"We do have civil rights."

Meaning the cop--not the dead guy.

Can someone from the U.S. tell me what the educational entry-requirements for US-policemen are?



In Germany for example it's the Abitur, the highest common school degree, finished at 17-18 Years of age ususally, completing 13 years of school.

It's good to see this representational government taking care of its poor once again. Funny how you never hear of the home invasions for the rich, but the poor are all over the nightly news having their dogs shot and them shot as well.

Haha. Way to go statist idiots.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by blankfist.

>> ^blankfist:

It's good to see this representational government taking care of its poor once again. Funny how you never hear of the home invasions for the rich, but the poor are all over the nightly news having their dogs shot and them shot as well.

And your solution to police brutality is...?

OBAMA!

>> ^NetRunner:
And your solution to police brutality is...?


Cut funding for starters. Decrease the department sizes. But you can't do it through policy making; you have to do it by cutting funds for government and thus limiting its power. You'd also see the military shrink.

>> ^blankfist:

Cut funding for starters. Decrease the department sizes. But you can't do it through policy making; you have to do it by cutting funds for government and thus limiting its power. You'd also see the military shrink.


Ahh, so your solution to cops behaving badly is to make them take paycuts and/or work longer hours.

Should work out awesome.

The signature on the paycheck won't change the behavior of the person receiving it. The amount might...

I unfortunately have quite a few ties to Arizona both professionally and personally. Culturally speaking, it seems more challenged than most states to me. There seems to be an environment down there that would foster this sort of behavior.

This is really sad. Hopefully the willingness of the partner to talk will not only shed some light on this case, but call into question police conduct in other locations as well.

>> ^NetRunner:
Ahh, so your solution to cops behaving badly is to make them take paycuts and/or work longer hours.
Should work out awesome.


You and putting words in my mouth. Me and putting my dick in yours.

If you cannot tell the difference between not wanting to pay to militarize our police and giving them paycuts/working them longer hours, I think we have nothing else to say, sir.

Let me put words in your mouth, @NetRunner. Your solution is since we need police we must raise taxes so they have anything at their disposal including tanks, fighter jets, nuclear missiles, et cetera.

Should work out awesome.

>> ^blankfist:

It's good to see this representational government taking care of its poor once again. Funny how you never hear of the home invasions for the rich, but the poor are all over the nightly news having their dogs shot and them shot as well.
Haha. Way to go statist idiots.


Home invasions???
A woman called 911 to report domestic violence on the part of her son

Sounds like the police were there at the request of the 'poor'.

It's also pretty telling you want to paint ALL cops as being like the suspected murderer here. Meanwhile the majority of the police and law enforcement, the partner included, are busy arresting and prosecuting the bad(soon to be former) cop.

We 'statists' have never argued that police are perfect, merely that the majority would act against those bad apples that would abuse their power. Here it is, proven out in tragic reality.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Can someone from the U.S. tell me what the educational entry-requirements for US-policemen are?

In Germany for example it's the Abitur, the highest common school degree, finished at 17-18 Years of age ususally, completing 13 years of school.


I second that question.
Plus in germany you have to pass a psychological examination, not to mention a trying physical test, to even be allowed to enter the police academy.

btw I'm the new guy... Hello all!

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

@bcglorf, I'm glad you see this as a success story. Breaking a few eggs to make that omelet, I see.

bcglorf, I'm glad you see this as a success story. Breaking a few eggs to make that omelet, I see.

How droll. That straw man won't be getting up any time soon after a beating like that.

Your claiming cutting police wages will make these situations less frequent, and better handled. I make the more modest suggestion that slashing police salaries is a good way to recruit MORE guys like the murder, and less like his partner and the rest of the force that is prosecuting him.

I suppose you also still to prefer to hide from the challenge of who the majority of the police force resemble, the murder or the ones trying him?

>> ^blankfist:

If you cannot tell the difference between not wanting to pay to militarize our police and giving them paycuts/working them longer hours, I think we have nothing else to say, sir.


Here we go again. I asked you a very pointed question about how we stop police brutality.

Your answer was "cut funding" and "reduce department sizes". The recession is forcing departments to do just that all over the place, and it's meant laying off officers more often than not.

But, whatever.

So you don't want to pay to "militarize" our police. Is that it? If so, I'm totally on board with stopping that, let's do it.

