involve life or death decisions are under camera surveillance in the workplace. Bank employees, casino employees, school bus drivers, retail workers, etc. What is the resistance to having cameras recording cops on the job? It will help the good ones and catch the bad ones, just like in a retail store or bank.
I'll ask you the same thing I ask PP - what equipment would you no longer require a cop to carry, exchanging it for a camera and batteries? The taser? Billy club?
Or would you just keep adding, figuring each time that "it's only a small weight and encumbrance" until cops can hardly waddle down the sidewalk?
My answer wasn't good enough? Maybe I didn't say it clearly. When the experts get to the point where they are saying a 3 ounce camera is too much to add, then of course, one would have to determine what needs to go, the camera or something else. Has this occurred yet? If it has, why don't you show me where and when? If not, when and if the problem occurs, it can be dealt with quite simply. I don't understand your harping on it, frankly. It's puzzling to me.
Your answer is to load them down until a huge majority of "experts" say it is too much?
For me, that's not a reasonable answer. Particularly as we will always be able to find an "expert" that will say "Well, I don't suppose another 3 ounces will hurt...".
PP, it's not so much the camera as it is the underlying assumption that we can keep piling additional duties and requirements on cops forever, while their jobs get tougher and tougher at the same time. Additional training is part of it, cameras are part of it, tasers are part of it. When I see cops lined up with shields to protect themselves against rioters rather than simply breaking out the water cannon, gas, rubber bullets and yes, real bullets, it disgusts me. The biggest single problem our cops have today, and one result is that we want cameras, is that we've decided that criminal behavior needs to be treated with kid gloves. As little consequence as possible, and turn them loose to do it again tomorrow. We've become a nation of criminals (1 in 10 adult males have served time and over 1 in 100 are currently incarcerated) and that's absolutely ridiculous. Clean the streets of criminals and you won't have nearly as many cop shootings. Make the job safe for them again and the killings will go to as close to zero as it is possible to do.
We're attacking the problem - excessive violence in our country - with the same zeal we do guns. The solution isn't cameras just as it isn't taking guns: it is to actually do something to change the mindset of Americans concerning violence.
How about the ' Little Debby's donuts or a change purse? A few ounces seem negligible to me when weighed against the critical function of documenting behavior. I am just supposed to trust these people like Barney Fife in Mayberry Idaho? Well, I say trust, but verify.
Same answer then - "whatever I want cops to have they should be required to carry". If it's 500 pounds then it's 500 pounds. If it's a 50' fishing net to throw over suspects, then it's a 50' fishing net. Doesn't matter and you still expect them to do their job.
Got it. I just think there are more important considerations, such as how much can be carried and still to the job required - after all, if we load them to the point they cannot move we lose all protection and are wasting the billions spent each year on police forces.
Whatis with the all or nothing mentality? There are cameras everywhere. You don't understand that if there is a question about use of a firearm by a law officer or a complaint by a citizen of inappropriate treatment, why do you want to cover that up? These municipalities are subject to law suits in cases like these. If I were the mayor of a major city, why would I not want to protect the city and law officer from false charges? Also, make certain that inappropriate behavior by one of my officer is quickly identified and disciplinary action applied if necessary. It can defuse complaints from the community of police being free to operate without being held accountable. I can't see what the conservative mindset is that allows them to just dismiss it. You can bet that the citizens have cameras, so the days of Harry Callahan are over. It may not deal with it all, but it works in the right direction and that. Is better than nothing. You can't make that kind of a case for a fishing net...
I understand all that. What I do fail to understand is your all or nothing mentality - that every possible precaution to stop police abuse be taken, including what might destroy any effectiveness of the police.
You have clearly demonstrated that you don't care how it affects performance: you want what you want and hang the results.
Does covering up misbehavior enhance police performance? Are you only happy when police have no one looking over their shoulder? We are all to be held accountable, that is just the way it is. What is it that you think that I promote that would reduce the effectiveness of police?
"What is it that you think that I promote that would reduce the effectiveness of police?"
