|
-Troika- posted:It's more like a bunch of people are insanely care mad a cop didn't die, regardless of circumstances. Try harder.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
-Troika- posted:It's more like a bunch of people are insanely care mad a cop didn't die, regardless of circumstances. I'm just so insanely care mad a cop didn't die!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:It's the exact same thought process, dude. Had the cops reacted like they normally did and hosed the guy up, nobody would be surprised or feel sorry for him because he was resisting arrest and was a crazy murderer. Similarly, when someone who's obviously under arrest for some also-obvious thing resists and ends up getting their rear end kicked, I and many other people have very limited sympathy for them. It just happens that in the first case, the cops had a few reasons to balk at doing what needed to be done. But there is a gigantic middle ground between the responses, it's not like the only two choices are kid gloves or beating the poo poo of someone. And I specifically mentioned people who hadn't actually done anything and I'll include people who have done extremely minor things like flashing a headlight. Like in the video I mentioned, white guy and black guy doing the exact same 100% legal thing yet the black guy has guns drawn on him the second they get out of the car. I'm 99% pacifist, the 1% is I will accept violent acts including killing someone in the defense of another's life. I would not celebrate sarges death but I would accept it as necessary, he was or had already murdered his ex wife. If they had the option to take him down without killing him I'd prefer if but I would accept it if it was the only way to get the wife medical attention. Nearly everyone's beef is EVERYONE should get that treatment. Not immediately complying is no reason to tackle or taze and often end up killing someone. Yeah sometimes it may require that eventually but all people are saying is calm the gently caress down, TALK to them like an adult instead of a grown up Eric Cartman. A lot of people do actually respond to a calm discussion, few people react well to being screamed at by a guy pointing a gun at you especially if they haven't or honestly believe they've done nothing wrong. And sometimes they may react without thinking, is it so hard to believe that if someone thinks their life is in danger they may not react rationally and do something stupid like run or knock the gun away? People are falling over themselves to defend cops who had to make a snap decision that ended up killing someone, why do only cops get a pass? Hell they're supposedly trained to not lose their cool, people can gently caress up too and do something stupid when they're scared, maybe don't freak them the gently caress out because they didn't 'comply' fast enough and they won't do something stupid? I'll stop being a dick, I honestly want to know if you think any of what I just said is unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm just so insanely care mad a cop didn't die! Good shoot. Why does a cop need to die?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:He might not have been fired because of the video specifically, but the video was reviewed and undoubtedly used as evidence against him for the firing, along with the rest of his history of assholery. This literal, entire thread is cops on tape getting away with murder. That won't be solved by some fake bullshit artifice of accountability that will be freely ignored by the police any time the stakes are higher than just getting rid of some shithead no one wanted around anyway. Like there are a whole shitload of civil rights groups right this second saying "Hey maybe don't use those cameras for surveillance okay?". What do you think the odds are that they're going to be heard? The reason to be against these things is that they are facing the wrong direction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Honestly what other reason to be against body cameras could anyone need other than the fact that the Obama Whitehouse supports them? These people do not care about you, or the victims of police brutality anywhere. It's just loving Tasers all over again. Oh surely this half-step middleground bullshit will improve the quality of policing and save innocent lives and after all our hero cops definitely, definitely wouldn't abuse the poo poo out of this terrifying new technology and completely pervert the reason behind having it to begin with. I hope you didn't like going outside ever in a city like Ferguson, where bench warrants were grossly abused to vacuum every last penny from the pockets of the already struggling poor because boy oh boy is that poo poo going to be 10 times more fun for cops in the very, very near future when the loving cameras stream to some facial recognition software in real time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