I don't think it'll end police brutality though.

>> ^bcglorf:

Your claiming cutting police wages will make these situations less frequent, and better handled.


Let me stop you right there.

I'm not for cutting wages of rank and file police officers. I am against how much we pay the law enforcement agencies to grow into what they've become. Long gone are days of the donut eating cops. Say hello to the days of the militarized police.

If you and NetRunner cannot differentiate between cutting rank and file officer's wages and me not wanting the pentagon to give local police weapons and equipment used by the military, then I'm afraid you both are too far gone. I don't want the law enforcement agencies to be as well funded as they are today, because they've grown into something horrible and tyrannical.

The solution is limited government. The solution is not continuing to over fund these agencies until the entire nation is one big police state.

@blankfist so what causes police brutality? Overfunding of police departments?

Another case of White Knighting... YAY! Nothing to see here... Move along citizen... Move along...

@blankfist apparently there are other factors that contribute to police brutality than funding:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/phoenix/phx_police_012610

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bcglorf:
Your claiming cutting police wages will make these situations less frequent, and better handled.

Let me stop you right there.
I'm not for cutting wages of rank and file police officers. I am against how much we pay the law enforcement agencies to grow into what they've become. Long gone are days of the donut eating cops. Say hello to the days of the militarized police.
If you and NetRunner cannot differentiate between cutting rank and file officer's wages and me not wanting the pentagon to give local police weapons and equipment used by the military, then I'm afraid you both are too far gone. I don't want the law enforcement agencies to be as well funded as they are today, because they've grown into something horrible and tyrannical.
The solution is limited government. The solution is not continuing to over fund these agencies until the entire nation is one big police state.


So in summary, your against militarizing our police forces. Who could really be against that?

What part of this story is the result of militarizing the police?

How would your demilitarized police force have prevented this? I still see a world where police officers with guns respond to the mother's call. I still see a world where this killer gets into the police force and ends up murdering someone.

Can you explain, in small words so we statists can follow, how demilitarizing the police would have kept this murder out of the police force?

@NetRunner. True, funding isn't the only issue. But it's funding that allows it to be so big and gives it teeth. I think we could do better than keep this broken system around, but that's my personal take on it. I personally think people should be responsible for taking care of themselves. But then again I don't personally dislike a lot of the good things that come out of the police, such as forensics. Though forensics is proving to be misused quite often so DAs can get convictions.

When I speak of funding, the Republicans seem to get my meaning. They know cutting funding for police or military means it shrinks. They don't like that. It's funny when I speak to Democrats or Progressives they tend to think it's an attack on the worker. Interesting.

Also, tuna subs from subway are delicious. Carry on.

I am more than a little confused by your argument, or rather it's ambiguity. As BC said, I've never in my life heard anyone who favors the militarization of our police force. This man wasn't run over by a tank... he wasn't exploded from a grenade... Or any of the other over the top examples you listed. Can you tie these concepts together with any degree of reason?

You chastise people for assuming you mean cutting funds from police officers salaries but you haven't exactly clarified... You simply want less police?... lower quality of equipment?... fewer patrol cars?...

>> ^blankfist:

I think we could do better than keep this broken system around, but that's my personal take on it. I personally think people should be responsible for taking care of themselves.

So no police is your solution?

>> ^blankfist:
When I speak of funding, the Republicans seem to get my meaning. They know cutting funding for police or military means it shrinks. They don't like that. It's funny when I speak to Democrats or Progressives they tend to think it's an attack on the worker. Interesting.

I think it's not so much that Republicans understand your meaning, so much as Republicans share your misconception that all government spending always includes a huge percentage of fraud and waste, and therefore that government budget cuts never really hurt anything that matters.

For example, you seemed to think that they'd been buying unnecessary military toys with taxpayer money, and that simply cutting their overall budget would both make them lose their overpriced toys, and conduct their duties in a more friendly and professional manner.

In reality, the budget situation for Phoenix PD was that they just had a 13% budget cut, and had to lay off officers.

>> ^Januari:

I am more than a little confused by your argument, or rather it's ambiguity. As BC said, I've never in my life heard anyone who favors the militarization of our police force. This man wasn't run over by a tank... he wasn't exploded from a grenade... Or any of the other over the top examples you listed. Can you tie these concepts together with any degree of reason?
You chastise people for assuming you mean cutting funds from police officers salaries but you haven't exactly clarified... You simply want less police?... lower quality of equipment?... fewer patrol cars?...


