|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 09 2015 06:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 05:56 Introvert wrote:
I would hazard to guess that one reason less 'outrage' is brought up here is because there are certain posters that are always involved. These posters that are just generally unpleasant to deal with on these topics.
To frame it as just not caring about some people's civil rights is unfair and/or useless. The same charge could be made, but in the opposite direction. Shocking the only black poster would consistently post about stuff relevant to black peoples rights...And how they are treated differently than white peoples rights... Except that charge/framing is regularly made... That people are denying/disregarding rights of businesses or don't care about their rights when it comes to gay weddings... Who of those people stood up for the citizens of Ferguson and expressed outrage about their rights being disregarded?
you still don't get it: they are black, nobody cares/they deserve it, get over it!
|
On April 09 2015 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:22 zlefin wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. or people just don't feel like yelling in outrage every time something outrageous happens. The guy's charged, I'd rather let that process work. Who got charged for violating constitutional rights in Ferguson?The only reason the process started in this case was because a video surfaced after the police released a bullshit lie of a statement. Combine that with video after video of cops trying to illegally take cameras from people and it's easy to see how this very easily could of just been another case of 'justified use of force' despite that the reality was clearly not.
iirc some were fired for racist comments. The Justice department's report just showed disparate impact, so actually proving wrong doing in court doesn't seem to be something they can do.
|
On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged?
ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets.
|
On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets.
Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
|
On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction.
On April 09 2015 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:22 zlefin wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. or people just don't feel like yelling in outrage every time something outrageous happens. The guy's charged, I'd rather let that process work. Who got charged for violating constitutional rights in Ferguson?The only reason the process started in this case was because a video surfaced after the police released a bullshit lie of a statement. Combine that with video after video of cops trying to illegally take cameras from people and it's easy to see how this very easily could of just been another case of 'justified use of force' despite that the reality was clearly not. iirc some were fired for racist comments. The Justice department's report just showed disparate impact, so actually proving wrong doing in court doesn't seem to be something they can do.
Only the court clerk was actually fired. The blatant racist liar of a police chief got paid almost $100k to walk away.
|
On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction.
please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence.
|
On April 09 2015 06:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 04:22 zlefin wrote:On April 09 2015 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 08 2015 22:17 always_winter wrote:WASHINGTON — A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away.
The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. The North Charleston mayor announced the state charges at a news conference Tuesday evening.
The shooting came on the heels of high-profile instances of police officers’ using lethal force in New York, Cleveland, Ferguson, Mo., and elsewhere. The deaths have set off a national debate over whether the police are too quick to use force, particularly in cases involving black men.
sourceLaw enforcement in this country requires immediate, radical and comprehensive reform. An unnecessary loss of life committed by a man sworn to protect and serve. Not only that but he tried to plant evidence and the department tried to help him cover it up. Had some civilian not been brave enough to film the murder, charges wouldn't have even been brought, even though it's totally clear it was a murder. The lack of expressions of outrage here doesn't surprise me though. I'm particularly not surprised that the biggest freedom advocates here have been silent on the systemic denial of constitutional rights (Ferguson) and on specific incidences such as this. or people just don't feel like yelling in outrage every time something outrageous happens. The guy's charged, I'd rather let that process work. Who got charged for violating constitutional rights in Ferguson?The only reason the process started in this case was because a video surfaced after the police released a bullshit lie of a statement. Combine that with video after video of cops trying to illegally take cameras from people and it's easy to see how this very easily could of just been another case of 'justified use of force' despite that the reality was clearly not. iirc some were fired for racist comments. The Justice department's report just showed disparate impact, so actually proving wrong doing in court doesn't seem to be something they can do.
the DoJ report also showed numerous directly unconstitutional actions; but I think those are mostly being handled by civil suit by the people affected as well.
