Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: The E on August 13, 2014, 07:14:48 am
-
So, in an earlier thread, we were discussing the increasing use of military surplus equipment by police forces in the US, and how it changes the outcome of any police intervention.
Now, we have a horrifying example of just what can go wrong with that.
Last Saturday, a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, shot an unarmed black kid 8 (EIGHT!) times. Because of the unclear nature of the shooting (there is currently no hard info on what provoked it, and there will likely never be any, since Ferguson PD squad cars are not fitted with cameras or other logging devices), and because this whole case is "racially charged" (Ferguson is a predominantly black town, its police department however is overwhelmingly white), tempers were rising high, and so protests turned into riots.
Ferguson PD, by all accounts, overreacted massively. They deployed APCs, fitted out their patrolling people with gear more commonly associated with combat troops patrolling the worst parts of Iraq or Afghanistan, stopped citizens from going to their homes, fired tear gas into protesters, and went about their business looking like this:
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/53ea3dbc69beddfb386a5f10-1200-800/ap969996949662.jpg)
Also seen were scenes like this:
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--GLGgYBmo--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ofthikdjhct4yyz0fagk.jpg)
Business Insider writer Paul Szoldra, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan, wrote a rather cutting piece about this (http://www.businessinsider.com/police-militarization-ferguson-2014-8?IR=T#ixzz3ADBXNMgL).
When did this become OK? When did "protect and serve" turn into "us versus them"?
"Why do these cops need MARPAT camo pants again," I asked on Twitter this morning. One of the most interesting responses came from a follower who says he served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division: "We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone."
Let's be clear: This is not a war zone — even if the FAA banned flights under 3,000 feet. This is a city outside of St. Louis where people on both sides are angry. Protesters have looted and torched a gas station, and shots were fired at police, according to The Washington Post.
The scene is tense, but the presence of what looks like a military force doesn't seem to be helping.
"Bring it. You ****ing animals, bring it," one police officer was caught on video telling protesters. In Ferguson and beyond, it seems that some police officers have shed the blue uniform and have put on the uniform and gear of the military, bringing the attitude along with it.
This, to me, is horrifying and insane. It's a fundamental failure in the relationship between the police force and the civilian population, and as time goes on, we will see more of this. Not because the civilians have become inherently more violent, but because once the menu of response options for the police starts to include "roll up in badass gear to scare the darkies", that option is going to be exercised.
-
It's like as if the police is hellbent on convincing the entire population that they are under a fascist dictatorship.
-
It was a black man, not a kid. He was 18. At worst, you could call him a teen, but 18 is a man in my book.
I remember that thread, but this was not what anyone had in mind, this is waaaaaaay over the top. I read the linked article, and even before reading that I thought if the dude on the right didn't have "Police" showing on the front of his top, I'd absolutely think this was a military operation. It looks like a police operation in a third World country.
I would be shocked if this was a sign of things to come. The Ferguson PD is going to get hammered from all directions if there's any sense in this World. Especially if the shooting which triggered this is proven to be negligent, or worse, a flat out crime.
Putting on the camo seems absolutely nonsensical to me, what purpose is it going to serve? These cops are hardly skulking about in the photos. They should be in police uniforms. If they're dealing with riots, riot gear (shields) should be sufficient to deal with rioters, it's tried and tested. And the standard police firearms should be sufficient to deal with any gunmen. And those guns should be in their holsters until if and when they're actually needed, not out and being pointed at random people and cars.
-
I would be shocked if this was a sign of things to come. The Ferguson PD is going to get hammered from all directions if there's any sense in this World. Especially if the shooting which triggered this is proven to be negligent, or worse, a flat out crime.
Prepare to be shocked in the future, then.
Point 1: Cases like this will, because they ultimately come down to hearsay and because the justice system is set up to trust police officers, not result in more than a slap on the fingers of the officers or departments incolved.
Point 2: Police conduct, ever since the whole sousveillance movement started (i. e. the documentation of police misconduct by people with smartphones), has been strongly veering towards escalating to violence faster and harder than before.
Point 3: The availability of military-grade hardware means that when an escalation happens, said hardware will be rolled out. This in turn will increase tensions, which are presumed to be running high already, even higher.
Point 4: Because of Point 1, it is incredibly hard to even start misconduct investigations, it is even rarer for those investigations to actually result in penalties for the investigated.
Putting on the camo seems absolutely nonsensical to me, what purpose is it going to serve? These cops are hardly skulking about in the photos. They should be in police uniforms. If they're dealing with riots, riot gear (shields) should be sufficient to deal with rioters, it's tried and tested. And the standard police firearms should be sufficient to deal with any gunmen. And those guns should be in their holsters until if and when they're actually needed, not out and being pointed at random people and cars.
As Homer said, "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence". Give them hammers, and see how long it takes for problems to start resembling nails.
Ever since the US Government declared the "War on drugs", ever since Turbans became gang affiliation signs and Mosques became dangerous, US law enforcement has been on a steady route to erasing the notional difference between soldiers and policemen (As Adama in BSG put it, "The Police serves and protects the people, the military fights the enemies of the state"), and this right here is just the latest incident in a series of them.
-
Oh c'mon. 18, eightTEEN is a teenager. Legally an adult, but still very, very young. Regardless of whether or not you want to play semantics about if you can call him a "man" or a "kid"... this is someone who never made it to college.
There's been a slowly growing unrest of the police in the US, the privatization of security and militarization of police. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. I grew up in STL.. Ferguson has been boiling with racial issues for a long time.
Point 1: Cases like this will, because they ultimately come down to hearsay and because the justice system is set up to trust police officers, not result in more than a slap on the fingers of the officers or departments involved.
This is true, but it's going to be tough in this case. From what I've been reading over the last few days, the kid was killed 35 feet from the police car where the supposed "struggle" in the car for the officer's weapon took place. Multiple witnesses are reporting that the kid was running away from the car with his hands in the air... and then shot eight times. The struggle is where most of the hearsay is, but where the kid was killed in relation to where the alleged struggle took place is confirmed. Considering the now global audience this story has.. it's going to be tough for the PD or justice department to let it go quite that easily without furthering the problems in Ferguson.
-
@ The E:
Grim stuff. I'll just have to hope you're wrong then. I'm glad it's not like this in the UK. "Shocking" is just the right word to describe it.
@ mjn:
I just don't want people under a misconception they shot down some 13 year old or something. Just clearing up any misconceptions, that's all. There's more than enough stuf to get outraged about here.
I hope Ferguson is simply an isolated incident, rather than the shape of things to come.
-
I'm glad it's not like this in the UK.
It's not? I thought it's pretty much the same kind of deal in the UK. Maybe not in the sense of general militarization of the police, but in the sense of police often getting away with killing or injuring people.
-
Point 2: Police conduct, ever since the whole sousveillance movement started (i. e. the documentation of police misconduct by people with smartphones), has been strongly veering towards escalating to violence faster and harder than before.
Are you implying a causality here, or merely stating an observable fact like a trend that is being observed by the new technologies?
First of all, I am not aware of the statistical observations that are probably being made about this, so paint me as an ignorant fool at will. Having said that, I'd argue that it is quite possible that this observed trend is a kind of a statistical consequence of the fact that we now observe these things while beforehand we just didn't. I'd further argue that this sousveillance movement is actually convincing me it can be the hammer to bring down this brutality by the police. I can also understand the argument that the police really dislikes being "filmed" and reacts aggressively and defensively at this phenomena, but that's probably just until they get used to it.
-
I'm glad it's not like this in the UK.
It's not? I thought it's pretty much the same kind of deal in the UK. Maybe not in the sense of general militarization of the police, but in the sense of police often getting away with killing or injuring people.
There is some of that unfortunately. I feel confident it's not as bad as the US, although a big part of that will be the fact UK police aren't going around shooting people.
-
So.. Yeah. Dressing up like you're storming a violent crime lord's mansion (where, indeed, some of this might be appropriate) is not the best way to de-escalate.
AND MARPAT? for what purpose? It's like they expect enemy snipers and gunmen toting AKs at every block.
And of course, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. So unless you are guarding something or the other person(s) are threatening you with lethal force, not acceptable.
-
Point 2: Police conduct, ever since the whole sousveillance movement started (i. e. the documentation of police misconduct by people with smartphones), has been strongly veering towards escalating to violence faster and harder than before.
Are you implying a causality here, or merely stating an observable fact like a trend that is being observed by the new technologies?
First of all, I am not aware of the statistical observations that are probably being made about this, so paint me as an ignorant fool at will. Having said that, I'd argue that it is quite possible that this observed trend is a kind of a statistical consequence of the fact that we now observe these things while beforehand we just didn't. I'd further argue that this sousveillance movement is actually convincing me it can be the hammer to bring down this brutality by the police. I can also understand the argument that the police really dislikes being "filmed" and reacts aggressively and defensively at this phenomena, but that's probably just until they get used to it.
More the latter. The ease with which we can now document police misconduct easily creates the impression that police today is more brutal than it was 30 or 40 years ago, when in all likelihood this behaviour was already ongoing back then, we just weren't aware of it.
That being said, kitting out the police to survive an armed insurgency when no such insurgency is in sight certainly sends all manner of signals, most of them wrong.
-
I wonder, who authorized this in first place? This is way beyond I (and anyone reasonable) argued as "appropriate day-to-day patrol gear". They're equipped like military COIN teams. If the only indication of you being the police is the "POLICE" tag on your vest, you're doing it wrong. The second pic, posted out of context, could easily be taken as a picture of a military force holding up a civilian. The "paintball marker" takes a while to notice, and it's the only indication they're not the military.
So.. Yeah. Dressing up like you're storming a violent crime lord's mansion (where, indeed, some of this might be appropriate) is not the best way to de-escalate.
AND MARPAT? for what purpose? It's like they expect enemy snipers and gunmen toting AKs at every block.
And of course, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. So unless you are guarding something or the other person(s) are threatening you with lethal force, not acceptable.