An unending stream of additional requirements and equipment. The latest of which is a camera removing all privacy from the job, will produce little of value in the vast majority of events and will require large amounts of additional equipment, manpower and time to maintain. Without, of course, being willing to even discuss removing something from the package; it's always add and add, never subtract.
I rather like the notion of cameras, though I do understand their limitations to some degree. I do not understand the requirement that all cops be Superman incarnated, with near infinite knowledge, wisdom, experience and strength.
I talking about a small body cam, who said anything about an unending stream of additional requirements? You are saying that...
When you are working, doing your job, why should you have expectations of privacy? Lunch, bathroom breaks and off duty is plenty of privacy time.
It is only your opinion that little value is added, and what is the basis of this opinion? I am not hearing that from the mayors of major cities. How is this little technical marvel anymore difficult to maintain than say, a police radio? All police accounterments require maintenance, so, what is new?
What is this add, add stuff? I am only advocating for the camera. What is your real fear or concern that you avoid discussing?
Nobody is Superman or perfect, If these guys had infinite knowledge, wisdom, strength and experience, we would not have to question or record their performance and behavior at all, would we? Well, that is not the world we live in, is it different in Idaho?
PP, you know as well as I do that the first time a cop has a violent encounter with a mentally ill person the cry goes up that they need to "understand" mental illness. A diabetic that doesn't follow orders and the cop is taken to task for not understanding diabetes. A druggie is shot and the cop is in trouble because he doesn't "understand" drug usage.
Cameras? I have no objection to cameras except that cops need as much privacy as you do, and that needs addressed rather than 24 hour surveillance. That and the continual requirements to carry more and more equiipment (tasers, clubs, - anything that even might subdue a criminal without hurting them).
Of course, cameras are not the panacea that people think they are - I've watched a few and all I get is a headache from constant, quick camera movement. We even heard comments that the helicopter view the other day of the shooting victim "plainly" showed his hands in the air, with in fact it showed just the opposite. Conclusion: people are going to claim they saw (and even believe it) whatever they want to. It will still be up to the courts to decide and that isn't going to satisfy anyone demanding cameras.
I think a big problem within the police force is that over recent years the bar has been lowered on entrance exams and IQ's, etc. That is not good use of common sense for the service and safety of the citizens.
I hear about people needing to site their legal rights to inform an officer of the law as to what they are. I'm not sure how common that is, but its good to know your legal rights.
Anyway, shell we call for higher entrance standards for police officers?
I believe the majority of officers would appreciate that.
Who would you want to have your back?
We see too many Barney Fifes coming out police academies these days.
"Anyway, shell we call for higher entrance standards for police officers? "
If we do, will we still have people to hire and train? I know I wouldn't be a cop in today's atmosphere if the standards were a warm body and it paid triple what it does.
Boy howdy, I hear your there! Its gotten much more dangerous out there for cops in the past couple of years, once again. Too many shot and killed!
This bad enough. ~~> My son in-law is a fireman. He recently got called to the scene of an accident to find one of his best friends mangled and no longer with us.
Police brutality is rare , rare too is the situational , systematic bias of a police stop turning violent BY the cop . An intentional police shooting of an innocent man who did nothing is rare too ,
In fact how many police shootings has the media falsely hyped up the 'facts " by falsely implying a wrong doing by the police , when the outcomes of investigations almost always shows that the cop acted in a professional and procedurally correct manner ?
Most police shootings ARE justified - But THAT doesn't show in the continual media attack , It doesn't fit the agenda of the left , it doesn't fit of the minority desire for projecting a jack-booted false image of police.
Question ---Who continues the conversation about these incidents when the "man holding a book " turns out to actually be a man " holding , brandishing and then threatening with a gun "?
No one ! -- Have you thanked a cop lately ?
What seems obviously lost in this debate is that Police aren't out to shoot anyone and;
-That we live in a nation of law and order that has to be upheld or anarchy rules.
-That the media has sensationalized a small fraction of reality into the majority of police shootings
-That the naiveté' of the young public believes the sensationalized falsehood.
-That in truth almost all police shootings ARE eventually justified.
-That criminals live under a different set of values and ethics
-That many here in the forums have fallen ,and always will , for these media lies.