To get more support from cops, government should make it explicitly clear that police wearing bodycams are allowed to upload funny clips from the day's patrol on youtube/worldstar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Woozy posted:This literal, entire thread is cops on tape getting away with murder. That won't be solved by some fake bullshit artifice of accountability that will be freely ignored by the police any time the stakes are higher than just getting rid of some shithead no one wanted around anyway. Like there are a whole shitload of civil rights groups right this second saying "Hey maybe don't use those cameras for surveillance okay?". What do you think the odds are that they're going to be heard? I'm not really sure how police body cameras are going to be a significant extension of the surveillance network when they are attached to a police officer's body and thus only recording things that a police officer would already have been witness to. Are you vehemently opposed to dashboard cameras as well? Woozy posted:Honestly what other reason to be against body cameras could anyone need other than the fact that the Obama Whitehouse supports them? These people do not care about you, or the victims of police brutality anywhere. This is invective and wild hypotheticals, not an argument. The fundamental issue isn't the abilities the police have, the problem is that they're being used for corrupt purposes. You solve that by addressing the root cause of the corruption, not pushing to make your police force ineffectual.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
It's important to remember that Ferguson isn't the whole United States.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:I'm not really sure how police body cameras are going to be a significant extension of the surveillance network when they are attached to a police officer's body and thus only recording things that a police officer would already have been witness to. Are you vehemently opposed to dashboard cameras as well? "Being witness to" and "making an electronic record of" are two obviously different things. Electronic records need to be stored, secured, and audited for access. Basic technical competence is like the least scary reason this shouldn't be left in the hands of police or basically anyone involved in criminal justice. Even worse is that they can be manipulated, edited, altered, and doctored. Again, not something you should trust the police not to do. Dashboard cameras are a great example of why this "accountability" story is horseshit: guess how many illegal stops have been recorded by dashboard cameras? Probably a shitload but you'll never know because the cameras don't start rolling until after the sirens come on so who knows whether that "illegal lane change" actually took place. Of course, right now it makes sense to compare body cams and dash cams, but it won't be long at all before they work more like plate scanners: a massive digital dragnet creating huge stores of pointless information just waiting for someone to find something terrible to do with it. Of course we can't even talk about this in terms of acceptable risk because there is no loving benefit whatsoever. Cops will either turn the cameras off or they won't bother and get away with whatever they did anyway. quote:This is invective and wild hypotheticals, not an argument. Go on, tell us all why its a good idea to continue to expand on the capabilities of police while the issue of corruption goes unsolved or even mentioned. We'll just get to it some day, right? Oh wait, it doesn't matter, because just like "community policing" and every feel-good reformist measure that achieves nothing, body cameras are 100% about white liberals volunteering communities they have nothing to do with to be subject to increased scrutiny and surveillance in the name of their own "protection". The fundamental problem here is the constant ramping up of police occupation and insinuation into communities where their history of brutality and violence have made them largely unwelcome. Figure out how to deal with that before you run off and buy the loving cops a bunch of new toys. Woozy fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Go on, tell us all why its a good idea to continue to expand on the capabilities of police while the issue of corruption goes unsolved or even mentioned. We'll just get to it some day, right? You do realize the status quo is "if there's no video we believe the cop's version 100% no matter what" right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
There's ample research now showing they reduce violence and abuse. That alone justifies their use. And, whiny posturing not withstanding, they help shift public opinion, which is useful to anyone seeking change.Lemming posted:You do realize the status quo is "if there's no video we believe the cop's version 100% no matter what" right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You do realize the status quo is "if there's no video we believe the cop's version 100% no matter what" right? poo poo, the status quo is believe the cop if the video isn't 100% clear like the cop who dropped his tazer on the body of the guy he murdered. The headlight kid there was 1-2 frames of blurry video of him maybe running. You don't see the cop in it and the phone had obviously been knocked around so he was either running AWAY or some bizarre theory that a teenager was charging the cop. The one or two frames of video don't show either but the second there was a split second of video of the kid running apologists instantly jumped on it as evidence he was running at the cop. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Teenagers are well known for their stupidity but seriously thinking the obvious deduction of that split second video is he was not trying run but attacking the cop?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