My thoughts exactly. WTF with the cammies? Even a heavily armed SWAT team is Police, not Marines. And they should by no means pretend they are Marines. The other thread talked about military equipment, but not uniforms! Even if storming a violent crime lord's mansion, they should wear their own colors. To me, this is very disturbing, because it seems that those police fancy themselves as the military! That's going to go downhill pretty quickly, since it's pretty much akin to declaring war on your own citizens. Their muzzle discipline only confirms the mindset.
What they should have done is investigate the guy who shot that black man. It doesn't really matter how many times (it's more of a tactical detail), but the very fact that he shot him, that he used a weapon against him, is a matter to be closely investigated. Instead, they act like it were the citizens who are at fault. Cammies or not, this is essentially and fundamentally wrong. I'd dismiss the whole department on the spot for that.
-
I'm glad it's not like this in the UK.
It's not? I thought it's pretty much the same kind of deal in the UK. Maybe not in the sense of general militarization of the police, but in the sense of police often getting away with killing or injuring people.
Not even close. Yes, police misconduct is poorly-prosecuted (as The E says, this is, to some degree, the case everywhere); but there are so few armed police here the opportunity for this kind of incident is much, much smaller. The closest I can think of was Jean-Charles de Menezes.
-
This Ferguson case is yet another compelling argument for all police being required to carry active body-worn cameras when in the course of their duties (an argument quite a number of police I know fully support).
I had to acknowledge my biases with this one, because I'm much more inclined to trust the statement of a police officer that a young angry man tackled him in his car and stupidly went for his gun, resulting in him getting shot in the process, than I am a witness who says the man never even went near the cop and was walking away with his hands up. Certainly if this were a Canadian case I would be treating the witness account with extreme suspicion. On the other hand, I also read a fair bit about law enforcement shenanigans in the US, and that makes me much more inclined to believe that, even if the first shot in the car was justified, the subsequent shots constituted murder. The lesson from this is: nobody except the cop, the dead man, and the sole witness know the truth, and all three of those people will have unique observations that will not completely reconcile with each other. This is why - at least in theory - you are supposed to have an impartial justice system, and impartial external investigators and people are far better to wait for those conclusions than jump to their own.
On the issue of militarization: American police forces have largely embraced the results of 9/11 with the glee of a child at Christmas... "more toys!" That said, the mass riots, looting, destruction of property, and shots fired at police give them justification for using their toys. It looks a lot worse when media footage shows protestors standing idly and calmly around surrounded by ****ing tanks, than it does night shots of assaults on police, destruction, and mayhem being confronted by police in military gear.
The situation is disturbing all around.
-
So what's the deal with the media blackout, and the FAA imposing a no-fly-zone?
Edit: not sure if actual blackout, or just fearmongering on Twitter... obviously some info is getting out, but I've seen claims that journalists aren't being allowed in.
-
They seem to take any chance they can get to use all that surplus gear that gets bought from military suppliers (read: campaign contributors) by the USG/Department of Homeland Security and passed down to the police departments. Good thing they have it, you know, just in case the citizens get too cagey. Land of the oppressed, home of the surveilled. And yet, police officers still aren't required to wear recording devices at all times? This country is so ****ed up.
-
just remember, none of this would have happened if the US allowed private ownership of assault rifles
-
just remember, none of this would have happen if the US allowed private ownership of assault rifles
Actually, I'm finding stuff like this is pushing me in favor of owning ARs. I'm all for gun control or bans, but only if all guns are controlled/banned... which includes police forces. (Trained military forces exempt for obvious reasons.)
-
just remember, none of this would have happen if the US allowed private ownership of assault rifles
Actually, I'm finding stuff like this is pushing me in favor of owning ARs. I'm all for gun control or bans, but only if all guns are controlled/banned... which includes police forces. (Trained military forces exempt for obvious reasons.)
Whereas I would argue that the Balkanized nonsense of firearms controls in the US is one of the reasons that American police forces are far more heavily armed than their compatriots in other first world democracies, along with the special status that the US confers on law enforcement both for being armed when not on duty, and for the qualified immunity they formally received from prosecution.
Here, the police DO have access to a great variety of weapons that the common citizens do not, but they also only have that access when on duty and when certified to carry for a specific purpose. Police officers here don't get to carry a handgun around when off-duty just because they feel like it. A cop who wants to own firearms privately has to go through exactly the same controls as anyone else in their private life; at work, their possession and training is the legal responsibility of their employer.
This has another effect: Canadian police have no special immunity from prosecution or charges. All persons are excluded from prosecution if they use reasonable force in upholding the law; peace officers specifically (a broad class of designated persons, including police) have some special authorizations for the use of force in their duties to carry out other functions of the law which other persons are not expected to do. The section of the Criminal Code that covers this starts off with the following:
25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law
(a) as a private person,
(b) as a peace officer or public officer,
(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or
(d) by virtue of his office,
is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.
The solution to the American nonsense is not more guns in the hands of citizens, and it isn't the elimination of power from police forces. It's increased personal liability on police officers, where they are held to the same individual standards as anyone else performing the same duties they are.
-
This Ferguson case is yet another compelling argument for all police being required to carry active body-worn cameras when in the course of their duties (an argument quite a number of police I know fully support).
I think that's a good idea and certainly feasible nowadays, but then again it's not a silver bullet either; for example in this case it seems awfully likely that the device would have happened to be malfunctioning that day, or broken in the struggle, or even if it worked by streaming to a remote location in real time, the files would have been corrupted due to a software glitch. :rolleyes:
Ultimately the only thing that I think would really work is personal recorders worn by the public, which stream in real time to someplace that the police can't easily seize/shutdown. Until a jamming device becomes part of standard equipment.
-
I think that's a good idea and certainly feasible nowadays, but then again it's not a silver bullet either; for example in this case it seems awfully likely that the device would have happened to be malfunctioning that day, or broken in the struggle, or even if it worked by streaming to a remote location in real time, the files would have been corrupted due to a software glitch. :rolleyes:
Ultimately the only thing that I think would really work is personal recorders worn by the public, which stream in real time to someplace that the police can't easily seize/shutdown. Until a jamming device becomes part of standard equipment.
Personal cameras for Police are a good idea. Ironically, that could also come from the military surplus. :) Soldiers use helmet-mounted cameras all the time. Personal recorders worn by the public are also a good idea, in that they would not only allow monitoring the Police, it would also make their work easier. For instance, stealing would become much harder, and a camera recording is much more trustworthy than an eyewitness account. I suspect it'd improve security a lot. If this was well managed, centralized and voluntary (carrying a cam definitely shouldn't be mandatory), it could help many problems, shorten court cases a lot and make people less inclined to misbehave. Knowing the government, though, it'd be anything but this, and the implementation would be either laughable and/or raise cries of "Orwell!".
Also, US Police could probably do with a lot less privileges. Not to the point of impotence, though. In Poland, Police is a laughable force because it has so many restrictions on it's actions that it's barely capable of enforcing the law.
-
The solution to the American nonsense is not more guns in the hands of citizens, and it isn't the elimination of power from police forces. It's increased personal liability on police officers, where they are held to the same individual standards as anyone else performing the same duties they are.
While part of me certainly agrees (and all of me wants to), the realist in me just can't get there. America has me jaded these days. :doubt:
-
All this talk of public recording devices reminded me of the public perception of Google Glass... And that can't even record 24/7. If that is any indication, public recording devices as suggested would be an uphill battle.
-
Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of. And for wearing a camera, the presence of your own personal camera is probably an aid to your judgement. And of course it isn't a one way street, it also protects you, people can't make malicious claims of police brutality if you've got it all on film. Come upon a crime in progress, it's all there on tape.
-
Exactly. It'll not only help with controlling police brutality, but also provide additional, detailed evidence in case of police stopping a crime in progress. You can't pay attention to everything, but if you've got multiple camera recordings, you can, for instance, not worry about writing down/remembering the license number of the crooks' getaway car. It could also be used to tactical analysis of encounters with armed crooks, much like in the military. This solution really has no drawbacks besides added cost of buying a camera for every cop out there, and the administrative overhead involved with managing the footage.
-
Come upon a crime in progress, it's all there on tape.
This alone should be a reason enough for police to carry cameras. Video evidence would also help the police secure convictions in cases where the defence try to make the case seem less serious than it actually was. It's pretty hard to claim that something was just a minor bar brawl when you can see the police running up to someone in the middle of a kerbstomping.
Add the fact that it also increases their own personal safety (attack a cop and you've just given the world video evidence that will put you in jail for years) and you would think that most police would be in favour of them. Unfortunately people always market the anti-cop reasons for having them first, rather than pointing out the number of scumbags the police witness getting away with crimes who otherwise would be in jail.
-
Local reports tonight are saying that among a whole new slew of riots and excessive police force, 2 journalists were arrested. The journalists were asked to leave and to stop filming police. After conflicting police instructions they were forcefully arrested. They were eventually released without being charged, but names and badge numbers of those involved in their arrest was withheld.
Saw it on the tube while at the gym. I'll post a link to an article when I get home unless someone else does it first.
This is crazy. Regardless of what happened to the kid, this is way out of control and the state should probably be getting involved.
-
So yeah, my earlier question, again: what's the deal with the NFZ?
-
So yeah, my earlier question, again: what's the deal with the NFZ?
Police claim that one of their helicopters was shot at, so they had the FAA impose a no-fly zone up to 3000 feet. Detractors of the decision state that this is a means of partially blacking out the media, by preventing news helicopters from hovering over the area film from overhead.
-
Journalists arrested article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/reporters-arrested-ferguson-ryan-reilly-wesley-lowery_n_5676841.html)
-
Looking at the comments below, the Police Chief in Ferguson knew nothing of the arrests until he was phoned about that... I wonder, just who is in charge in there? This whole situation looks FUBAR, I don't think anyone controls it anymore. Is there any sort of police you can call in if you see a police officer acting up? Ques custodet ipsos custodes? I have a feeling that in Ferguson, no one does, and we're seeing the results. This goes waaay beyond the issue of police militarization, those guys are out of line and need to be put back into it, hard. In my book, they've already gone rogue.
-
These "police" are looking more like a gang of armed thugs than police.
Massive red flag for me any kind of suppression of filming, never mind on a scale like this.
This could be something that as far as I know is unprecedented. Has an entire police force (or even a large part of it) ever needed to be removed from duty?
