[Bobboau]

ok, how's this one when someone enters my space they lose a right to me not filming them.

[Scotty]

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).

[Dragon]

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.

[The E]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[karajorma]

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]

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.

[Lorric]

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/

[perihelion]

And now, to add further grease to the fire, some one in Ferguson just opted for suicide by cop.   

[karajorma]

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.

[Bobboau]

people making that argument are probably just using 'turnabout is fair play'

[Lorric]

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?

[jr2]

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.


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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[The E]

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?

[jr2]

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.

[jr2]

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.

[Ghostavo]

This is both hilarious and really sad...

[666maslo666]

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.