Cops can have bad attitudes just as easily as anyone else. Sometimes they try to push your buttons. They test you to see if you will disrespect them. Then they will let you have it. Why?
Because they can. Sometimes women are meaner than men. They are the most irritating. There is no way to fight these types. You just have to go with it and maintain respect even if you are totally acting.
I'll say one thing that is true about some people who always run to the conspiracy connection - They shouldn't be allowed near key boards .
Life Reality Lesson to America's Youth
There are idiots in the USA who think everyone shot by police did something wrong.
There are idiots who have not seen videos of people obeying police orders getting murdered anyway.
There are idiots who think that an unarmed not threatening citizen deserves to get murdered and gunned down in the USA while most other civilized nations have professional cops who are not trigger happy killers but actually calmly use their brains in handling situations that don't result in needless killing.
If you are a youth become empowered and know the law and work in some way in your life to overhaul the racist and prejudiced American policing/ justice system.
So kids - get used to idiots who routinely excuse immoral, law-breaking police conduct by trying to blame victims. Change the system so that the idiots become extinct.
A lot of people should just plain grow up , Contrary to popular belief and even your opinions , An officer of the law CAN shoot a suspect- in many circumstances , Even a fleeing suspect , Even an unarmed suspect , A suspect doesn't even have to be armed , In my opinion and in my experiences in life , IF A COP HAS TO HAVE ON A BODY CAM ;
-So too should the following people ?
-Convicted Violent Felons
-Child abusers and rapists
-Organized Protest marchers
The liberties of the public are far , far more apt to be negatively perpetrated than those of the police authorities. Why is it that all of a sudden and in the last very few years , the constant scrutiny of police procedure is constantly an issue , are we not just a society on the verge of anarchy ?
Other people need to consider the option of critical thinking over playing the role of your local, neighborhood kneejerk rightwing reactionary.
I don't pay the bad guys my tax money to preserve and protect as opposed to law enforcement personnel. So much of that post is considered absurd from very moment that the ink hits the paper.
If the officer can and does shoot, he or she better be able to support the necessity of the shootings, the camera is just another form of evidence toward that end.
Tyrants always use the fear of anarchy as an excuse...
"...he or she better be able to support the necessity of the shootings...
This seems to be a major problem, as so very many find that the only "necessity" consists of the suspect spewing bullets directly at them.
Got a school shooter? Run up close and taze him, but don't shoot - he might have a bad home life or be on drugs.
Got an arsonist in a riot? Pile on a dozen cops (taking them from protecting that store over there that has the windows broken out), but don't shoot him - he's just angry and burning the neighborhood won't hurt anyone.
Got a suspect with a record of violence that is waving what appears to be a gun in the dark? Ask him to pretty please put the gun down (for the 20th time) - it might not be a gun, he might be deaf or mentally disabled and therefore won't pull the trigger.
I can remember only one police shooting where the public, or at least part of it, thought it was "justified".
Is it all or nothing? Wilderness, contrary to your persistent opinion in this matter, I never said that there were not situations where use of lethal force is justified. These matters need to be decided by the courts and administrators, not public opinion. If you are doing your job the way that you are supposed to, what is there to hide?
Agreed - you didn't say that. But the population in general does - every time there is a shooting (at least of anyone with dark skin) the immediate cry goes up to hang the cop - that (s)he should not have fired. It's all over social media, it's all over the news. It has gotten to the point that it is almost impossible to get a fair hearing or even trial.
I'd also ask..in your opinion should camera videos be quickly released to the public or only after a trial? If released, will they promote a fair trial or prevent one? If released (and you know as well as I do that the public will claim whatever it wants without regard to any video), and an investigation finds a cop innocent of wrongdoing, will they still have a reasonable life and job, or will it be destroyed by public outcry?
But how many of the shootings we've heard about in the past year were justified in your opinion? Of those that hit the news, that BLM complains about before ANY facts are known (let alone all of them), how many were justified in your opinion?
OK, but these cases are not decided by the population, but by due process of law. A man and his career cannot be subject to the whim of mobs, but subject to orderly process of determining if the use of force was justified. I presume that if you want me to just take the word of the cop and be done with it you also have faith in the courts and the legal process?
