Stupid Cops...?

a reply to: Shamrock6

That seems to be my PD as well. Real cool guys, said it many times.

I am a chemist at a mine, however the HR dept will hire people despite criminal backgrounds to suit their racially motivated agendas.. it's a mess lol.

a reply to: Kali74

That's not really the point I made. At all. My point was that the personal attacks need to be curbed. I didn't attack people for speaking out about anything. I'm wondering why you think I'm annoyed about it. By all means, call them on the carpet. Just don't tell me I'm stupid or an idiot because I don't see the situation the same way. And that's not you specifically, just in general. I can legitimately say that I've never seen you go after anybody on a personal level.

I would point you to a number of comments made by myself and others when we DO feel an officer has crossed the line. We may not always feel that an officer has, but when we do, we say as much. I've spoken to people on ATS and in the course of my work about cases and current events. I've shared opinions online and offline. I'm not giving speeches or participating in protests, no. Why? Dunno, personal choice I guess. You see a wrong and feel that protest is called for. I see a wrong feel and that talking to members of my community on a personal level is called for. Maybe that doesn't help YOUR community, but it helps mine at least.

a reply to: grandmakdw

People are not rioting.
People are not screaming for the death of cops.

People are marching, protesting, having die-ins, speaking.

A few out of thousands are are rioting, looting, screaming for the death of cops and are condemned by the latter.

a reply to: doompornjunkie

Maybe you should use your powers for good and start making people disappear into puddles of chemically laced sludge....

Just kidding. I can't condone that

a reply to: Shamrock6

Ohhh I've been dreaming of such for a long time.

I've just been playing mind games with them instead.. more fun and completely legal

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

People are not rioting.
People are not screaming for the death of cops.

People are marching, protesting, having die-ins, speaking.

A few out of thousands are are rioting, looting, screaming for the death of cops and are condemned by the latter.

That is not all
what I am seeing
in the media
in the news
anywhere.

I only see rioting
looting,
screaming for the death of cops,
and attacking police.

That is what I see, that is what I see the leadership
promoting with their racial animosity and
racial hatred

a reply to: grandmakdw

I suggest turning off FOX then.

originally posted by: doompornjunkie
a reply to: Shamrock6

Ohhh I've been dreaming of such for a long time.

I've just been playing mind games with them instead.. more fun and completely legal

I like chemistry cat. He's good peeps/cat.

I'd tell you a chemistry joke, but all the good ones argon. Eh? Eh??

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

I suggest turning off FOX then.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Shamrock6

We disagree and suddenly we're pigs and whatnot.

Being called names shouldn't surprise or offend you. My guess you get a lot of that already…

Nothing so offensive as a belligerent drunk.

We lock horns here because we disagree on whether the state is becoming too authoritarian or not, not whether you do a good job. You have set yourself up to represent the state during times when the state isn't looking so benevolent.

If you come to my station, I can hook you up with stickers and probably some cookies. How's that for benevolent?

No thanks I really don't want to hear from you guys unless there is an emergency. Then I 'll thank you for doing your job. Thats your thankless job requirement. Its what you became an officer for, right?

Just to be clear do you have a cruiser cam and do you always point it at the "scene" of the stop? How would you feel about a lapel cam?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Shamrock6

We disagree and suddenly we're pigs and whatnot.

Being called names shouldn't surprise or offend you. My guess you get a lot of that already…

Nothing so offensive as a belligerent drunk.

We lock horns here because we disagree on whether the state is becoming too authoritarian or not, not whether you do a good job. You have set yourself up to represent the state during times when the state isn't looking so benevolent.

If you come to my station, I can hook you up with stickers and probably some cookies. How's that for benevolent?

No thanks I really don't twang to hear from you guys unless there is an emergency. Then I 'll thank you for doing your job. Thats your thankless job requirement. Its what you became an officer for, right?

Just to be clear do you have a cruiser cam and do you always point it at the "scene" of the stop? How would you feel about a lapel cam?

A lapel cam would have prevented Ferguson altogether, wouldn't it! It would have showed what the all the forensic evidence showed, that the gentle giant, reached in to punch the officer and attempted to get his gun. Even Eric Holder and the entire justice department working hard to prove the officer was a killer, ended up proving through the evidence that it was self defense.

Lapel cams would greatly help the police.

However, be aware that the footage then becomes public property and subject to all the rules of discovery, freedom of information act, and public property.

If you are a female who accidentally tucked a tiny bit of her skirt into the waistband of her underpants after using the facilities (yes this happened to me once a long time ago) and doesn't know it - then walks down the street. The police would be obligated to turn on their cam and stop the woman for public indecency. It would be mandatory and then made public property. There would be lots of embarrassing events that could happen to anyone of us that would be made public with camera footage available to any and all who request the footage from the freedom of information act.

So, if an officer wants to just let someone go,
as in the OP example.
They would not be able to, they would have to enforce the letter of the law,
with no discretion.
Also, anyone who commits any offense,
no matter how small or embarrassing - the lapel footage becomes public property subject to the freedom of information act.


But in the end, I think the police should welcome lapel cams that are mandatory to turn on when dealing with any member of the public. They should also be allowed to keep it off when eating, using the facilities, sitting or riding in their cars which have cams on anyway. But mandatory to turn on when interacting with any non-police citizen.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I totally agree! Cameras, Citizen review boards, and the eradication of the "Blue code" would go a long way for
Law enforcement regaining respect. But the Police Unions are against all that I mentioned. I wonder why that is?

www.techdirt.com... .shtml

www.policeone.com...

photographyisnotacrime.com...

a reply to: intrptr

Didn't become an officer for the "thanks" at all actually. Didn't do it to carry a gun, have a cool uniform, pick up badge bunnies, or anything else. I can assure you that my reasons for becoming, and remaining, a cop are good ones. Beyond that, they're none of your business.