I'm not sure what the standard is for criminal prosecution by the DoJ for civil rights violations; they seem to mostly be focusing on using their position as leverage to force changes in the department.
|
On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work.
no, the system is supposed to investigate first
if the investigation finds something, charge and present all the information the investigation has turned up, and then a court of law can assess those informations independently of the acting organisation (in this case police)
|
United States2611 Posts
There should be mandatory body cameras when on patrol. Taxis have monitors on the doors that keep track of when passengers get on and off so the cabbie can't give out free rides. School and municipal buses have cameras. Basically every commercial vehicle is GPS tracked so the employee can't waste company time running personal errands or something.
Pizza delivery guys have company cars which are tracked and monitored. And yet police have no such oversight. Why do we spend more effort ensuring a pizza arrives at its destination than we do on making sure the police don't shoot innocent people?
|
On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction.
That's not a criminal justice system problem then, that's a law enforcement problem.
and again, what outrage should there be regarding this incident? cuz as far as i can tell, it worked out the way it was supposed to.
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 09 2015 06:40 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. That's not a criminal justice system problem then, that's a law enforcement problem.
Law enforcement isn't part of the criminal justice system?
|
On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence.
I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point.
If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification?
In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term.
EDIT: I forgot that the second part of that equation is actually convicting killer cops and sending them to prison. The cameras won't do anything if police officers know they are immune when it comes to a criminal trial.
|
On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence.
omg... seriously.... The problem isn't not convicting without evidence, it's that the system is designed to cover it's own ass. Without the video all the evidence the police have is under the control of the very people being accused. Like the two 'suicide' hangings recently where authorities called them suicides when there were mountains of suspicious aspects pointing away from suicide. The injustice is declaring them a suicide and ending any real investigation into the truth. This case was heading down a similar path until the video surfaced.
|
On April 09 2015 06:38 Millitron wrote:
There should be mandatory body cameras when on patrol. Taxis have monitors on the doors that keep track of when passengers get on and off so the cabbie can't give out free rides. School and municipal buses have cameras. Basically every commercial vehicle is GPS tracked so the employee can't waste company time running personal errands or something.
Pizza delivery guys have company cars which are tracked and monitored. And yet police have no such oversight. Why do we spend more effort ensuring a pizza arrives at its destination than we do on making sure the police don't shoot innocent people?
as with the last time the issue was brought up, agreed.
The only question is how fast to do the implementation of that; 1 year? 5 years?
I'm not sure how big the production of suitable devices currently is and how long it would take to make enough to equip all officers with one or two (backups!)
Also, I don't think it can be mandated at the federal level (except for federal law officers of course, and forcing certain problem jurisdictions that have deals with the feds to address civil rights violations).
|
On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term.
Same with most crime...
if there isn't evidence, you can't convict...
the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy regarding a cover-up, without evidence.
but hey, I guess pr statement can't melt steel beams.
|
On April 09 2015 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. omg... seriously.... The problem isn't not convicting without evidence, it's that the system is designed to cover it's own ass. Without the video all the evidence the police have is under the control of the very people being accused. Like the two 'suicide' hangings recently where authorities called them suicides when there were mountains of suspicious aspects pointing away from suicide. The injustice is declaring them a suicide and ending any real investigation into the truth. This case was heading down a similar path until the video surfaced.
i fail to see how this is any different from the investigation of non-police officers where there is no evidence other that suspect's testimony--and that person lies or refuses to say anything under the fifth. if there is no evidence, the police/DA's hands are tied.
also, there are legal means for forcing a police force to investigate crimes, a writ of mandamus, but you have to have evidence there as well.
|
On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy.
But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops.
There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that.
I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet).
|
United States2611 Posts
On April 09 2015 06:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:38 Millitron wrote:
There should be mandatory body cameras when on patrol. Taxis have monitors on the doors that keep track of when passengers get on and off so the cabbie can't give out free rides. School and municipal buses have cameras. Basically every commercial vehicle is GPS tracked so the employee can't waste company time running personal errands or something.