That is what I like, everyone held accountable for the things that they do or fail to do. That is part of any job. Nobody just gets to do what they want, that goes for the cop as well as the criminal element.
I am willing to let the court decide which of these many shootings were in fact unjustified or not.
"A man and his career cannot be subject to the whim of mobs"
I presume that you would keep all body cams sealed forever then? Or will you release them to that mob, who will see in them whatever they want to?
While I like cams overall, I do see this as a big, big problem. The recent shooting of a man surrounded by cop cars, with a video from a helicopter, is a case in point - my local TV station repeated the mob claim that his hands were up even as the chopper video they were showing plainly showed they were down. That's the crap every cop will face in either investigation or trial, and it will inevitably become more of a political action than a search for truth. A sacrificial lamb to keep the mob placated.
Would you, too, seal the videos or turn them to the mob either before any trial or after? You say the cop should held accountable for his actions - do you also want him accountable for what he did NOT do but the mob claims he did?
You are missing it. The body cams are not public property, in a contentious case, I consider the video record as evidence. The decision as to whether a specific shooting is out of line belong to the court and its deliberations.
I reiterate the "decision' is not to be made the mob. Only impartial and proper authorities can take the video evidence in concert with other evidence not necessarily seen on the surface to make the proper determination of guilt or no.
The courts and administrators are there to insure that it is a search for truth, rather than a political action.
What is your alternative, that we simply take the word of the cops all of the time without challenge? Is that not just the extreme in the opposite direction?
There is no requirement to release sensitive video evidence to the public that could compromise the officer receiving a fair hearing, but I do want it properly considered as evidence by the proper and impartial authorities.
Whatever I want the officer held accountable for and where he or she fell short is to be determined by the courts. This protects both the rights of the officer and that of the public, or mob as you say.
"The decision as to whether a specific shooting is out of line belong to the court and its deliberations."
"I reiterate the "decision' is not to be made the mob."
I will add that there is no valid reason to give it to the mob, either. Although you did not indicate, can I assume then that you would seal those tapes forever, outside of a courtroom and/or investigations by proper authorities that could lead to an indictment? That they are never to be released to the media or public?
If so, that only leaves the minor matter of the continued additional requirements added to police officers. Minor, at least, in the matter of a camera and ignoring additional costs. What would be your suggestion there?
It is not new to seal evidence from public access, how long was the Zapruder film kept from public view? But that review of information and the determining of the sealing of evidence cannot be determined by just the police departments. That ultimate determination needs to be made from an IMPARTIAL and overriding court authority just to make sure the departments are not covering things up. The same reason why the police need to warrants to search and invade privacy and private property.
I don't see the introduction of a body cam as an intolerable additional burden considering the role that it plays. I have never advocated that police are to be otherwise, overburdened. With the nature of our litigious society, this camera is almost as essential as the service revolver. There is a little chance that an officer would be forced to use his weapon, but the camera could record contacts with the civilian community and determine if a law officer is acting appropriately even when use of a firearm is not involved. How do the officers behave, are they respectful and courteous? Is there animosity from the civilian community toward cops that is not justified? Good managers should be aware of these sorts of issues
Then we disagree, for I find zero reason to ever make it public or allow the media to have it. It should be as important as, say, medical or tax records and forbidden to be released outside of investigations and court proceedings. A warrant in other words, and showing cause - freedom of information act is insufficient. Maybe let it be held by the justice system but belong to the cop, I don't know.
I don't think that we disagree. The only thing I said is that video evidence is to be properly evaluated by impartial sources, as long as I know that there is no need for media or public access in my opinion. I trust that cases brought before the court will be properly handled with an officer either being absolved of wrongdoing or otherwise. That decision to withhold information from the public must not be in the purview of police departments. If that is to happen it must come a higher authority.
So the police chief could give out the tape of an officer? Before OR after a trial? Can you indicate what kind of situation, outside of political CYA, where that should be done?
Why should the witholding need to come from a higher authority? I would absolutely require that giving it out come from there, not the witholding, and can hardly conceive of any situation where that should be done.