But the militarization is happening, like it or not. That aside, the conversation got derailed. I was asked my solution for the police state, which would be to cut funding. That got interpreted as cutting the worker's wages somehow, and it devolved from there.

So, yes, less police. Not lower quality equipment but just not military equipment. Fewer patrol cars? Maybe. I don't know. It's a tangent we're on at this point. And it has very little to do with the video.

But certainly someone favors the militarization of our police because it's happening.

@NetRunner: "I think it's not so much that Republicans understand your meaning, so much as Republicans share your misconception that all government spending always includes a huge percentage of fraud and waste, and therefore that government budget cuts never really hurt anything that matters."

>> ^blankfist:

No way. Republicans, or neocons, for the most part like the military and police spending. They talk about less government, but they tend to believe in strong national defense and strong police forces. Strong is typically equated to the amount of funds.

Actually, one of the things liberals got mad at Bush about is that he cut back funding for US police, while spending quite a hefty sum on Iraqi police forces (like, actual Iraqi police departments).

>> ^blankfist:
I can't speak to Pheonix, but like I said funding alone isn't the issue. Personally I would like to see the police (and military) be drastically minimized. That would mean budget cuts, yes. That would mean police are laid off, yes. I'd like to see the police also have less authority.
I don't like seeing these videos of cops coming into people's homes and killing them and murdering their dogs. Will shrinking the police force eradicate that completely? No. But it certainly would mean less cases I'm sure.


We seem to be back at square one with this conversation then. I'll repeat what I said to begin with:
>> ^NetRunner:

Ahh, so your solution to cops behaving badly is to make them take paycuts and/or work longer hours.
Should work out awesome.


Why exactly would cops behave better if they were understaffed? I mean, my job isn't nearly as stressful as being a cop, and they've laid off so many people here that we're woefully understaffed, and it sure as hell hasn't improved my demeanor.

>> ^NetRunner:
Actually, one of the things liberals got mad at Bush about is that he cut back funding for US police
Liberals want a heavily funded police force? Hmmm. When did the liberals stop putting flowers in the barrels of guns? I guess 'we shall overcome' became 'we shall become'.

the police protecting police? NEWS at 11

Yes...let's go back to donut eating cops in the days of corruption and when bullying was prevalent. No Police means more trouble. Less police means longer response times. Crime rates will go up. I bet you would change your mind if your house got robbed and it took the police 5 hours to get these since they were understaffed.

@blankfist ahh, so after accusing me of putting words in your mouth, and then later confirming I had you right in the first place, you're now going to put words in my mouth. For someone who's so paranoid about straw men, you sure do use 'em a lot.

Mostly liberals were mad about the hypocrisy -- if the whole war on terror is about keeping America safe from domestic attacks, why cut police funding? Aren't they going to be the first line of defense against what's ultimately an international criminal organization?

But let's get back to this question of police brutality.

You seem to think police brutality is the direct result of some political philosophy you decry. (As evidenced by the "ha ha statist idiots" that you inevitably trot out)

Well, I'm asking you to explain to us statist idiots the simple and effective method you have for eliminating brutality from society.

Hello TheGenk! Wie gehts? I'm hoping that means "hows it going?" my deutsch is rusty.

@DerHasisttot
@TheGenk

- Phoenix (Arizona's capitol) requires a high school diploma or GED equivalent. Finishing high school means you have completed 13 years of school.
- You must pass a written exam related to reading comprehension, sentence structure, observational skills, and psychological issues.
- You must pass a physical agility exam.
- Those accepted then attend the police academy, 40 hours/week for 18 weeks.
- You must be 20 years old at the time of application, 21 prior to completion of academy.

Sources:
http://phoenix.gov/police/pdjob2.html
http://phoenix.gov/police/faqjob1.html

This is only a big deal because cops are just supposed to keep the poor down. Not kill them. Without a demoralized workforce, who will clean all the toilets?

Police brutality is like soldiers going ape-shit and shooting people they're not supposed to. It's not that it's private or statist, but rather it's individuals that break and weren't fit for the job.