I thought in that situation it wasnt the video that people were using as evidence he attacked the cop but that his face looked like he'd gotten a kicking. Edit: I also thought it was widely accepted that the kid had charged the cop in this case and started giving him a beating? The debate over this wasn't about that, but how inept the officer was in allowing the situation to not only get to that, but how he allowed a teenager who was on the ground being tazed to then be kicking his rear end. Has that changed since the last time it was brought up? serious gaylord fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean say what you will about the officer's actions that led up to that point, I was under the impression any question about whether the officer was actually attacked was squashed when the hospital photos came in. That's when the thread defense shifted from "You can't tell what's happening in the video" to "Fight or Flight reflex" or "He was scared for his life and lashed out." You're a few dozen pages behind on the discussion, friend. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Yup, exactly what I was talking about. Note I didn't say nothing happened, only that a 2 second blurry video of what looked like the kid moving before any other information came out was "video clearly show he attacked him". Here's a totally wild theory. Cop got hit in the face before that split second clip when he was fighting after the tazing and was trying to run. Video doesn't prove me wrong or right because all it shows is him moving. Could be him going for the cop, could be him running away. But it doesn't matter to cop defenders that the video showed nothing conclusive either way and the conclusion was made before any other information was released that it was him attacking the cop because it supports the cops story. My point is the video doesn't prove anything besides the kid was possibly running, it doesn't show when the cop got hit or if the kid was running towards or away from the cop. That doesn't matter to apologists, cop got hit, video showed movement so we can now use it as proof to support the cops story. Which since this thread now requires repeating things a dozen times: My point was unless the video is 100% clear that the cop was at fault it can now be used as proof to support the cops story despite it not showing anything besides kid moving. It doesn't show when the cop got hit it doesn't show which direction the kid was moving so it doesn't prove anything for either story but that doesn't stop anyone from using it as evidence to support the cops version. It doesn't prove it disprove it but it's still held up as supporting the cops version despite it not supporting anything beyond 'kid was moving'
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
I think in that situation it isn't useful, but I would much rather have police officers wearing cameras than not since theres a demonstrable effect that when people know they're under surveillance they behave differently. If anything, it raises the chances of prosecutions against officers for abusing their positions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
on the left posted:To get more support from cops, government should make it explicitly clear that police wearing bodycams are allowed to upload funny clips from the day's patrol on youtube/worldstar. Maybe we need a phone app that automatically starts recording whenever a cop is near.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Another question is, where is the dash cam footage, and if there is none, why didn't the cop position his car to better see the other car? It looks like he pulled the kid next to the kid's car, so that should have been in the view of the dash cam.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Stay classy, Baltimore PD http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/baltimore-police-van-sign/index.html quote:CNN affiliate WBAL reported that the photos were taken Tuesday near the Central District Police Station. It said police department officials had authenticated the photos, which it received from a viewer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
http://copybook-headings.tumblr.com/post/123224027879/just-to-be-clear-in-re-the-brutal-killing-ofquote:A few days ago, an innocent young woman was randomly shot and killed on Pier 14 on the Embarcadero in San Francisco while hosting her parents for a visit. Her last words as she died from the gunshot were “Daddy, help me.” http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/NBC-Bay-Area-News-Crew-Mugged-Pistol-Whipped-at-San-Francisco-Pier-311452221.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Hrmm yes, the issue is obviously with our immigration policies and not with the fact that a mentally ill homeless man can just "find" a gun. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
MS-13 killer PANCHO SANCHEZ *twitches huge black mustache*
