It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

‘YouTube effect’ has left police officers under siege, law enforcement leaders say:

page: 4
47
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What a load of crap.
Edited video can easily be detected.
Only the most untech savvy person buys that pig lie.[/quote]

The average person watching stuff on YT won't notice, and edited doesn't necessarily mean altered. Not showing the start of an incident is editing. Did you read what I said about the Rodney King video? What we all saw was edited. It was far from complete, and caused public opinion to be very mistaken, and lead to some seriously bad results, lots of crime, property damage, injuries, and even death. All over edited video. But, hey, call that a "load of crap" if you like, since those people's lives and property aren't important enough.


originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
And time and again we hear about dashcam and lapel cam footage mysteriously disappearing or damaged, or whatever lie they can come up with.[/quote]

So, you have a double standard. The police video can't possibly malfunction, and it's always altered to suit their story, but all of the video from non-cops is always 100% perfect. What a crock.


originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
Even when it's obvious that the entire pig narrative is complete bull#, they break out the "video doesn't tell the whole story" nonsense.


You are proving my point. Your response is a classic example of how people assume only the worst about the police, and only the best about some unknown video maker. It's biased. It's definitely nonsense. Thinking people know better.


originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
No, you frigging liar, YOU are the one not telling the whole story.
Stop lying.
Stop covering for bad cops.
Stop using the excuse of the public doesn't know police procedure.


What lies would those be, exactly? Calling names and tossing out labels doesn't make you right; it makes you a jerk without a clue. I didn't use any excuses, and I didn't lie for anything. What I did was state that video can be, and usually is, edited, and it's easy to make people believe all sorts of things. Do you think all the people you see in television shows and movies are real, and not actors playing roles??? The way you talk, you probably do.


originally posted by: VictorBloodworth
We know it all to well.
And it's not the public who us wrong.
If your use of force ladder starts at the first wrung with intimidation, then next wrung hands on assualt and battery, third wrung death, you are the ones who don't understand your job.


You clearly don't know anything, and can't even manage basic reading comprehension. You assume things I didn't say, make false accusations, and throw a hissy fit because someone dared to disagree with your bias against police. Get over yourself.

Also, clueless one, I am not a cop, and never have been, so see what you know? Less than nothing. Crow up.




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Loveaduck

Help with the cover-up...yeah good one.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

nah it wasn't aimed at you mate.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
Most of what you say is not true. Even for the worst offenses, officers receive paid suspensions, in general.


Possibly true, possibly not, but this is where my comments about 'the court of public opinion' come into play, because what you perceive as an offense may not necessarily be one--at least not one bad enough to warrant dismissal or trial--and so you would have this perception that the officers are basically getting off with a slap on the wrist. But just remember that a paid suspension or just administrative duty are standards during an officer-involved shooting or death, or any incident where an internal investigation is necessary.

What should be more concerning is not whether there is paid suspensions or dismissals, but the fact that all of these investigations are internal.


In many cases, it is the police who have been filing inaccurate reports or who's dash cam footage is edited or broken. Police become more militarized and police not understanding the law has led to all the videos on Youtube. This is not a chicken or egg situation. This is a situation the police clearly brought upon themselves and sadly, upon officers who do a good job.


To a point, I agree, and I said as much. But it is the misperception of John Q. Public as to what is procedurally proper for officers to do in response to certain situations that creates the majority of the problem, because the general public is ignorant (in the strictest sense of the word) to law enforcement procedure and training, and most have not found and will never find themselves in a position of authority where they have to enforce the law in the face of individuals with unknown motives--Mr. or Mrs. Public doesn't get it, yet they are quick to come to the defense of criminals (like Mike Brown).

Like I said in my original comment, there absolutely are officers and entire departments that shoulder some of the blame for this situation that law enforcement finds itself in, but there are two factors at play, and in my opinion, the ignorance and tendency to knee-jerk react of the general public shoulders the bulk of the blame, regardless if there are some LEOs justifiably deserving of such a negative spotlight.
edit on 27-10-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Kaizen. Think of it as kaizen. We're just trying to HELP you. By recording you. That'll help you keep your story straight.

If you don't like it, tough. What we need now is a federal law that supersedes all the little state and local laws, and establishes that it's ok to record a cop whenever, wherever, period, with some serious serious teeth for cops who try to prevent recording, prosecutable in federal court, where the local politics has much less sway.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

thanks Op. so if they was not on you tube they would be aggressive still. They don't want to loose jobs but happy to use excessive force if there career was not on the line.

so silly.

if they just did their job correctly and used "sufficient" amount of force for the situation they are in and follow procedures, then they would be fine.

for example - tackle a guy to the floor, restrain him. That's fine. . don't carry on beating him while on the ground, this is just excessive.

i would of thought since the body cams they have on it wouldn't matter about you tube as all is recorded anyway.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I love the youtube effect. Huge supporter here



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

I say if they (LEO) are so afraid of a "career ending viral YouTube video" than
why don't they stop doing things that can get them fired!!!!!

Rather than focusing on getting caught on someone's video phone,
IMO they should be focusing on obeying the law themselves and not
doing things that violate the c policies of their own police departments.

If people catch them on camera doing their jobs, how is that going to
end their career?

Rebel 5



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Sheriff David Clarke States "There Is No Police Brutality In America"
Don't believe your lying eyes or experience



Don't believe this guy,
Remove the vid because it's profanity laced but goto Joe Rogan Youtube
Ex Baltimore cop Michael Wood gives brutally honest interview on the Joe Rogan Experience
Or this guy.
The good sheriff is possibly angling for a position on FOX after retiring,having a Black chief as mouthpiece
let alot of other folks off the hook, look!! a Black Guy said it!!



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

This is a good thing. I wish there cameras when I got "served". All cops and All people should have their cameras on. It's not too 1984ish?

Kratos



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

We have one already, it's called the US Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.chicagotribune.com...

www.abajournal.com...

Other than prosecuting cops of course.
edit on 28-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Bedlam

We have one already, it's called the US Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.chicagotribune.com...

www.abajournal.com...

Other than prosecuting cops of course.


Yeah, but you constantly have local jurisdictions/circuits either trying to pass bogus cop anti-recording laws (Illinois) or attempting to prosecute people recording cops on some bogus obstruction beef. Or you get cops destroying evidence and then the local prosecutor nol pros'ing the thing.

What needs to happen is that it's clarified and moved to the federal level. You erase a recording, your case gets bumped out of your protected little environment where the local prosecutor takes every case and nol's the thing to kill it, and into the world of federal prosecutors and judges who aren't nearly as tied to the local cop omerta/union blackmail. What needs to happen is you erase a recording, you go right to the pen when it's proven. No nol pros, no 'oh but he's such a GOOD cop' appeals. Bang, mandatory 10. About the third time it happens, that crap will end.

You see someone recording you, you bust their arm with a baton and try the "oh, I thought it was a cell phone machine gun" defense, it goes to the federal level and bam! 10 years in the pen for interfering with recording. THAT would stop.

Even now, you get a constant flux of union sycophants (e.g. Jason Villalba) who are handed bills pre-written by police unions to introduce that somehow end up keeping you from recording your own interactions with cops "whoops we didn't intend THAT, certainly we'd never prosecute it that way...let's just pass it as is and fix it later" when actually the thing even prevents you from writing down the cops' badge numbers and names. And yes, it spells it out. Then they try to say that was unintended.

It needs to be spelled out, and supersede state and local law. That would end it. And it ought to include a provision for automatically setting aside qualified immunity, and for minimum sentencing guidelines. Just to make it very clear.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join