What needs to be done, is to make incitements for better people to want to become officers. There are different ways to do this; raise the pay, higher entry demands on education/other tests, bonuses payed on "good behavior" stuff like that. Fully privatizing the police force is not a good idea, I think (*memories of blackwater*) since they are a basic brick of the society, keeping law and order. I want many things privatized, but emergency stuff I don't. Fire department, ambulances, police all that jazz should be covered by the state, since they are indispensable and we cannot allow "we went bankrupt" to make us lose lives for whatever reason.

Think of a privatized fire department that fails to show up because they went bankrupt the night before... very bad idea right there.

>> ^moodonia:

Hello TheGenk! Wie gehts? I'm hoping that means "hows it going?" my deutsch is rusty.


Hello! It does, it does... but damn, first comment and i've already given away my nationality

@handmethekeysyou:
I see, thanks for the info.

The same solution applies to police as it does to teachers. Raise the wage so you can raise the standards.

Cutting funding doesn't do that. Yes, I agree, police shouldn't be equipped with military equipment. That's a different problem. The fed's should step in and dictate what equipment is acceptable for local law enforcement.

The problem here is that only bullies are attracted to this profession. Educated folks aren't going to waste their time on something that pays so poorly and requires so much shit work.

Blankfist said:
...the conversation got derailed. I was asked my solution for the police state, which would be to cut funding.

in response to Netrunner asking this:
And your solution to police brutality is...?

The conversation got derailed when Blankfist refused to talk about the police brutality in this video, and chose instead to mount his soap box and rail against the police state.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, police brutality still exists outside a police state as well and discussing how to fix it is, as shown in this video, rather important.

I'd like to see the police as more part of the community. For there to be the same police persons assigned to the same areas day in day out on foot e.g. for most people who live in the area to see them once a week at least walking by or helping an old lady cross the road etc.
Get to know the people in your particular area - be able to relate and keep an eye on what is happening.
Build a good rapport with those who live in your designated area.
Join in with community events and show themselves to be one of the people who are able to let their hair down and have fun like everyone else.
Use common sense, if you found your son underaged trying drugs would you take him to jail or warn him and try to get him help? Extend that to those in your neighbourhood - if you find some other teenagers trying drugs, what would you do?

Hopefully this would improve the currently negative perceptions people hold of the police and for the police to understand the local citizens better, treating people with a bit of heart and empathy along with less of a chance of being so distant and the feeling of being "above" everyone else.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
It's good to see this representational government taking care of its poor once again. Funny how you never hear of the home invasions for the rich, but the poor are all over the nightly news having their dogs shot and them shot as well.
And your solution to police brutality is...?

Since we're on the topic of police funding, let me show you some anecdotal evidence of funding in Brazil and the outlook on police, therein:

Made by chtierna:
People here tend not to trust the police the same way we do back in Sweden (the salaries here are low and there's a lot of corruption)

I'll go out on a limb and say that low salaries can lead to increased corruption.

And just to clarify @blankfist, where do you think police officers get their money from? Funding cuts lead to salary cuts.

The way to stop this type of thing--of which we see more and more--is for the Justice system to go back to the days when police brutality was punished. When judges threw out tainted "evidence". When judges held police officers to a higher standard--because of their higher potential for unobserved abuses.

Side question: How many police officers Hate unions--but insist that they need a police union?

Wow, I was expecting the comment section to be filled with the usual "OMG lets get rid of all police" nonsense. Nice to be proven wrong.

I'd like to see, more police punished to the full extent of the law, insofar as the punishment is not cruel and unusual.

Zero Tolerance for brutality.

>> ^blankfist:

Cut funding for starters. Decrease the department sizes.

Lack of funding will not prevent bad decisions. Cheap equipment will not stop abuse of power. Anyone with a pistol can storm in and shoot you whether they're getting paid for it or not.

One solution is more widespread decentralized surveillance, run by private individuals. Doing this has gotten fairly inexpensive, and will only decrease in cost. A cop might think twice about acting inappropriately if he understands there is a reasonable chance of it ending up on YouTube.