Pizza delivery guys have company cars which are tracked and monitored. And yet police have no such oversight. Why do we spend more effort ensuring a pizza arrives at its destination than we do on making sure the police don't shoot innocent people? as with the last time the issue was brought up, agreed. The only question is how fast to do the implementation of that; 1 year? 5 years? I'm not sure how big the production of suitable devices currently is and how long it would take to make enough to equip all officers with one or two (backups!) Also, I don't think it can be mandated at the federal level (except for federal law officers of course, and forcing certain problem jurisdictions that have deals with the feds to address civil rights violations).
I would say as fast as possible. GoPros are pretty cheap. Federally mandate their use, but provide grants to cover the costs of purchasing the cameras, at least at first. If that alone isn't enough, threaten to pull Federal funds if they don't comply. There's no excuse for not having cameras besides cost, and if the Feds are footing the bill, even that's no excuse.
|
Didn't the mayor say they'd immediately equip body cameras because of this incident? Pretty sure I read something along those lines on NY times?
Mayor Summey said he had issued an executive order that all of the department’s police officers start wearing body cameras — a tacit acknowledgment of the importance video played in this case.
|
On April 09 2015 06:51 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2015 06:45 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:42 ZasZ. wrote:On April 09 2015 06:36 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 09 2015 06:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:30 wei2coolman wrote:On April 09 2015 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2015 06:23 wei2coolman wrote:
I don't know what you want exactly? Isn't the incident that happened exactly what's supposed to happen when shit like this goes down? It got investigated and the police officer was charged? ugh... It's only happening because it was caught on film and the officer didn't steal the camera... No video, and this guy stays on desk duty (which is where they put him after the incident) until it blows over and he's back on the streets. Well duh, DA ain't gunna charge someone without evidence. You're essentially saying "they only charged because there's evidence!". Which by the way, is exactly how the system is supposed to work. There is the problem... Without the independent video (pure luck) there is 'no evidence' despite it being a clear and deliberate murder. A criminal justice system like that is clearly in desperate need of correction. please explain this justice system that convicts people without evidence. I don't think GH is advocating for a justice system that convicts people with no evidence to support that conviction. But he has a point. If this killing had played out exactly as it did, but with no passerby to record it on video, it would have been astonishingly easy for this cop, his partner, and their department to cover it up as self defense. We know that there would be additional evidence indicating it was not, but when the police department is only accountable to themselves, can they be trusted to present those facts without any deception or modification? In this case, the video is great because it is evidence that can secure a conviction. If the video didn't exist, it wouldn't make this less of a murder it would just make it harder to prove in court. That's not a fault in the courts, it's a (significant) fault in our police system. The mayor's response, to order more body cameras for their police officers, is the right one. Until you can address the underlying racial bias that may be provoking these killings, making every police officer painfully aware that they are being recorded may be the best way to prevent his from happening in the short-term. Same with most crime... if there isn't evidence, you can't convict... the problem here, is if GH has just made the reasonable post of "this is why there needs to be body camera's in law enforcement", there would just be a couple of posts agreeing with body cameras. But, he rather stir the pot by claiming some wild conspiracy. But you have to admit that it is much easier for police officers to get rid of incriminating evidence than it is for random joe who shot his ex-wife to do the same. They are in charge of collecting evidence after all, and are in control of the crime scene while it is still fresh and no one else has seen it. There is power and responsibility associated with that, and without external accountability that power will be abused by bad cops. There is a difference between evidence not existing and evidence being hidden or destroyed. GH's contention was that if the video hadn't come to light, evidence that could have been used to gain a conviction in court would have been altered with none the wiser. And given that the cop tried to plant a taser on this man's corpse and lied to his department and the public about what happened, I'm inclined to believe that. I do think claiming conspiracy on this story is a little premature. The department acted foolishly by relying on this officer's word, but it doesn't necessarily mean they knew all the facts and decided to spin it anyways. The partner should also be charged with a crime for his involvement, but I do not think you can drag the whole department into it (yet).
the police officer involved in the shooting wouldnt be the one booking the evidence; he is in no better a position than the average joe. you are assuming that everyone in the police department is corrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