-
Now this (https://twitter.com/hollywood_trey/statuses/499819075040575490) is just wild.
-
Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.
"People should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of." I feel like I've heard (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html) this argument somewhere before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29)...
Look, I support police bodycams. I support them because they are shown in case studies to reduce the level of behaviour used against police, reduce the amount of force exercised by police, improve accountability, and document evidence. I think they're an excellent tool.
I also recognize that people - police included - have inherent privacy interests that cameras by their very nature invade, and therefore there is some reluctance to adopt them. I think the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns, but the "if you've done nothing wrong then" argument is completely unacceptable everywhere it's used. That's presumption of guilt on a circumstantial basis - you don't have to justify wanting privacy, you have to be justified in measures that reduce it.
-
Just some of my musings on this.
I used to follow Popehat pretty closely up until the summer, and the authors often write about police brutality. However, I got turned of by the constant libertarian vibe and the the impression that the authors thought all law enforcement officers were evil. I don't want to see all law enforcement individuals this way, because that's utterly terrifying and goes against everything ingrained in me as a child. Basically that the the cops were the good guys and what not. However one of the things that I took away from Popehat was that, FBI apart, there are no national standards for law enforcement conduct, training, and oversight of police departments. In addition, I find it to be problematic when the police force for a region is different in ethnicity from the area they are bound to maintain law in. Unfortunately, America's problems with race cannot be overlooked in many of these situations. Whether race actually played a role in many of the recent high profile authority figure killing an innocent cases, the aftermath of each of these events has certainly included race.
On a personal note, I have found the two or three times that I have interacted with police officers to be utterly terrifying (speeding ticket, didn't put the new sticker on an old license plate). I acknowledge that my experiences have fallen on only one side of the spectrum, so that my feelings are biased, but I think the lack of positive interaction also says something. I become afraid whenever I see a cop car on the road. Having one follow you for a time is utterly nerve wracking, even though I know I haven't been seriously in the wrong. I think what has made me so uncomfortable with police is how they approach their jobs. None of them have been friendly, or nice, or smiled. I've gotten business-like but understanding with the plate issue (I had the new sticker in my glove compartment), and what felt like hostility for the speeding ticket. What happened in both incidents really was that I was no longer a person to the LEO. Dehumanization is not something I think that law enforcement should practice, particularly among the officers who most frequently encounter their protected.
I'm not sure where this came from originally, but this is a map by the cato institute about botched paramilitary raids that I found interesting. http://www.cato.org/raidmap?type=1 (http://www.cato.org/raidmap?type=1) If you flip through the years, the number of incidents on average has gone up since 1990 (I didn't check before then, strapped for time). There were virtually no incidents on the map for 2011 to present interestingly enough.
-
Well surveillance is already the status quo, and therefore it is absolutely reasonable to also institute sousveillance. This is already inscribed in one law, I can't recall where, that was instituted not long ago that enabled people to document their authorities' actions on the public arena.
-
Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.
"People should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of." I feel like I've heard (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html) this argument somewhere before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29)...
Look, I support police bodycams. I support them because they are shown in case studies to reduce the level of behaviour used against police, reduce the amount of force exercised by police, improve accountability, and document evidence. I think they're an excellent tool.
I also recognize that people - police included - have inherent privacy interests that cameras by their very nature invade, and therefore there is some reluctance to adopt them. I think the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns, but the "if you've done nothing wrong then" argument is completely unacceptable everywhere it's used. That's presumption of guilt on a circumstantial basis - you don't have to justify wanting privacy, you have to be justified in measures that reduce it.
I don't see how PRISM has any relevance to police getting aggressive about being filmed by reporters. Especially in an environment like this. In an environment like this there absolutely should be cameras rolling. This isn't a case of there being no good reason to be filming these officers. And according to the article the police came to the reporters, not the other way around as well.
Police by definition are high visibility. They're also going to be inserting themseves into the private lives of people all the time, in a variety of ways that are more intrusive than a camera. I don't think it's too much to ask for police to let themselves be filmed. And there's a difference to being filmed in the chaos that is Ferguson, where police brutality and power abuse is very much on the agenda, to being stalked by someone with a camera while doing your day to day job. They should welcome the cameras if they're doing nothing wrong. And there's also a big difference to objecting to being filmed, and slamming someone up against a wall, slapping the cuffs on them, and hauling them down to the police station.
-
Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.
"People should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of."
Remember, Police=/=People. A police officer is, by definition, different from an average man in the street. They are not supposed to act like people, they're supposed to act like police. They've got privileges and equipment potentially capable of causing great harm. At the same time, they've also got many duties that may put them at risk. Many arguments that apply to a normal person with a private life don't apply here. A police officer doesn't have a private life. Once an officer takes the uniform off, he/she is a normal person, no different from anyone else, playing by the same rules. It's only when in uniform that one officially is a police officer. Some also adhere to their job's idea off duty, actively trying to prevent crime while out of uniform, but they're nothing more than particularly brave citizens without the uniform. Uniformed police cannot have the same freedom a random person does, because of their responsibilities. Also, service as a police officer is strictly voluntary, meaning that they would know what they sign up for. A policeman/woman should have no problem with being monitored. In fact, monitoring things is also one of their very duties. One who watches shouldn't be afraid of being watched. With power comes responsibility, responsibility restricts freedom. It's the natural order of things.
Of course, I'm talking about "normal" police, not special forces of any sort (which can and do have plainclothes divisions). But then, we're not arguing about those special forces anyway, and they seem to have little to do with what's happening in Ferguson.
Now this (https://twitter.com/hollywood_trey/statuses/499819075040575490) is just wild.
Funny. I suppose the situation in Ferguson is officially FUBAR now. Gazans do have some experience dealing with oppressive governments... All the more reason for someone to stop this madness. Ferguson PD has gone rogue, I tell you.
-
Local news is tossing rumors that Ferguson and Saint Louis police are being pulled from both the investigation of the kid who was killed and from active duty. Cops from all over MO are being reassigned (again, according to rumors) to Ferguson. I'm waiting for the Governor to start his press briefing to get the facts.
It's sad that it's taken four days for there to be even a hint of real leadership. Clearly the Ferguson Police Chief isn't in control of his officers. (http://www.infowars.com/fergusons-police-chief-freaked-out-after-finding-out-his-cops-arrested-two-reporters/)
EDIT: Governor just confirmed that Missouri Highway Patrol is taking over from Ferguson local police.
-
Being able to watch live streams of your local police officers on patrol would be awesome and informative. Then you could vote for the best cop and the winner would get a free box of donuts. All the winners could then have their clips go to state and eventually national level and the ultimate best cop winner gets a free trip to Hawaii sponsored by Krispy Kreme. The only problem is what do you do if the winner is from Hawaii?
-
This arrest was brought to you by Adidas, the world's best manufacturer of prisoner's uniforms!
-
Being able to watch live streams of your local police officers on patrol would be awesome and informative. Then you could vote for the best cop and the winner would get a free box of donuts. All the winners could then have their clips go to state and eventually national level and the ultimate best cop winner gets a free trip to Hawaii sponsored by Krispy Kreme. The only problem is what do you do if the winner is from Hawaii?
Send him somewhere else. :) Once he gets back, he'll feel like he's at the most wonderful post in the world. Again, cops are not marines. Only the latter are capable of complaining about Hawaii, having already been somewhere else. :)
-
So yeah, my earlier question, again: what's the deal with the NFZ?
Police claim that one of their helicopters was shot at, so they had the FAA impose a no-fly zone up to 3000 feet. Detractors of the decision state that this is a means of partially blacking out the media, by preventing news helicopters from hovering over the area film from overhead.
Ahhh. So they're pretending it's for the safety of the people flying.
/me thinks
Yeah, I'ma stick with "pretending".
-
This arrest was brought to you by Adidas, the world's best manufacturer of prisoner's uniforms!
Makes liberals happy by preventing cops from abusing power, makes the state and its corporate masters money through ads, entertains drooling masses. The only losers are the cops who were in it for the power abuse, but even they can enjoy the 15 minutes of fame that precede their arrest by the photogenic law dispensers of the future!
-
-snip-
-snip-
Did you two actually look at the phrase I quoted before you went off? Did you read the post? Because I think you need to read it again.
My point was that Lorric's original statement - "nothing to hide, therefore why object" - is used to justify unjust surveillance, monitoring, and privacy violations of the public all. the. time. And it's soundly rejected there, as it should be. It is no more legitimate for police than anyone else. It presumes that the innocent don't need privacy.
There are many good argument why police should carry bodycams. THAT is not one of them.
-
-snip-
-snip-
Did you two actually look at the phrase I quoted before you went off? Did you read the post? Because I think you need to read it again.
My point was that Lorric's original statement - "nothing to hide, therefore why object" - is used to justify unjust surveillance, monitoring, and privacy violations of the public all. the. time. And it's soundly rejected there, as it should be. It is no more legitimate for police than anyone else. It presumes that the innocent don't need privacy.
There are many good argument why police should carry bodycams. THAT is not one of them.
Well maybe the phrase is causing confusion. Do you object to the police being filmed in a situation such as Ferguson, or in the course of making arrests? I know I'd want a camera to be rolling if I was arrested.
-
Lorric, you completely missed it. MP-Ryan is not against filming the police. He is simply saying that "they should have nothing to hide" is a terrible terrible argument for any kind of surveillance ever. But he also said that there are good arguments for surveillance.
"they should have nothing to hide" presumes that privacy is not a right. That is the reason it is a terrible, very bad argument. You need an argument for surveillance that shows why the benefits of losing privacy are outweighed by a constantly-on camera... such as "there is evidence that cameras on police causes police abuse of authority to drop significantly."
-
Except that privacy is not a right when talking Police officers, as well as other "public" positions. This is what I was talking about. The moment you put on the uniform, you stop being a private person. You become a policeman, a marine, a fireman... Private life should have no bearing on what you do in uniform. You've got to enforce the law, defend your country or put out fires. There's no place for anything "private" as long as you are on duty. That was what I said. Police have no right for privacy from the moment they put on the uniform to the moment they take it off. This should not impede them in any way, too. A police officer exists only for other people. To protect them and serve them. After hours, they might be whoever they want, but during them, they're Police.