If we're to have police then I would like them to have proper equipment and tech, but if you're concerned about accountability then citizens can provide that with their own tech... people mostly step out of line when they think they won't get caught. Starving the law enforcement system of money just reduces their ability to carry out legitimate duties.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^blankfist:
Cut funding for starters. Decrease the department sizes.
Lack of funding will not prevent bad decisions. Cheap equipment will not stop abuse of power. Anyone with a pistol can storm in and shoot you whether they're getting paid for it or not.
One solution is more widespread decentralized surveillance, run by private individuals. Doing this has gotten fairly inexpensive, and will only decrease in cost. A cop might think twice about acting inappropriately if he understands there is a reasonable chance of it ending up on YouTube.
If we're to have police then I would like them to have proper equipment and tech, but if you're concerned about accountability then citizens can provide that with their own tech... people mostly step out of line when they think they won't get caught. Starving the law enforcement system of money just reduces their ability to carry out legitimate duties.


Sure it won't keep them from storming in and shooting you with a pistol. But it will keep them from flash banging your house, bashing your door in, and then proceeded to kill everyone in the house with an M14 Rifle.

The last time I called the police it was because of a suspicious car parked near the entrance of my subsection where there are no houses. She came to my door wearing her QRT gear; tazer, chestplate, tac pants (tucked into her boots) zip tie cuffs, pepper spray, and leg holster.

Firstly when was the last time you saw a Patrol Officer wearing gear like that, and secondly who the fuck sends a QRT unit to a 10-48, 10-66, or 10-15; depending on department codes.

She was pretty hawt too, but that's beside the point.

The point is, I don't need to see officers driving around my neighborhood wearing military grade gear. That's not command presence that's intimidation, to the average citizen who doesn't know anything about escalation.

>> ^Boise_Lib:
"We do have civil rights."
Meaning the cop--not the dead guy.


So wait, the cop gets arrested, his "buddy" points out what he did wrong, and here we are saying the cop has civil rights and not the victim? It was a simple murder, period. Does a girl raped by a peacher and murdered have civil rights? Does a crack head in a deal gone bad have civil rights? Does a cop who is shot after helping save a woman's life in a domestic violence have civil rights?

Yours was a loaded question. This was not a cop, this was a criminal. Period.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
I'd like to see, more police punished to the full extent of the law, insofar as the punishment is not cruel and unusual.
Zero Tolerance for brutality.


I would like to see them punished just like any other criminal. Fair and impartial. (In case it might be mistaken, I am agreeing with you.)

I don't know if it's training or personal experience, but there has been a plethora of police officers, sheriffs, etc that have only been stopped from escalating situations involving my brother by my father or another police officer who is less gung ho to kick it up to 10 on the action meter.

My brother has something that is obviously wrong with his mental state, it was believed it was drug related (marijuana specifically...possibly laced) but after he spent over a month in jail for outbursts in court and during drug testing he was worse. My parents have tried to get him treated but it's remarkably difficult to force an adult into treatment they refuse, all it takes is a no from the patient at any point and the doctor will stop whether they agree or not....he was even released from psychological evaluation holds by different doctors than the ones who placed them (72 hour hold suddenly becomes 4 hours type deal). The police agencies would rather lock him up for months on end than send him to a facility to force treatment on him. That said, this had some situations where the majority of police basically wanted to kick his ass when they got involved and were restrained by my father or another police officer.

One situation was where he snapped for the first time, he wasn't hurting anyone but he did smash a cell phone and lock himself in the house. From the story multiple people called police, my mother, a younger brother, and neighbors. They showed up, he had locked himself in the house. My dad shows up and tells them to wait outside and he'll get him to come out peacefully, they tell my dad to move aside and that they are going to have to kick in the door to "deal with him". At this point my dad tells them "You're not kicking in my damn door, so either you leave or I get him to come out." They attempt to kick in the door anyway, leaving a big black mark down the door from their boots. Basically they were ready to go in and rough him up on the notion that he was inside murdering everyone....even though you could see his figure on the other side of the glass door holding the lock so it couldn't be unlocked.


Second, he was at the courthouse...this would be after he's had the law called on him multiple times for acting irrationally...trying to get someone to make it so my parents could force treatment on him to try to get him thinking more clearly. He's in court for drug possession, he rants at the judge, she let's him go. One out of half a dozen police officers there tells the others that he'll handle it, because the rest of them want to tackle and subdue him thinking he's high on something. They take him over to be drug tested by the judge's orders, he refuses like he does everything else...the one officer who took responsibility for him stopped them from taking him down yet again. He called and got the judge's permission to arrest him for the outbursts and refusal....and they stick him in jail. They attempt to get him a mental evaluation, he's sent to a mental evaluation facility. So my brother lucks out and gets an officer who actually tries to get him the help he needs through the judge where the rest of the officers wanted to tackle him and lock him up. But then they fuck up yet again, send him to be tested for competency but nothing else. So he still has an undiagnosed and untreated mental disorder, but they find him competent because he understands why he is on trial. They gladly gloss over the fact that the only medication he will willing take is marijuana or pill form equivalents of THC called marinol or something like that for cancer patients....which they won't give him...and he's on trial for drug possession. No druggie in their right mind is going to ask to be treated with an illegal substance when that's whats keeping him from being out on the streets where he can get more drugs.