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:"no human is illegal" hokum I think it's more that the SFPD realize that acting as an enforcement arm of ICE would make it more difficult to do their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I think it's more that the SFPD realize that acting as an enforcement arm of ICE would make it more difficult to do their jobs. Pft, it's not like the immigration services do anything to keep criminals out once they get deported anyways. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Woozy posted:"Being witness to" and "making an electronic record of" are two obviously different things. Electronic records need to be stored, secured, and audited for access. Basic technical competence is like the least scary reason this shouldn't be left in the hands of police or basically anyone involved in criminal justice. Even worse is that they can be manipulated, edited, altered, and doctored. Again, not something you should trust the police not to do. Dashboard cameras are a great example of why this "accountability" story is horseshit: guess how many illegal stops have been recorded by dashboard cameras? Probably a shitload but you'll never know because the cameras don't start rolling until after the sirens come on so who knows whether that "illegal lane change" actually took place. Of course, right now it makes sense to compare body cams and dash cams, but it won't be long at all before they work more like plate scanners: a massive digital dragnet creating huge stores of pointless information just waiting for someone to find something terrible to do with it. Of course we can't even talk about this in terms of acceptable risk because there is no loving benefit whatsoever. Cops will either turn the cameras off or they won't bother and get away with whatever they did anyway. I had a client who the cop and his partner swore up and down said x. X was a very bad thing for us. Middle of trial, we got the entire dashcam with audio, never said it. Case dismissed. This is one of many examples that I can point to as a defense attorney where video or audio recording have cleared someone falsely accused. Your slippery slope is bullshit. Yes, some poo poo is going to get hidden, but some will not (particularly on systems where a cop cannot delete or deactivate systems), and for those people xameras may have literally saved them from wrongful conviction. PS -- Officers still working because of course they are. But my client is at least free as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
nm posted:Certainly there are some, but there are other cases where the dashcam does completely exonerate the defendant. I can tell you right now I would NOT want to be the one stuck arguing that the mysteriously deleted portions of the dashcam were nothing to worry about. Even if it was a truly innocent deletion. Looks shady as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I can tell you right now I would NOT want to be the one stuck arguing that the mysteriously deleted portions of the dashcam were nothing to worry about. Even if it was a truly innocent deletion. Looks shady as gently caress. Yes, this happened in my case. It was pretty clear that it was investigating agency shadiness -- well, until they told the prosecutor before opening and he held on to it until I called my client to the stand. brady violation found, nothing happened until we spend a whole drat day in court listening to the the drat thing as the jury sat outside confused. Oh yeah, nothing actually happened to the DA for that intentional, admitted on the record, brady violation (the last 24 hours). This case was the last straw for me and why I just can't stand criminal defense anymore. No matter how dirty the state is, they get away with it here. Hell, DAs who fabricate evidence apparently get promoted. Let's be clear, a DA hid evidence that showed that both eyewitness officers lied, wasted the court and the jury's time, and nothing at all happened to him. Yay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, this happened in my case. It was pretty clear that it was investigating agency shadiness -- well, until they told the prosecutor before opening and he held on to it until I called my client to the stand. brady violation found, nothing happened until we spend a whole drat day in court listening to the the drat thing as the jury sat outside confused. No but you don't understand, the DA knows cops so it's totally reasonable to lie for them. You're a sociopath for not empathizing with the real victim here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
An older good one relevant to the legal system protecting police http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...c3d021affa.html quote:Prosecutors allege it shows Bruce hitting the teen unprompted. Bruce’s attorney, Joe Hogan, planned to argue it showed his client reacting in self-defense when the teen lunged at him, after earlier trying to turn a gun on Bruce’s partner, Jacob Fowler. Hopefully that law has been revised to clarify it doesn't apply to abuse by the only ones able to attest to the video. I guess his partner was forgetful too about what happened in the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnPj9GiiKk0&t=201s