This also extends to other people with a lot of power and responsibility. A civil servant, politician, diplomat or whatever should cleanly separate their own, private selves from the functions they fulfill. They have no uniforms, and the time they're "on duty" is a bit muddled, but the general idea is the same. I would not be opposed to filming politicians 24/7, (with the exception of times when they're on vacation, and as such "off duty"), either. This would certainly improve accountability and government transparency. A politician should have the good of his country in mind, not anything related to whoever he is in private. The country not only goes first, it's the only thing that goes as long as you're an official and not a private person. The government (especially the military) might keep secrets, of course, but they have special agencies which are specifically meant for doing covert stuff.
-
And if the police are shutting down the ability to take video evidence in a situation where the police themselves are the ones who stand accused of criminal activity, where is your evidence going to come from other than the police themselves?
-
Except that privacy is not a right when talking Police officers, as well as other "public" positions. This is what I was talking about. The moment you put on the uniform, you stop being a private person. You become a policeman, a marine, a fireman... Private life should have no bearing on what you do in uniform. You've got to enforce the law, defend your country or put out fires. There's no place for anything "private" as long as you are on duty. That was what I said. Police have no right for privacy from the moment they put on the uniform to the moment they take it off. This should not impede them in any way, too. A police officer exists only for other people. To protect them and serve them. After hours, they might be whoever they want, but during them, they're Police.
This also extends to other people with a lot of power and responsibility. A civil servant, politician, diplomat or whatever should cleanly separate their own, private selves from the functions they fulfill. They have no uniforms, and the time they're "on duty" is a bit muddled, but the general idea is the same. I would not be opposed to filming politicians 24/7, (with the exception of times when they're on vacation, and as such "off duty"), either. This would certainly improve accountability and government transparency. A politician should have the good of his country in mind, not anything related to whoever he is in private. The country not only goes first, it's the only thing that goes as long as you're an official and not a private person. The government (especially the military) might keep secrets, of course, but they have special agencies which are specifically meant for doing covert stuff.
i will just point out that this HEAVILY depends on the country in question and what their actual laws proscribe... yeah, sure, its a good guideline, but dont think thats how it works in the real life.
as for the topic... le sigh.
thankfully, the police here dont have access to much military gear ( "much" == handguns are former military issue/they use the same make of i think 9mm handguns)
and the specials.... well... if you get a strong desire to get the **** out of the way of these guys when you see them going anywhere, i like to think that they are doing their job right.
street cops (http://www.znet.hr/wp-content/gallery/dan-hrvatske-policije/dscn0774.jpg) & our "special unit" (http://www.index.hr/images2/policija_vjezba1-250613goranmehkekCropix.jpg), heavier outfit... (http://www.dw.de/image/0,,6100037_4,00.jpg)
-
Pretty sure Dragon was talking "should" and not "is"
-
To be fair, this was supposedly a SWAT team in military gear - but I don't think most countries special police forces are nearly as numerous or well armed. Former soviet bloc states seem to still have some of that going on as well though (The 9A91 and other 9X39mm weapons scream oppressive state to me)
-
i will just point out that this HEAVILY depends on the country in question and what their actual laws proscribe... yeah, sure, its a good guideline, but dont think thats how it works in the real life.
Like Aardwolf said, I was talking theory, what civil service should entail for people. Or rather, what it still does entail, it's just people don't live up to that standard. Indeed, what I was talking about is only adhered to by few, select individuals who know what being a civil servant (of any kind) really means. No law has ever forced that, this world isn't that good. Of course it usually doesn't work out like this in practice, people like having power with no responsibility. This is, in my opinion, fundamentally and morally wrong. Strict monitoring of those in power could force them to actually "uphold their end of the bargain", which is exactly why it isn't going to happen - the very same people would have to agree to it and enforce it. It would also make power much less appealing, especially in hard times.
-
I have not been following the details of this, but...
So yeah, my earlier question, again: what's the deal with the NFZ?
What the ****?
y'all might not be aware of this but the Ferguson area is directly in the line of flights coming and going to and from St.Louis's only real airport how the **** can they put a no fly zone over the area to the immediate end of the runway of the only air port? this is actually part of the reason that part of town turned into a ****hole, no one who could afford it wanted to live under the landing/taking off airplanes.
or does it only pertain to news helicopters?
-
According to some of the replies, it's only below 3000 feet... so maybe that makes a difference? I wonder just how such a request gets processed...
-
which is exactly the altitude range one would expect to find landing aircraft.
-
I have not been following the details of this, but...
So yeah, my earlier question, again: what's the deal with the NFZ?
What the ****?
y'all might not be aware of this but the Ferguson area is directly in the line of flights coming and going to and from St.Louis's only real airport how the **** can they put a no fly zone over the area to the immediate end of the runway of the only air port? this is actually part of the reason that part of town turned into a ****hole, no one who could afford it wanted to live under the landing/taking off airplanes.
or does it only pertain to news helicopters?
That's something I didn't know about. An NFZ up to 3000ft would indeed cut the airport off completely. They didn't just cut off news helos, they cut off the entire air traffic in and out of the area!
-
I would think if they had cut off all air traffic in and out of St. Louis I'd have heard about all the angry travelers... St. Louis is a major hub, isn't it?
But then again, maybe I wouldn't have heard about it. Maybe I don't listen to the right channels.
So... anyone got any guesses as to how such a request gets processed? Whose office at the FAA it goes through, and who in Ferguson had to get on the line with them? And perhaps, to whom at the FAA should the angry travelers address their hate-mail? Or the journalists whose first amendment right was denied on the basis of "for your own safety".
-
The "paintball marker" takes a while to notice, and it's the only indication they're not the military.
I don't see how this picture was taken out of context since the topic is about militarization of police, and will show off the militarizing of police. Dude with the paintball gun makes me think sadist perhaps since he's the only one with a paintball gun. I'm back btw.
-
The "paintball marker" takes a while to notice, and it's the only indication they're not the military.
I don't see how this picture was taken out of context since the topic is about militarization of police, and will show off the militarizing of police. Dude with the paintball gun makes me think sadist perhaps since he's the only one with a paintball gun. I'm back btw.
I'd rather get shot with a pepper ball then with the actual bullets the rest of these forces seem to be using.
-
I'm blind, what part of what image indicates something is a paintball gun?
-
On far right, there's a gun with a distinctive, paintball-style magazine on top. They're used as a less-lethal weapon for firing tear gas balls and the like.
I don't see how this picture was taken out of context since the topic is about militarization of police, and will show off the militarizing of police. Dude with the paintball gun makes me think sadist perhaps since he's the only one with a paintball gun. I'm back btw.
You're taking my quote out of context. I was saying that this went went beyond "militarized police" and into "paramilitary thugs". The_E was trying to use this as an example against police using military equipment, but it was a somewhat fallacious argument, because in this case, there are so many other things wrong with this situation that I think it's not really a representative case. Ferguson PD didn't go rogue because it had military equipment, nor is the equipment they had (dunno from where, perhaps from SWAT teams and/or actual military) anything any reasonable policeman would want to use. I was saying that the picture posted didn't so much show police militarization as police who are trying to act like marines and not like police.
-
I'm blind, what part of what image indicates something is a paintball gun?
last guy on the right (http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--GLGgYBmo--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ofthikdjhct4yyz0fagk.jpg) note the ball holder (http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/9/93538/1455575-paintball_gun_comparison.jpg)
-
Oh. Ha, I was wondering wtf that was.
-
6:28 is of interest.
HOWEVER, does not change situation much as they still reacted badly IMHO.
But does go to show why cameras for the police are an EXCELLENT idea. In this case, review recording, publish recording, problem solved.
#1 How’d he get from there to there?
#2 Because he ran, the police was still in the truck – cause he was like over the truck
{crosstalk}
#2 But him and the police was both in the truck, then he ran – the police got out and ran after him
{crosstalk}
#2 Then the next thing I know he doubled back toward him cus – the police had his gun drawn already on him –
#1. Oh, the police got his gun
#2 The police kept dumpin on him, and I’m thinking the police kept missing – he like – be like – but he kept coming toward him
{crosstalk}
#2 Police fired shots – the next thing I know – the police was missing
#1 The Police?
#2 The Police shot him
#1 Police?
#2 The next thing I know … I’m thinking … the dude started running … (garbled something about “he took it from him”)
-
if anyone wants to know why americans are so hell bent on keeping their guns, let us keep in mind what our cops are like.
-
Because pointing a gun at a police officer is surely the best course of action...
-
I was speaking of the genesis of the desire, not the efficacy of it. and I was not trying to start a gun control argument in a thread not about gun control, so let's leave it as a joke and talk about why the police are racist and trigger happy.
-
I think that racism is the underlying cause here. Trigger happyness just results from them thinking about black people as not being "proper citizens", or so to speak. None of this would've happened if the police didn't think themselves better than people they were assigned to protect. Unfortunately, they do, and this is the result. Racism is a though problem, mostly because it's hard to tell actual prejudice from a myriad things that are not caused by skin color or anything like that (but since they happen to someone colored, they still call it racist). I've seen cases where attempts to regulate racism ended with certain people playing "the race card" to actually get preferential treatment, which isn't good, either (and indeed, it encourages actual racism). Something needs to be done, but I have no idea what it'd be.
-
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html
Read the entire article, you get slants both ways (against the cop and for).
From what I've seen it is possible the cop was just doing his job, but now no one will be likely to believe that because of the way the department handled the aftermath of the protests.
-
Looks like four of those six shots hit him, but had comparatively little chance of killing him on the spot. However, I have a hard time believing that after 4 shots, he'd still be putting up resistance. It would seem that the officer first went for body shots, but hit way to the left, then (thinking it didn't work, as it is sometimes the case), went for the head instead. Perhaps he was stressed by being assaulted (a fair assumption) and he acted too fast to notice the guy was surrendering. Those situations happen fast, if there indeed was an assault (as he claims), then I could see anyone doing this. He'd have to pause to readjust his aim, so he still shouldn't have fired the two last shots, though. While it's a general rule with guns that you always shot to kill, a police officer should keep his eyes out for the signs of surrender.