He got put on house arrest after all this (not even for the drug charges because he has never been sentenced on this yet due to all this competency stuff and how slow the court is). He was court ordered to seek treatment and follow doctor's orders....which of course my brother won't take any medication but what he demands. So back into jail he goes. Except this time they stick him in general population...he was there for about 2 days before a couple of guys beat the hell out of him. They dragged him out of bed off a top bunk and initial evaluations were that he'd need surgery to fix his arm, but they've changed their opinion on that since. He won't admit to getting beat up, says he fell. Even though investigators are certain he was beaten.

So he's in medical holding while everyone hopes they finally force treatment on him to get him straightened out. But I suspect they put him on trial for the drug charges untreated/undiagnosed and let him continue to bring suffering upon my parents as they try to get him treated......which the law won't allow them to force treatment on him unless they take guardianship of him etc etc......and they won't help you with that either.

Basically what Im saying is, cops in general aren't the problem. It's just a general inability or disdain for doing anything that doesn't follow procedure. Chances are the guy who was killed in this news story is just as messed up as my brother, and if my father hadn't been there to mitigate the police response or a specific officer hasn't been there in court...my brother could have been killed in a similar fashion. I've tried to talk to him about this crap he thinks, he's just totally irrational and it pisses you off fast trying to talk to him about anything....so if someone thought he was dangerous I could see them progressing to lethal force if he acted even remotely aggressive. It ain't right, but I suspect it's what they are taught or what is expected out of them 99% of the time and if they don't react in that manner and an officers gets hurt..they'd probably be in deeper shit than if they shot the guy. It doesn't make it any better, but it seems like a pretty simplistic view to take. And mental disorders are only going to increased and worsen as the economic problems continue.

Whoa, Lawdeedaw, hold up there!

I was quoting the shill, "We have civil rights." HE meant that the cops have civil rights, while forgetting the victims right to not get shot in the head.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
"We do have civil rights."
Meaning the cop--not the dead guy.

So wait, the cop gets arrested, his "buddy" points out what he did wrong, and here we are saying the cop has civil rights and not the victim? It was a simple murder, period. Does a girl raped by a peacher and murdered have civil rights? Does a crack head in a deal gone bad have civil rights? Does a cop who is shot after helping save a woman's life in a domestic violence have civil rights?
Yours was a loaded question. This was not a cop, this was a criminal. Period.


This cop IS a criminal. I think you just got angry and misread my comment. I'm sure we agree on this subject and I'm angry also.

Its not that I get upset, it is that a lot of people here do not distinguish between rogue cops and actual professionals. For the life of me I cannot understand it.

I do appreciate the response though! Very mature. If everyone could have discussions like we are having, I would not be so tempermental.

On a side note, I am very happy with the strides departments are taking to hold police accountable. For example, dash cameras. Most people think dash cameras are there for the officer---hogwash. It is for the violent, out of line response. Stiffer punishments is another (We do have a ways to go in that though.) And lastly, as shown here, the "No snitch" policy, made famous by criminals, is slowly waning. The "good ole boy network" is withering because now, you hide something and in some departments, it costs you your job...

>> ^Boise_Lib:
Whoa, Lawdeedaw, hold up there!
I was quoting the shill, "We have civil rights." HE meant that the cops have civil rights, while forgetting the victims right to not get shot in the head.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
"We do have civil rights."
Meaning the cop--not the dead guy.

So wait, the cop gets arrested, his "buddy" points out what he did wrong, and here we are saying the cop has civil rights and not the victim? It was a simple murder, period. Does a girl raped by a peacher and murdered have civil rights? Does a crack head in a deal gone bad have civil rights? Does a cop who is shot after helping save a woman's life in a domestic violence have civil rights?
Yours was a loaded question. This was not a cop, this was a criminal. Period.