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Devor posted:Hopefully that law has been revised to clarify it doesn't apply to abuse by the only ones able to attest to the video. I guess his partner was forgetful too about what happened in the video. Did you read the rest of the article? quote:Prosecutors had also tried, but failed, to get the teenager on the stand. First they couldn’t find him, then when they did, he asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Did you read the rest of the article? Let's say the victim dies in police custody (as is often the case, especially considering punching someone in the head will sometimes outright kill them). Does the law really say that if the cops in the video say "I dunno" it can't be used as evidence of what happened? Am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, this happened in my case. It was pretty clear that it was investigating agency shadiness -- well, until they told the prosecutor before opening and he held on to it until I called my client to the stand. brady violation found, nothing happened until we spend a whole drat day in court listening to the the drat thing as the jury sat outside confused. Minor semantics issue, that's not a Brady issue, it's a late disclosure issue. Still hosed up though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Did you read the rest of the article? Why is introducing unverified video evidence a bad idea? Should we let non-cops, too, veto the introduction of video evidence? No, that video that shows my brother standing next to me pointing a gun at the convenience store clerk, and then shooting him in the head does not accurately reflect what happened Case dismissed! It's great that the cops were fired, but if the judge was correctly applying the law, the law needs to be changed to always allow introduction of dash cams and body cams from police as evidence. Even if there's another cop who is willing to trash his career to keep his buddy out of prison by lying about the video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
Devor posted:Why is introducing unverified video evidence a bad idea? Should we let non-cops, too, veto the introduction of video evidence? No, that video that shows my brother standing next to me pointing a gun at the convenience store clerk, and then shooting him in the head does not accurately reflect what happened Case dismissed! The general "John Q" public has always given law cops the "benefit of the doubt". This is because they never have an interaction with them, sans a traffic incident. We seem to be seeing an erosion of this trust. The large number of videos of "cops gone wild" are starting to have an effect. What evidence to include, and what to throw out, is all part of legal system "reindeer games", and has very little to do with the truth of what happened. Lady justice is blindfolded and doesn't want to see the truth, only the parts you can push though the legal process. Both sides of any case play this game, so it comes down to who has the legal team with the most /best resources. This tilts the law in favor of the wealthy over the state and the state over the poor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Devor posted:Why is introducing unverified video evidence a bad idea? Should we let non-cops, too, veto the introduction of video evidence? No, that video that shows my brother standing next to me pointing a gun at the convenience store clerk, and then shooting him in the head does not accurately reflect what happened Case dismissed! I any case you need a witness to lay foundation/authenticate a video or photos. It's a basic rule of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Devor posted:Why is introducing unverified video evidence a bad idea? Should we let non-cops, too, veto the introduction of video evidence? No, that video that shows my brother standing next to me pointing a gun at the convenience store clerk, and then shooting him in the head does not accurately reflect what happened Case dismissed! It's to prevent, say, Orange County prosecutors from introducing evidence to the effect of, "This blurry and undated video shows the defendant shooting the victim. No, we don't have anyone who will verify that it is what we say it is."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I any case you need a witness to lay foundation/authenticate a video or photos. It's a basic rule of evidence. Does the foundation/authentication necessarily have to come from a subject in the video? It seems like the video technician responsible for retrieving the information from the system would be able to provide that, for cases where the subjects are hostile and/or accused of the crime in question. What would happen in the case of a lone gunmen murdering a convenience store clerk? Would the store footage not be admissible at trial, and only used for investigative purposes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Devor posted:Does the foundation/authentication necessarily have to come from a subject in the video? It seems like the video technician responsible for retrieving the information from the system would be able to provide that, for cases where the subjects are hostile and/or accused of the crime in question. It could be but the defense could rip it to shreds. The technician could only testify that he removed the tape from the player and such and such time, but theres no timestamp on the tape and the resolution is low enough that its not 100% clear who everybody in the tape is. So it might not be the incident in question with the same people involved. That would imply that this department had an epidemic of cops punching teens but thats all the defense needs to do to raise reasonable doubt. Now in a civil suit...
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Minor semantics issue, that's not a Brady issue, it's a late disclosure issue. Still hosed up though. It is a brady issue when exculpatory evidence is hidden from the defense during the cross-examining of the officers it impeaches.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 20:35
|
|