Still, not grappling with a cop is common sense, especially if the violation was minor jaywalking. Though if it was the cop who grappled the guy first, then it'd be a much worse case. They're not supposed to do that in first place, especially if we're talking jaywalking.
However, that matters relatively little in light of all that happened. It could have ended with the case being investigated, the cop punished according to what exactly did he do, and that'd be the end of it. Instead, the PD chose to suppress the information people have full rights to, equivocate and muddle the case, as well as act like they were already 100% certain who was guilty. That was the real problem here, just how exactly the first shooting happened is somewhat irrelevant compared to things they've done later.
-
This thread makes me wonder if in reality, you guys hired PMCs for peace keeping
-
Given how they dressed, how they acted and how were they doing at keeping peace, I'm inclined to agree with you. :)
-
apparently one of the shots entered and exited his arm a few times. like you would expect to happen if it was fired along the length of his arm. like if he had reflexively put his arm up to block an attack.
-
On the other hand, the witness claims he was shot in the back and obviously wasn't. Not that I'd immediately discount the rest of the witness' statement based on that, if you're running away from someone shooting at you, you wouldn't notice what your friend was doing when he was shot.
-
Odd. NPR says that the forensics supports the position that he was running away
-
Police should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of.
"People should have no problem with being filmed. If they're doing nothing wrong, they've got nothing to be afraid of." I feel like I've heard (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10172298/One-surveillance-camera-for-every-11-people-in-Britain-says-CCTV-survey.html) this argument somewhere before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29)...
Look, I support police bodycams. I support them because they are shown in case studies to reduce the level of behaviour used against police, reduce the amount of force exercised by police, improve accountability, and document evidence. I think they're an excellent tool.
I also recognize that people - police included - have inherent privacy interests that cameras by their very nature invade, and therefore there is some reluctance to adopt them. I think the benefits outweigh the privacy concerns, but the "if you've done nothing wrong then" argument is completely unacceptable everywhere it's used. That's presumption of guilt on a circumstantial basis - you don't have to justify wanting privacy, you have to be justified in measures that reduce it.
For an individual to have the legal powers of a police officer and the normal right to privacy of citizens without said legal powers get is to give said person the ability to violate the rights of others with impunity. With this as the perfect case in point. Can you seriously not grasp this? I'll spare the line about great power and responsibility.
-
Mr. Vega, you're arguing against a straw man of your own creation reinforced by MP-Ryan's poor specificity and wording.
He is absolutely in favor of police bodycams. That is literally in his post.
"They should have nothing to hide" is a ****ing godawful ****ty reason to justify it. That's his complaint.
We now return to your thread in progress.
-
Mr. Vega, you're arguing against a straw man of your own creation reinforced by MP-Ryan's poor specificity and wording.
He is absolutely in favor of police bodycams. That is literally in his post.
"They should have nothing to hide" is a ****ing godawful ****ty reason to justify it. That's his complaint.
We now return to your thread in progress.
The power of a policeman can be extremely tempting to abuse and so in return the policemen surrenders some of his rights to privacy. It's a "if you have a special authority that could otherwise allow you to get away with doing wrong, there should be a price to pay for that in privacy" argument.
-
That is a different argument from the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" one, though.
-
ok, how's this one when someone enters my space they lose a right to me not filming them.
-
That is a different argument from the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" one, though.
Bingo. MP-Ryan's entire protest is to the "Nothing to hide" line of utter bull****. The entire thing. He's otherwise totally for bodycams.
We now return to your thread in progress (pssst, that's a hint guys).
-
What exactly is there to say on-topic? The incident's over, and it seems that forces that took over are competent. There's nobody to bash or argue about anymore, what with pretty much the entire Ferguson PD suspended and likely to soon get their well deserved comeuppance. :)
Bingo. MP-Ryan's entire protest is to the "Nothing to hide" line of utter bull****. The entire thing.
Indeed, but I don't think he's right, and others might share this view. This argument is actually perfectly applicable when talking civil servants on duty (and only then). We've been over it on page 3 already, I then explained (in great detail) why. We've agreed that bodycams are a good idea long ago, so all that's left to argue about is why are they so. :)
-
What exactly is there to say on-topic? The incident's over, and it seems that forces that took over are competent. There's nobody to bash or argue about anymore, what with pretty much the entire Ferguson PD suspended and likely to soon get their well deserved comeuppance. :)
You ... haven't been following the news at all, have you. No, this thing is still ongoing, and while it looked like it might deescalate for a while there, it's still back to being a complete demonstration of what happens when official ineptitude meets decades of resentment.
Police in Ferguson are still arresting journalists (on live camera, even), are still firing tear gas into protests, and are not behaving the way you'd want a police force to behave.
Indeed, but I don't think he's right, and others might share this view. This argument is actually perfectly applicable when talking civil servants on duty (and only then). We've been over it on page 3 already, I then explained (in great detail) why. We've agreed that bodycams are a good idea long ago, so all that's left to argue about is why are they so. :)
You're very, very wrong though. "If you got nothing to hide...." is bull****. Everyone has something to hide. Using it as justification for wiring up law enforcement personnel is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. You wire them up for accountability, not because "they have nothing to hide". Those are two different things, two different approaches to the issue, and guess what? The accountability angle makes it much easier to convince those you want to wear cameras that it's a good thing for them to do so.
-
Bah, just checked. It sure did look done last time I checked. I suppose it won't deescalate as easily as I hoped...
Everyone has something to hide.
Of course. But the thing is, whatever policemen/women have to hide, it should not be related to their duty. On duty, there is no such thing as "personal matter", if you're in uniform, you do your duty and only that. Therefore, a policeman doing his/her duty has, by definition, nothing to hide, because everything they do benefits their citizens. The only things they could want to hide would be not doing their duty or doing it wrong. Since police are paid by the public and exist to protect and serve their very public, this public has right to know about those. A policeman/woman on duty is not a normal person, but a member of police force. The person under the uniform is irrelevant, or at least should be. IMO, the same goes for other public servants as well.
That said, I'm not dismissing accountability argument, nor that it's a much stronger one. People have a right to know that the police is doing it's duty. What I'm saying that a police officer in uniform has no right to privacy and should not expect it. Indeed, other people have every right to monitor the officer to ensure he/she does the job and does it right. That's because the very point of existence of a police officer is to protect and serve people. From the moment of putting on the uniform to the moment of taking it off, a police officer is not a private person.
-
That is a different argument from the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" one, though.
Bingo. MP-Ryan's entire protest is to the "Nothing to hide" line of utter bull****. The entire thing. He's otherwise totally for bodycams.
We now return to your thread in progress (pssst, that's a hint guys).
Scotty, you're misreading us.
I don't think anyone's talking about police bodycams, at least, I'm not, we know MP-Ryan supports police bodycams, we're talking about our right to film police. Talking about the right of the press in a situation such as Ferguson to be able to film police without being slammed up against a wall and cuffed. Talking about our right to film police if we're the ones being dealt with by the police. And even if the police had bodycams that would not change that. A camera only films from one angle.
And the argument will not be defeated by telling us it's a bad argument. And I don't think it's a bad argument in this case either.
Why are you trying to force us off this topic? No one is talking about "the topic", we're talking about this. Which is related to the topic. This is something we want to talk about. You can always split it out if you like.
-
Lorric, you're the only one talking about that.
And secondly it is a bad reason to argue that police should wear bodycams. Think about it logically, while bodycams are a good idea, if the police have no right to privacy, why not go the whole hog and record audio as well?
Surely anyone can see that the conversation two policemen choose to have while travelling to an incident, walking down the street or eating their lunch is no one's business but their own.
-
Lorric, you're the only one talking about that.
I don't think so.
I don't think anyone's talking about police bodycams, at least, I'm not
What I'm saying that a police officer in uniform has no right to privacy and should not expect it. Indeed, other people have every right to monitor the officer to ensure he/she does the job and does it right.
ok, how's this one when someone enters my space they lose a right to me not filming them.
The power of a policeman can be extremely tempting to abuse and so in return the policemen surrenders some of his rights to privacy. It's a "if you have a special authority that could otherwise allow you to get away with doing wrong, there should be a price to pay for that in privacy" argument.
Also, on the subject of bodycams, imo it should go without saying that audio is recorded. Have you never watched any of these cop shows with police wearing cameras which record audio? What would be the point of not having audio, the officer could issue all manner of threats with impunity then.
But we're not talking about bodycams, we're talking about the right to film the police.
We had something here in the UK about a year ago which I believe is known as the UK Riots. We had dense, live, 24/7 coverage by the press. And that is how it should be. No media blackouts. No arresting or intimidating people with cameras.
-
Some relevant reading on your legal right to film the police:
http://www.cnet.com/news/ferguson-unrest-tests-legal-right-to-film-police/
http://www.cnet.com/news/ferguson-mo-police-agree-everyone-can-film-us/
-
And now, to add further grease to the fire, some one in Ferguson just opted for suicide by cop. :nono:
-
Let me try this again, Lorric, no one is arguing against the right of people to film the police either. The point people are making is that the "You won't care if you've got nothing to hide" argument is a really poor way of persuading the police to do anything.
People making that argument actually make it less likely the police will want to wear bodycams, etc.
-
people making that argument are probably just using 'turnabout is fair play'
-
Let me try this again, Lorric, no one is arguing against the right of people to film the police either. The point people are making is that the "You won't care if you've got nothing to hide" argument is a really poor way of persuading the police to do anything.
People making that argument actually make it less likely the police will want to wear bodycams, etc.
Well, of course, I agree. Selling the police on the very real positive benefits of using those cameras is for sure the right way to go.
But can you sell the police on being filmed by others in the same way?
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/
This would have been sooo much easier if they hadn't overreacted. :ick:
It's looking like that wound on his arm was from when he tried to take the officers weapon and it went off.
Why in the world he would turn around and charge after almost getting away idk.
At least, that's what it's looking more and more like what happened.
-
so what happens when your political protest happens to be founded on an event that turned out to be completely justified. the evidence on this thing keeps going back and forth.
-
so what happens when your political protest happens to be founded on an event that turned out to be completely justified. the evidence on this thing keeps going back and forth.