This cop IS a criminal. I think you just got angry and misread my comment. I'm sure we agree on this subject and I'm angry also.

I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.

The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).

I can see why you would have that opinion. I myself disagree only because, in the past, a cop's opinion was the only one that mattered. Unless, in the few rare circumstances, a powerful individual was pulled over (Like a mayor or police chief.) Think on this--who is the camera around most often, the civilian or the cop? Who does it watch more?

(All of these incidents were on the news)
For example, Rodney King may not have been a dash cam, but the police were still caught. A cop nearby my residence pulled a drunk driver from her vehicle--through the window. He had all right to do so, because she tried to gun it and was behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. But who gets suspended? In a booking jail in my home state, a paraplegic was dumped out of a wheelchair... Cop got a felony and deserved it. Later, a man threw himself from a wheelchair while a cop was trying to prevent either from getting harmed, and guess who gets suspended? (It was on tape and someone had to take the fall because, even though you could see what happened, a quick glance suggested it was his fault. And people tend to have short attention spans.) In a prison, four officers (Alibis) go into a cell when the power goes out (Dumbasses, backup power is a beautiful thing,) and beat a murderer to death.

The list goes on and on, and since most cameras do not affect the average joe, I tend to believe they are there for a reason beyond the cop's best interest. Remember, even if the cop is justified, "Cameras never lie."

Now, the Police Departments do benefit from dash cams, simply because they can limit liability.


>> ^Porksandwich:
I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.
The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).

On an individual basis it'll watch the cop more. But overall it'll be watching whatever is in front of the car, whether that be the cop or the people he's pulling over. If they outfitted the cops with cameras on their uniforms it'd be more indicative of them being highly interested in the cops interactions at all times.

I think the dash cam was outfitted because as an expense versus return, it's cheaper to outfit the car with a cam to note the happenings of common traffic stops (because this is about the only useful thing the forward facing cams are going to reliably be watching) without having to have another officer in the car. So they get 2 cars, split up the pair and have double the presence.

If the cops opinion didn't matter, they could just use the dashcam footage in every case (when applicable) and the officer being in court would be a formality. The dashcam is only brought out when something goes very wrong, as you've noted. If it's impartial and truthful why not let it stand as evidence in all court cases? They do it with traffic cameras.


>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I can see why you would have that opinion. I myself disagree only because, in the past, a cop's opinion was the only one that mattered. Unless, in the few rare circumstances, a powerful individual was pulled over (Like a mayor or police chief.) Think on this--who is the camera around most often, the civilian or the cop? Who does it watch more?
(All of these incidents were on the news)
For example, Rodney King may not have been a dash cam, but the police were still caught. A cop nearby my residence pulled a drunk driver from her vehicle--through the window. He had all right to do so, because she tried to gun it and was behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon. But who gets suspended? In a booking jail in my home state, a paraplegic was dumped out of a wheelchair... Cop got a felony. Later, a man threw himself from a wheelchair with a cop trying to settle prevent either from getting harmed, and guess who gets suspended? (It was on tape and someone had to take the fall.) In a prison, four officers (Alibis) go into a cell when the power goes out (Dumbasses, backup power is a beautiful thing,) and beat a murderer to death.
The list goes on and on, and since most cameras do not affect the average joe, I tend to believe they are there for a reason beyond the cop's best interest. Remember, even if the cop is justified, "Cameras never lie."
Now, the Police Departments do benefit from dash cams, simply because they can limit liability.

>> ^Porksandwich:
I dunno I think the dash cam is there for non-biased record, it is as much for the cop as it is for the person he stopped. But I also think that they've let a lot of officers run solo because of the dash cam, since they don't need a second officer to file their report on any incident that might occur. As long as it happens mostly on camera and the audio is captured. You'll notice they have multiple units of single occupied vehicles show up to situations where their dash cam is unlikely to record anything useful....like responding to noise complaints and other such minor things...car can't record that without being positioned very deliberately.
The only downside to dash cams are that the footage can be tampered with or "lost" when it's convenient for the police. I haven't heard of any system where the footage is captured direct from car with no human hands/eyes being involved in it's cataloging and tamper resistant storage (nothing is foolproof, but it should at least be something deliberate to cause loss of records where it's not explained away as inefficiencies and mistakes).