As far as cams go, yes we have dashcams. They're only in marked units, though. They only run when the lights are activated or when our mics are turned on. An officer can also turn them on at their discretion, but at a minimum they're on if the lights are on, or if the mic is activated (that's how you can have dashcam video with audio; the dashcam itself probably doesn't have a mic, the officer is wearing one). Considering how we conduct traffic stops, I'm not sure where else the dashcam would be pointed other than at the other vehicle. We're not supposed to move the camera unless we're transporting somebody, in which case we spin the camera around so it's on the backseat. There are some circumstances where the camera would simply be pointed at nothing. A sudden stop and bailout for foot pursuit, for example. We're not required to jockey the vehicle around so the camera is pointed where we're going. That's the exception, not the rule though.

As far as body cams, we are phasing them in starting next year. Personally I have no problem with them. I think the problem exists on the tail end of things: protecting evidence, minors, etc balanced against the need for transparency and openness. I definitely do not think the general public should have free access to video from body cams, because there are things the public has no right to see. But just as it can't be an open loop, it can't be a closed loop. The units store data in vehicles, and the data is dumped every time the vehicle goes to the station, or after a certain time period whichever comes first. From there it's kept at the station itself and at the county courthouse. Only certain people have access to the servers. The servers themselves are monitored for tampering and intrusion. Cops can't access the data in their vehicle without it triggering a tamper fault. But, as I said, that won't be till next year when it starts.

Eta: our SWAT, gang, and narcotics units have been wearing shoulder mounted POV cams for several years already.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Lapel cams would greatly help the police.

However, be aware that the footage then becomes public property and subject to all the rules of discovery, freedom of information act, and public property.

Only if independently monitored. I really doubt that will happen. Beside the cruise cams are "missing" often enough as well as any security cam footage. It is "edited" when it reaches the public eye.

I don't really care what the "victim" is doing when the cops show up. That needs to be independently verified. Just like we are on the camera all day everywhere we go. At intersectons, the bank, the store, etc.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: grandmakdw

I totally agree! Cameras, Citizen review boards, and the eradication of the "Blue code" would go a long way for
Law enforcement regaining respect. But the Police Unions are against all that I mentioned. I wonder why that is?

You have to remember that cams are a two edged sword -
many times people who call or need the police
behave in irrational or embarrassing ways
and say things in the heat of the moment they don't want made public.
All personal privacy when dealing with the police would be gone and
all footage becomes public property under the freedom of information act.
It would also eliminate all discretion as in the OP example.
It would eliminate the ability to forgive and forget an indiscretion that they would have before because they would be obligated to follow the letter of the law because they are on camera.

However, in the long run I think lapel cams would actually help the police
while ending privacy and discretion for the public.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thank you very much for the work you do for us all in keeping us safe.

MS

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr
Pretty revealing. You guys can turn the cams on and off and point them around? Hmmm…

Not that you would… misuse… that.

I insist on independent monitoring, review boards.

Thanks for the inside look.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

A lapel cam would have prevented Ferguson altogether, wouldn't it! It would have showed what the all the forensic evidence showed, that the gentle giant, reached in to punch the officer and attempted to get his gun. Even Eric Holder and the entire justice department working hard to prove the officer was a killer, ended up proving through the evidence that it was self defense.
But in the end, I think the police should welcome lapel cams that are mandatory to turn on when dealing with any member of the public. They should also be allowed to keep it off when eating, using the facilities, sitting or riding in their cars which have cams on anyway. But mandatory to turn on when interacting with any non-police citizen.

A few points, I'm not sure the federal case is complete on Michael Brown yet, and the one on Garner is hardly begun. Besides Ganrner's killer is captured on video, could not be indicted. It is clear then body-cams won’t lead to more indictments. And, the idea that body-cams were even going to be a partial solution for stopping senseless killings by police officers was absurd even before the Garner decision was announced. The only people who actually think body-cams are a viable solution are the people defending the killings to begin with.
The Good thing about the body cams is that the video is there for everyone/the world, to see how the police were allowed to commit a homicide, and by illegal means, and that American justice is being bastardized.
As for thinking that Michael Brown's killing would have been proved correct had the officer had a body video, is very tongue-in-cheek, because you don't fecking know, and BTW officer Wilson's car had no cam either. As for officer Wilson being in grave danger from "The Devil" why'd he get out of his car? he was safe in it, the ENGINE WAS RUNNING all he had to do was reverse away at speed from "The Devil's" grasp. Pfff. Yeah, great story from psychic officer Wilson...who saw the devil who had robbed a store that Wilson didn't know about.

a reply to: intrptr

You're "interpreting" what I said in a manner that suits your own ideas. We can't STOP the camera from coming on. We CAN turn it on if we've stopped and want our interaction to be recorded. Ie we're about to talk to somebody that didn't require the use of our lights to get there but the situation may/will likely escalate. The camera faces two directions: forward and backward. I can't smack it on my way out of the vehicle so that it's pointed at the floor mat so I can go beat somebody up without it being recorded. Our videos are subject to random review. If a complaint is received, the video is pulled and it better be pointed where it's supposed to be, otherwise you're already in trouble.

Insist all you like. Because of the legalities regarding evidence and minors, you'll never have the 100% free access to video. Ergo, somebody will always be able to scream cover up. Hold your breath till you turn blue. Won't change that. I'm sorry it's not good enough for your standards. Our community is on board with it.

You're welcome. I'm sorry that you chose to interpret things the way you did

a reply to: smurfy

Well. This just got wildly off topic.