What, the outright execution of a suspected shoplifter (and for all we know, the cop that did the shooting didn't know about the shoplifting at the time he did the shooting) is justifiable now? The immediate escalation to military hardware, tear gas, arrests of journalists can be justified?
-
Ok ok that's One side, the other side of the story is the cop confronted the suspect for jaywalking, not knowing of the shoplifting. Suspect physically shoves the cop back into his car as cop tries to get out, breaks the cops eye socket, and attempts to grab the cops weapon, which goes off. Suspect then flees, cop pursues, suspect turns around and charge at the cop, ignoring commands to freeze. Cop then shoots the suspect, who is not stopped until he is mere feet away from the cop.
We just need to figure out whose story is true, and the shenanigans the PD (and the looters) have been doing aren't helping.
-
And to be honest, tear gas is completely acceptable IF the protesters are using violence (looting, setting things on fire, etc.)
Edit: unless you advocate the amount of force required to arrest and charge all of those involved in criminal activity?
Voicing dissent lawfully of course should not be obstructed.
-
This is both hilarious and really sad... (http://groupthink.jezebel.com/how-sunil-duttas-op-ed-reads-exactly-like-domestic-abus-1624140464)
-
What, the outright execution of a suspected shoplifter (and for all we know, the cop that did the shooting didn't know about the shoplifting at the time he did the shooting) is justifiable now?
But the evidence (witness statements, frontal gun wounds, orbital fracture) doesnt seem to corroborate that scenario at all. Killing of someone who assaults the police is indeed justified.
-
Normal self-defense rules (should) apply, regardless of who the defender is.
Note that there's a difference between being scared, being scared for your life, and reasonably believing you're in danger of death or serious injury, and that (if I understand things correctly) it's only that last one that's a valid legal justification for killing someone.
-
This is both hilarious and really sad... (http://groupthink.jezebel.com/how-sunil-duttas-op-ed-reads-exactly-like-domestic-abus-1624140464)
Yes, but I'm not sure if it's for the reason the author intended. If you simply read the original without the in-line responses, it's pretty clear. I can see it even with the in-line responses. The second author is twisting the intent and the meaning of the original article using the emotional response that people have towards the victimization of the innocent in domestic abuse cases. It's really not that hard to see through this.
-
This is both hilarious and really sad... (http://groupthink.jezebel.com/how-sunil-duttas-op-ed-reads-exactly-like-domestic-abus-1624140464)
Yes, but I'm not sure if it's for the reason the author intended. If you simply read the original without the in-line responses, it's pretty clear. I can see it even with the in-line responses. The second author is twisting the intent and the meaning of the original article using the emotional response that people have towards the victimization of the innocent in domestic abuse cases. It's really not that hard to see through this.
Yeah, I started reading that yesterday but got interrupted and sidetracked, but I was getting the same impression then. Now I've had time to sit down and read it right through properly, it's a pathetic and unwarranted character assassination, twisting everything he says in the worst possible way they can think of. It just gets more pathetic the further along you go.
I don't know anything about Mr. Dutta's personal life and am not accusing him of anything
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
**** you, Sunil Dutta.
No. **** you, Edie Beale.
-
The original article presents the very same implications.
-
The original article presents the very same implications.
I want to be clear, are you saying you think Edie Beale is right?
-
I think Jordan Sargent is right, and Edie Beale presented his (admitedly) hyperbolic view on same text.
Or do you really think
If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.
is really a better excuse than "If you don't have anything to hide..."?
-
Oh right, this:
http://gawker.com/cop-pens-touching-op-ed-do-everything-i-say-and-i-wont-1623985263
That is a lot more reasonable.
Of course there are things that I can take issue with in Dutta's piece, but I don't think he's some sort of abuser.
But the message I took from it is it's safer for you to get through the incident with the bad cop by complying with what they want, and then go and complain or sue them or whatever. And maybe that it would help your case.
Whatever you think about the justice system, I'd wager you'll have a better chance with going through that than going through the abusive cop.
Might as well post his article too, so people can just read it without it being all chopped up and picked over by other people and form their own opinion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/
-
I know sometimes (that I've seen), the editor will change the article title. If they don't like your opinion, then you can get interesting results. This might be one of those. Because the rest of the article seems pretty reasonable.
-
What, the outright execution of a suspected shoplifter (and for all we know, the cop that did the shooting didn't know about the shoplifting at the time he did the shooting) is justifiable now?
But the evidence (witness statements, frontal gun wounds, orbital fracture) doesnt seem to corroborate that scenario at all. Killing of someone who assaults the police is indeed justified.
I want to come back to this because it's dead ****ing wrong. The duty of the police is to attempt to arrest a suspect alive to be brought in for a criminal case in a court of law. If Michael Brown was not at that very moment threatening Officer Wilson's life in an immediate sense, Officer Wilson should not have taken the shot (or multiple shots, as it turns out).
That right there is the problem with police militarization. It makes it easy to resort to lethal force when non-lethal force should be employed.
The maximum sentence for assault in the first degree (knowingly attempting to kill someone) in Missouri is 15 years. 15 years is not death.
-
Guess the officer should have just trusted the good will of the fellow BREAKING HIS FACE??
-
There's a huge difference between "trusting the goodwill" and not shooting someone eight times from 30 feet away.
You know, just a little bit.
-
There isn't really much legitimate information to go on. Eyewitnesses contradict themselves and the police, there's a crapton of bias (**** the police attitudes, racism [this goes both ways])
If an officer is injured in an altercation of which involves someone possibly charging at him (see the following ["This one here looks like his head was bent downward," Dr. Michael Baden, who conducted the autopsy on behalf of Brown's family, told the New York Times. "It can be because he's giving up, or because he's charging forward at the officer."]) he is in no condition to take down someone non-lethally thus making an unarmed man far more of a threat than it would be usually
How far away was Brown from the officer? We know he died 35 feet from the car, but I can't seem to find just where the officer was in relation to Brown (you know, the important number) and it was said he exited the vehicle and pursued Brown (how is in dispute ie was he chasing, walking)
EDIT:
Just some more thoughts on it - Having been injured, Wilson could have more than likely had a rattled sense of reality. Perceived threats are subject to the person. It's easy for outsiders to go "Well obviously he wasn't a threat" but not so easy for someone running on adrenaline and an injury
-
Not to mention a huge spike of fear from having almost lost his weapon to the guy that just tried to cave in his face.
Adsun8ng,of course, that that actually happened.
I just don't see how people can be like 'unless you are in mortal danger, you can't respond with deadly force'
News flash :by the time you are certain of mortal danger, you will be 1)dead, 2) dying or 3) at the complete mercy of someone holding you in a position to instantly kill you if you don't obey them.
Common sense, people.
-
I want to come back to this because it's dead ****ing wrong. The duty of the police is to attempt to arrest a suspect alive to be brought in for a criminal case in a court of law. If Michael Brown was not at that very moment threatening Officer Wilson's life in an immediate sense, Officer Wilson should not have taken the shot (or multiple shots, as it turns out).
Look, while the police should try to minimise casualties, when the suspect throws a punch that causes you an orbital fracture and tries to take your gun, you are justified to kill him. Reasonable self defense. If thats what happened.
-
@maslo: It's not "self defense" if the guy is running away. The fact he punched you before trying to run away doesn't change that.
@jr2: Deadly force is supposed to be a last resort. Things like "running away", "talking to the person", and "assessing the situation to make sure you don't kill someone who is actually a non-threat" are supposed to come first.
Can someone who remembers the URL for it please post a link to that web"comic" that thoroughly explains self-defense law?
-
The fact he punched you before trying to run away doesn't change that.
If the guy turns around and moves towards you, yes it does change that
*However* there is no solid evidence which states that this happened (nor is there solid evidence saying it didn't)
-
@maslo: It's not "self defense" if the guy is running away. The fact he punched you before trying to run away doesn't change that.
Yeah, if thats what happened then it is not self defense. However if he was running towards the officer at the end, then it was.
One thing is certain, police should wear cameras when on duty, it protects both the public from police brutality and the police from false brutality accusations. A win-win situation.
-
It'd keep people honest to say the least
-
http://m.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/open-letter-captain-ronald-s-j
An Open Letter to Captain Ronald S. Johnson
Chief Ed Delmore |
I have to call you out.
I don’t care what the media says. I expect them to get it wrong and they often do. But I expect you as a veteran law enforcement commander—talking about law enforcement—to get it right.
Unfortunately, you blew it. After days of rioting and looting, last Thursday you were given command of all law enforcement operations in Ferguson by Governor Jay Nixon. St. Louis County PD was out, you were in. You played to the cameras, walked with the protestors and promised a kinder, gentler response. You were a media darling. And Thursday night things were better, much better.
But Friday, under significant pressure to do so, the Ferguson Police released the name of the officer involved in the shooting of Michael Brown. At the same time the Ferguson Police Chief released a video showing Brown committing a strong-arm robbery just 10 minutes before he was confronted by Officer Darren Wilson.
Many don’t like the timing of the release of the video. I don’t like that timing either. It should have been released sooner. It should have been released the moment FPD realized that Brown was the suspect.
Captain Johnson, your words during the day on Friday helped to fuel the anger that was still churning just below the surface. St. Louis County Police were told to remain uninvolved and that night the rioting and looting began again. For much too long it went on mostly unchecked. Retired St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch tweeted that your “hug-a-looter” policy had failed.
Boy did it.
And your words contributed to what happened Friday night and on into the wee hours of Saturday. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, you said the following regarding the release of the video: “There was no need to release it,” Johnson said calling the reported theft and the killing entirely different events.
Well Captain, this veteran police officer feels the need to respond. What you said is, in common police vernacular—bull****. The fact that Brown knew he had just committed a robbery before he was stopped by Officer Wilson speaks to Brown’s mindset. And Captain, the mindset of a person being stopped by a police officer means everything, and you know it.
Let’s consider a few examples:
On February 15, 1978 Pensacola Police Officer David Lee conducted a vehicle check. He didn’t know what the sole occupant of the vehicle had recently done, but the occupant did. Who was he? Serial killer Ted Bundy. Bundy attempted to disarm Lee. Lee was able to retain his firearm and eventually took Bundy into custody.