Witholding that video should be automatic, and released only from a higher court requiring cause to do so.
'Withholding that video should be automatic, and released only from a higher court requiring cause to do so.'
I don't disagree with that.
To determination to withhold has to come from a higher authority as I don't trust the police departments to make that decision without oversite as to the efficacy of it.
"Withholding that video should be automatic" That means that it will NOT be released without court action. It does NOT mean that the decision to withhold has to come from a higher court; it means that without court action it will not be released. No action by the police department is necessary at all as the decision to withhold is automatic and requires no action at all by anyone.
You don't disagree, but go on to say that to withhold has to come from higher authority? Make up your mind!
Ok we are misunderstanding each other.
The video will not be released to the PUBLIC without court action, ok. But the police department has to release to higher authority including the court when commanded to do so. The court can evaluate and judge the material in case of charges of excessive police behavior . This evidence is not to be scurried away in some vault by Serpico rogue cops and a complicit police department just to protect its own.
That's what I want as all parties being held accountable, can you live with that? Or do we just do a "case closed" based solely on Barney Fifes version of a contentious and lethal confrontation circumstance.
Yes! Finally! Absolutely a court can look at it, and so can official investigators reviewing the event. No problem at all with that - I just don't want it in the hands of the public, ever. And that includes prosecuting attorneys that have decided to file a civil action as there is nothing at all that says they won't promptly give it to the media to raise public ire on their side.
If it could be arranged somehow, I'd even go with duplicating that video by an independent source immediately (as in within hours) and the copy filed with the FBI or something. Do what we can to stop "losing" or modifying it.
To be honest, I wouldn't care if the public saw it, but have seen far too much of the irrational "conclusions" drawn already. Can you imagine being a cop, accused of murder after being fired on and before the blood has dried, and having 100,000 shares of 500 people claiming that there was absolutely no reason for the shooting based on video evidence that they've seen? That cop might as well give up and present himself at the prison!
I can also see the mob demanding a cop being fired for picking his nose while eating a doughnut. People demanding perfection from Blue just seem to lose all common sense.
If the officer is to prosecuted in a civil case seems like the prosecutor should be privy to video evidence. I said that it should not be available to the media or public. That sort of information is 'Need to know" by any prosecuting official to properly pursue the charge.
First, can you honestly say that it will never be provided to anyone outside a courtroom? Second, would you also give civil prosecutors the right to your (as a defendant, not complainant) medical, tax or other private records?
Give that prosecutor the video...coupled with an automatic 5 year prison sentence if it is ever discussed outside their office or the courtroom, 10 years if any copy is made public. Or let him view it in the police station, but neither copy it, take it outside that station or discuss it outside the courtroom.
Second paragraph, ok...
How is the prosecuting attorney going to do his job if he denied access to appropriate evidence? I think that your sentencing plan is steep and over the top, while I agree that some less draconian penalty would be in order.
"I agree that some less draconian penalty would be in order."
You're probably right. But at the same time it must be severe enough to make a real impression - enough to ensure that the "escape" of that video not happen. Given the probable effect on any trial that is imperative.
by Brian 8 years ago
Is anyone else tired of the police doing whatever they want while they are operating a vehicle, while they pull people over for the most tiny break of a law?I was once pulled over by a cop, and I could not figure out what I did wrong. Well, it turns out that the tiny light over my license plate was...
by ahorseback 3 years ago
Guess what ? Only a couple of them should be fired for abuse of power ? Gee , I'm just a poor white kid but I think that's a pretty good record ! And yet , there is a media driven and media fired culture-- That believe they are all Racist...
by Don W 3 years ago
Another example of unreasonable (and therefore unlawful) force being used by a police officer who was evidently away on the day they covered "de escalation" at the academy.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R46-XTqXkzE
by Jennifer Kessner 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,...
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like this. A cop approaches a suspect and gives the suspect some type of order. If the...
by Ralph Deeds 5 years ago
Is police brutality increasing? 12 recent shocking examples from AlterNet:http://www.alternet.org/police-brutalit … 98&t=7
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|