On April 19, 1995 Oklahoma State Trooper Charlie Hangar stopped a vehicle for minor traffic violations. He didn’t know that 90 minutes earlier the traffic violator, Timothy McVeigh, killed 168 people with a truck bomb at the Murrah Federal Building. But McVeigh sure knew it, didn’t he? Fortunately, given his training and experience Hangar was able to take McVeigh into custody for carrying a concealed firearm. It was days later before it was determined that McVeigh was responsible for the bombing.
On May 31, 2003 then-rookie North Carolina police officer, Jeff Postell, arrested a man digging in a trash bin on a grocery store parking lot—an infraction that would rise to about the level of jaywalking. Postell didn’t know that he had just captured Eric Rudolph, the man whom years earlier had killed and injured numerous people with bombs and was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list.
So now, let’s consider Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson’s stop of Michael Brown. Apparently Wilson didn’t know that Brown had just committed a strong-arm robbery. But Brown did! And that Captain, is huge.
Allegedly, Brown pushed Wilson and attempted to take Wilson’s gun. We’re also being told that Officer Wilson has facial injuries suffered during the attempt by Brown to disarm him. Let’s assume for a moment those alleged acts by Brown actually occurred. Would Brown have responded violently to an officer confronting him about jaywalking? Maybe, but probably not.
Is it more likely that he would attack an officer believing that he was about to be taken into custody for a felony strong-arm robbery? Absolutely.
Officer Wilson survived the encounter with Brown as did Lee, Hangar, and Postell. Michael Brown didn’t survive and it’s too soon to say if Officer Wilson’s use of deadly force was justified and legal. You and I both know that not all officers survive such confrontations. Officers die in incidents like this Captain Johnson, including a couple that I remember from your own organization:
On April 15, 1985 Missouri Trooper Jimmie Linegar was shot and killed by a white supremacist he and his partner stopped at a checkpoint; neither Trooper Linegar nor his partner were aware that the man they had stopped had just been indicted by a federal grand jury for involvement in a neo-Nazi group accused of murder. The suspect immediately exited the vehicle and opened fire on him with an automatic weapon.
Just a month before, Missouri Trooper James M. Froemsdorf was shot and killed—with his own gun—after making a traffic stop. When the Trooper made that stop he didn’t know that the driver was wanted on four warrants out of Texas—But again the suspect knew it.
So Captain Johnson, I guess the mindset and recently committed crimes of the suspects that murdered those Missouri Troopers didn’t mean anything. The stops by the Troopers, as you have said, are entirely different events right?
Bull****.
-
I don't get what the point of that "open letter" is.
What prescriptive value does "the events turned out to be related, after the fact" have? None.
-
I don't get what the point of that "open letter" is.
What prescriptive value does "the events turned out to be related, after the fact" have? None.
He's saying the mindset of Brown is so much more likely to be hostile due to the circumstances. That's circumstantial evidence to support that there was a good reason for Officer Wilson to have gunned Brown down.
-
People were complaining that the release of the tape showing Brown robbing a convenience store 10 minutes before the confrontation was unwarranted character assassination.
The flip side says no, it's more of a revealing of Browns mindset going into this.
There are speculations Brown could have had drugs on him too (based on the speculation that he wanted the $50 in cigars to make blunts, where you take the tobacco out and put marijuana in.
-
It's character assassination when you release that video and you still haven't released the findings of your own autopsy. The police cherry picked the best thing they had and released only it.
Also, CNN just reported that while Wilson was taken to the hospital for facial injuries, but his face wasn't broken - that part was a lie. If he was really that badly beaten, they could just release photos of his injuries.
Also, at this point I care less about what exactly what happened in the middle of the street between Wilson and Brown than the fact that the a bunch of punks wearing badges and armed with military equipment have violated the 1st Amendment rights of peaceful protestors in the most egregious way possible. Here's an account of the first day of tear gas that I find pretty damn trustworthy. (http://grantland.com/features/ferguson-missouri-protest-michael-brown-murder-police/) And here's a video of an officer threatening to kill someone who was filming him (said officer was later suspended) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zbR824FKpU) Multiple local accounts have said that the looting has been confined to no more than 1-2 blocks (and most cases of looting have been stopped by the protestors themselves). One case of breaking into a McDonalds was to obtain milk to treat tear gas. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nn-ferguson-mcdonalds-20140821-story.html)
Are we gonna take this **** in America?
-
Are we gonna take this **** in America?
It sure seems that way. :doubt:
People need to be flooding their Congresspersons' offices with calls about this issue. Stopping the Department of Defense 1033 program, AND the $billions in grants by the Department of Homeland Security (source (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/20/police-billions-homeland-security-military-equipment)) would be a good start.
Our tax dollars are funding the weapons of war and tactical equipment used against us (peaceful protesters in this case). What the **** happened, America?
-
@Lorric, jr2: But the cop didn't know that (right?). Making the wrong choice given what you know, and then finding out you "chose right"1 because of factors you didn't know about does not make that wrong choice right.
@Ulala: Apathy and complacency happened. More specifically 9/11 happened, and the media let Congress get away with destroying our liberty2.
1Right :rolleyes:
2I say we start using "freedom" and "liberty" in place of "civil rights" and "civil liberties", since people don't seem to care about "eroding our civil liberties" but "taking away our freedom(s)" is the same thing and has a better chance of motivating people. Maybe.
-
You're not getting it.
It's not about the fact Officer Wilson didn't know, it's about the fact Brown did. It's about the fact Brown knew, and Brown will have thought Officer Wilson knew as well, and will have acted based on that assumption.
-
No, I got that. But what good is that? What predictive or prescriptive value is there to be had, in saying "he only went for the cop's gun because he thought he was in trouble for shoplifting"?
It sounds like he's saying "Wilson could tell from the fact that Brown went for his gun that Brown was 'up to no good', and therefore it was correct for Wilson to shoot Brown to death (not in self defense)". Which is bull****. Police cannot kill based on arbitrary suspicions.
If that's not it, then what? What predictive or prescriptive value is there?
-
No, I got that. But what good is that? What predictive or prescriptive value is there to be had, in saying "he only went for the cop's gun because he thought he was in trouble for shoplifting"?
It sounds like he's saying "Wilson could tell from the fact that Brown went for his gun that Brown was 'up to no good', and therefore it was correct for Wilson to shoot Brown to death (not in self defense)". Which is bull****. Police cannot kill based on arbitrary suspicions.
If that's not it, then what? What predictive or prescriptive value is there?
First this wasn't some sneaky shoplift, he grabbed the stuff and shoved the owner out of the way.
The article written by the other officer shows examples of people who thought the officer knew about their crime but the officer didn't reacting as if the officer does know.
I've also seen a few of such things on police TV programs myself, the officer will be stopping someone for speeding or a busted tail light, something minor, but they'll have a pile of drugs in the boot or be on the run having just shot someone, and mayhem will ensue.
People also aren't going to be thinking rationally in such situations, they'll be panicking, the adrenaline will be pumping. This guy Brown has just robbed a store 10 mins ago, and now is confronted with a policeman, has just engaged in a violent struggle for the man's gun, what did he do next? Did he come back to try again and get shot down?
The officer who wrote the article isn't saying it proves anything, he's saying it increases the chances based on past events of police stopping people in similar circumstances, and is a relevant piece of the puzzle.
-
Exactly that. It's likely Brown panicked and attacked Wilson, trying to grab his gun, and was shot. I'd have likely done the same, had I been in Wilson's place. In Brown's... maybe too. I do tend to think before I act, but after just committing a crime, even a minor one, most people are jumpy and afraid of getting caught. I don't commit crimes so I don't know, but it's nothing unusual.
Note, once Brown went for Wilson's gun, he knew (for certain), that Brown was willing to kill him. Now, we don't have a video of what exactly has happened, but if he was violently assaulted, pushed his attacker back and then shot him dead, this could've been very well justified. Not knowing why Brown would do this, nor knowing what he was going to do, emptying a mag into him would be a human thing to do. While police isn't supposed to act on human instincts, this does downgrade it from a horrifying example of racism and bigotry to a tragic, but not unexpected mistake.
I know that if I was assaulted, with the attacker clearly wanting my weapon, I'd likely shoot him the moment I manage to get some room to draw and aim it. The attacker's skin color, age or gender doesn't matter here. It could have happened a number of ways, with Brown, perhaps, having a chance to survive was the cop a bit more level-headed, but it likely happened that way:
1. Brown steals stuff from the store and thinks "I'd better avoid the police from now on, they're probably on me already."
2. Wilson comes by in his car and thinks "Oh, a kid jaywalking, we'd better set him straight."
3. Seeing the police car stop, Brown thinks "Hell, they got me!" and panics, attacking Wilson and trying to take his gun.
4. Wilson, stressed by the sudden assault, kicks Brown back, draws his gun, and shoots until he goes down. All in less than a minute.
This is a generous idea, but when you imagine it went like that, pretty much anyone would've reacted the same. It's a reasonable assumption that if Brown managed to take the gun, the next thing he'd do would be to fire it at Wilson. Wilson knew this, and, like any sane person would, acted on that assumption. Even if he wasn't really in danger, he had every reason to think he was fighting for his life. And remember. This happens fast. There is no time for precise evaluation, or even precise aiming. Wilson was acting under duress, since wounds on Brown's body show that he didn't aim very well, bullets were all over the his body. If Wilson gunned him down in cold blood, the wounds would be much more concentrated and much closer to the heart. Brown likely acted like he wanted to kill Wilson, and got an appropriate response. Then again, we don't have an exact account of how it really happened.
Not that it matters much. What really matters is how atrociously the rest of the department handled it. If it really went like that, it's all more moronic to go rogue over something like this. It could have been a footnote in the local news, along the lines of "stupid thief gets himself shot over some cheap stuff". Instead, the whole PD went mad, started obfuscating the case and throwing tear gas at people. That is the real problem.
-
Some versions of the story have Brown being a considerable distance from Wilson when the fatal shots were fired, as if he were attempting to flee. Or that his head was down, as if he were surrendering. Has this been disproved, or...?
Because if that's the case, "he was willing to kill me, earlier" is no excuse.
-
Some versions of the story have Brown being a considerable distance from Wilson when the fatal shots were fired, as if he were attempting to flee. Or that his head was down, as if he were surrendering. Has this been disproved, or...?
Because if that's the case, "he was willing to kill me, earlier" is no excuse.
What if his head was down because he was charging?
We know he wasn't shot in the back.
-
Some versions of the story have Brown being a considerable distance from Wilson when the fatal shots were fired, as if he were attempting to flee. Or that his head was down, as if he were surrendering. Has this been disproved, or...?
Because if that's the case, "he was willing to kill me, earlier" is no excuse.
Depending on what you meant by "earlier". If that is "5 seconds ago", then it is an excuse. If he was attempting to flee, I think his back would be turned. He did not turn, and I don't see how could he been fleeing facing the shooter. All bullets went in from the front. Also, his head could've been down for other reasons, such as trying to look at his wounds or the gun, or maybe shock from being hit. He could even be trying to charge back at Wilson after being pushed off. At the time they was hit, his arm was not raised in any meaningful way, since that would show in bullet wounds. He could have started raising his hands at the time he was hit in the head, but given just how fast the situation likely unfolded, this wouldn't have helped much.
In fact, that's why I think it happened very fast. There's no reason not to use a gun after just winning a struggle for it, and Brown didn't shift noticeably between shots, meaning they were fired in very close succession. Not taking chances in such situation would be the correct course of action for a civilian. A policeman should, perhaps, have attempted to subdue Brown after pushing him off, but I can see why he decided to shoot.
-
I read something like 30 feet... or 35 feet? or meters? Idr.
-
I read something like 30 feet... or 35 feet? or meters? Idr.
35.
Here, this should be helpful:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28841715
-
So according to the St. Louis County Police Chief, Wilson shot Brown from 35 feet away. Attempting to flee or not, an unarmed man at 35 feet is not a danger to the officer's life.
-
So according to the St. Louis County Police Chief, Wilson shot Brown from 35 feet away. Attempting to flee or not, an unarmed man at 35 feet is not a danger to the officer's life.
He is if he's coming forward though.
-
I'm going to assume MP-Ryan doesn't particularly feel inclined to join in on the discussion, based on his inactivity for the last few pages, and take up the mantle in providing meaningful numbers. I know for a fact that several times in threads where members participating in this thread were also watching that MP-Ryan has mentioned a very important number: 21.
An assailant is capable of closing 21 feet before a trained person can draw, take aim, and fire.
The struggle supposedly happened in or near the vehicle, where Brown attempted to take Officer Wilson's weapon.
Brown was killed 35 feet from the vehicle.
The fact that Brown was killed 35 feet from the vehicle indicates that Officer Wilson was able to draw his weapon and fire, placing the potential distance where Brown allegedly started charging upwards of 50 feet from the vehicle. Alternately, he already had his weapon in hand when Brown was 35 feet from the vehicle and fired.
If the struggle took place in or near the vehicle, why the **** would Brown run 35-55 feet away, turn around and then run toward an armed person he had just tried to take a weapon from. That's what doesn't make sense here. For Brown to have been "charging" at Officer Wilson, he would have to have done so after withdrawing 35-55 feet from the vehicle, turning around, and running back.
-
If the struggle took place in or near the vehicle, why the **** would Brown run 35-55 feet away, turn around and then run toward an armed person he had just tried to take a weapon from. That's what doesn't make sense here. For Brown to have been "charging" at Officer Wilson, he would have to have done so after withdrawing 35-55 feet from the vehicle, turning around, and running back.
The only scenario I could imagine is Brown does his damage to Wilson's face and thinks he can get away while Wilson is stunned. But Wilson is able to recover too quickly, so Brown comes back in and gets gunned down. It takes very little time to cover 35 or even 50ft, especially with adrenaline surging through your body, so all this could have happened in a matter of seconds.
-
There's a lot of information here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/us/ferguson-missouri-town-under-siege-after-police-shooting.html
The witness accounts seem to agree on there was a struggle and that Brown stopped and turned around. Where things differ is what happened next. Some say he surrendered, others he came forward. There doesn't seem to be anything about him charging.
According to his account to the Ferguson police, Officer Wilson said that Mr. Brown had lowered his arms and moved toward him, law enforcement officials said. Fearing that the teenager was going to attack him, the officer decided to use deadly force. Some witnesses have backed up that account. Others, however — including Mr. Johnson — have said that Mr. Brown did not move toward the officer before the final shots were fired.
It's a real mess and I don't know how they're going to sort it out.
-
I read something like 30 feet... or 35 feet? or meters? Idr.
*From the car
There were no numbers of the distance between cop and perpetrator (which as I said earlier, is an important number)
We also have reports that the cop moved from the car to give some sort of chase, but those are just eyewitness reports and aren't trustworthy
Other note: There were shots hit in the back *but they were merely grazes*. Check the autopsy report
-
where is the autopsy report?
-
@deathfun: the "35 feet" figure comes from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28841715
"According to Mr Belmar, there was a distance of 35ft between Mr Wilson and Mr Brown when he was shot."
no car is mentioned not between the car and Brown, but between Wilson and Brown
-
@deathfun: the "35 feet" figure comes from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28841715
"According to Mr Belmar, there was a distance of 35ft between Mr Wilson and Mr Brown when he was shot."
no car is mentioned not between the car and Brown, but between Wilson and Brown
http://www.vox.com/cards/mike-brown-protests-ferguson-missouri/mike-brown-shooting-facts-details
"4) At least one round was fired from inside Wilson's squad car. Brown died about 35 feet from the car."
Notice how it's the same 35 feet number, only instead of relation to Wilson it was in relation to Wilson's squad car?
However, given that that it was Belmar who said between the two people involved, I'm more inclined to give that report merit
As for the autopsy part with grazed bullets, seems like I confused conflicting bits and for that I was incorrect
Here's that anyhow for you Bobb
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/17/6029685/autopsy-michael-brown-shot-at-least-six-times
"One of the bullets appears to have hit the top of Brown's head. "This one here looks like his head was bent downward," Dr. Michael Baden, who conducted the autopsy on behalf of Brown's family, told the New York Times. "It can be because he's giving up, or because he's charging forward at the officer.""
I had already quoted that earlier
EDIT: Also Bobb, click the link by Aardwolf, it has even more depth to that prelim autopsy
-
I'm going to assume MP-Ryan doesn't particularly feel inclined to join in on the discussion, based on his inactivity for the last few pages, and take up the mantle in providing meaningful numbers. I know for a fact that several times in threads where members participating in this thread were also watching that MP-Ryan has mentioned a very important number: 21.
MP-Ryan has been away on a much needed vacation and avoided the Internet for the past week, so he's getting caught up ;)
But yes, the general training assumption is 21 feet is the average reactionary gap. And as for the notion that an unarmed person 35 feet away cannot be a lethal threat... I'm sorry to tell you that is inaccurate. You have slightly MORE reaction time, but not a lot. What remains to be seen is if the officer had a reasonable belief that Brown had both intent and means at the time to inflict death or grievous bodily harm upon the officer or another person, as that is the required standard for self-defense, even [at least theoretically, this being the US] for police officers.
By the way, a couple pieces of mandatory reading for people interested in the topic of police militarization:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/21/dallas-pd-leaders-speak-out-on-police-shootings-militarization-and-protest/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/14/after-ferguson-how-should-police-respond-to-protests/
Twitter users, Balko is worth following.
-
I caught hints of it earlier on as I was reading and didn't actually notice who said it, but I'll address it anyway:
The use of force continuum moves in both directions. If a person's statements and actions at one moment convey intent+means to cause death/grievous bodily harm, but a minute later that same person's actions no longer show that intent, but rather intent to escape, the calculus of what is reasonable force changes.
I.e., if someone breaks my face in a severe assault and I believe he's trying to kill me or maim me, I can kill him. If I don't kill him, and he stops attacking, turns, and starts sprinting aaway and shows no continuing or resurgence of intent to kill/maim I cannot legally kill him in self-defense. Where precisely that line of intent appears is up to first, the authorities who choose to prosecute, second, the prosecutor, third, a judge (and/or grand jury), and fourth, a judge and/or selected jury.
-
That's what I was saying :c
-
There's now a report that that the FBI has obtained audio of the shooting from a video chat that was running nearby when the shooting occurred. The audio indicates at least 10 shots were fired: a burst of 6, a pause, and then 4 more shots. The recording has not yet been authenticated.
-
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/senator-wants-all-us-cops-to-wear-video-cameras/
"Everywhere I go, people now have cameras," McCaskill said Tuesday during a question-and-answer session with voters in her home state. "And police officers are now at a disadvantage because someone can tape the last part of an encounter and not tape the first part of the encounter. And it gives the impression that the police officer has overreacted when they haven't."
Now that's exactly what I meant earlier about selling the idea properly.
-
Yet again, a ****ing comedy website (http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-wacky-farts-that-can-help-us-understand-ferguson-mo/) proves to be better at explaining what's going on than most news websites.
-
Well that seems to cast some severe doubt on the officers (and Ferguson PD in general) 's side of things...
:headdesk:
-
Company that ran the chat service has confirmed that the time the recording was being streamed matches the time of the shooting.
And that "police report"? The entire department is acting like a criminal who knows it's better to say nothing while in custody.
I'm now starting to believe that this was a murder.
-
In support of body cams (dash cam doesn't show the reason for officer's takedown)
Video from two angles :
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/7502017-Chief-Assault-of-cop-takedown-of-suspect-proves-utility-of-body-cams
-
The "paintball marker" takes a while to notice, and it's the only indication they're not the military.
I don't see how this picture was taken out of context since the topic is about militarization of police, and will show off the militarizing of police. Dude with the paintball gun makes me think sadist perhaps since he's the only one with a paintball gun. I'm back btw.
I'd rather get shot with a pepper ball then with the actual bullets the rest of these forces seem to be using.
I'm also thinking someone who was trigger happy wanted the paintball gun just to shoot some people. Soemone hears some pop noises, but no one actually got killed (but someone on the ground anyway) to be discovered later is surely police intending intimidation. I have a rather great dislike for law enforcement, all of it circles abuse of authority.