Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-25-2019 6:21 AM
25 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,386 Year: 15,422/19,786 Month: 2,145/3,058 Week: 3/516 Day: 3/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
19Next
Author Topic:   Police Shootings
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5790
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 181 of 277 (849057)
02-22-2019 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Percy
02-16-2019 9:49 AM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
This "auditing" thing is new to me, but in my view the more cameras the better. That's the only way we'll get a true picture of law enforcement lying and misbehavior. Obviously guns should also be taken away from undertrained security guards.

The First Amendment Auditing phenomenon is basically people with cameras filming areas likely to elicit some kind of response for 'suspicious' behavior. Its mostly done by trolls looking for an easy payday. Law enforcement is generally protected by Qualified Immunity, except in cases that infringe on civil liberties. If they can get someone dumb enough to take the bait, they set traps in the hopes their civil liberties get violated and the officer or department is open season for lawsuits. For the most part though, most of them seem to know the limitations of what they legally can or cannot do. Although I find these audits to be mostly childish, its generally harmless. This security guards response though is CRIMINAL. He should be in a jail cell

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Percy, posted 02-16-2019 9:49 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 12:24 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5790
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 182 of 277 (849058)
02-22-2019 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Percy
02-18-2019 4:26 PM


Re: More Brilliance from the Police
This is yet another argument for disarming our rank and file police force. Officers without guns are not going to confront an armed robbery suspect. They're either going to tackle him while he's distracted or call for armed (and better trained) backup.

You've mentioned that you think guns in the hands of highly trained officers is acceptable and think only they should have them. So then wouldn't it make just as much sense to make all police highly trained instead of disarming them? Seems like your real issue is the perception of low standards more so than cops with guns.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Percy, posted 02-18-2019 4:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 12:37 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 183 of 277 (849067)
02-23-2019 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Hyroglyphx
02-22-2019 8:22 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:

The First Amendment Auditing phenomenon is basically people with cameras filming areas likely to elicit some kind of response for 'suspicious' behavior. It's mostly done by trolls looking for an easy payday.

Denigration of those exercising their constitutional rights is mostly done by those who find the scrutiny, shall we call it, inconvenient.

You need some internal reflection. Ask yourself why you're denigrating those seeking openness and praising those maintaining secrecy.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2019 8:22 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:14 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(3)
Message 184 of 277 (849068)
02-23-2019 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Hyroglyphx
02-22-2019 8:27 PM


Re: More Brilliance from the Police
Hyroglyphx writes:

You've mentioned that you think guns in the hands of highly trained officers is acceptable and think only they should have them. So then wouldn't it make just as much sense to make all police highly trained instead of disarming them? Seems like your real issue is the perception of low standards more so than cops with guns.

Read the thread - bell shaped curve. There are around a million policepersons in the US. The ones best able to handle the responsibility of firearm possession are that tiny portion under the right-hand tail.

The reason training won't solve the police shooting problem is the same as why training won't solve the motor vehicle accident problem: it's impossible to maintain a high level of training across so many people. The emphasis has instead gone into improvements in automobile safety and technology. Analogously, all police officers should wear body cams that are always on and can't be turned off (neither video or sound), especially if they're carrying guns.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-22-2019 8:27 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:24 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 185 of 277 (849069)
02-23-2019 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Hyroglyphx
09-16-2018 3:49 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Last September in Message 153 I said:

Percy in Message 153 writes:

Reserve judgment all you like. If Marquez's family brings a civil lawsuit it is highly likely that the city of South Pasadena will be paying out millions. Want to lay odds?

Well, what a surprise: 'ER' actress Vanessa Marquez's mother files wrongful death lawsuit after fatal shooting by police (news report is from Fox News, the gold standard of news reporting, so we know this is true).

Now can we start placing bets about how many millions South Pasadena will be paying out? Everyone gets to pick a number between $0 and $10 million. I pick $3 million.

By the way, way to go ignoring all the invalidations of your points when you posted a 56 word response (your Message 154) to a 1329 word message.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2018 3:49 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:30 PM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5790
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 186 of 277 (849070)
02-23-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Percy
02-23-2019 12:24 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Denigration of those exercising their constitutional rights is mostly done by those who find the scrutiny, shall we call it, inconvenient.

You need some internal reflection. Ask yourself why you're denigrating those seeking openness and praising those maintaining secrecy.

First of all, police encounters have been documented for a longer period of time than there's been smart phones used by the general public. Law enforcement knows that audio/visual recordings weeds out the officers who would use excessive force and protects good cops from false accusations. So the assertion that police are out to "maintain secrecy" is misguided and misinformed.

As to the auditors, and I'm speaking in generalities as some are actually respectable, I find most of them needlessly antagonistic. The goal is to CREATE an encounter, not merely document one, vis a vis by instigating one through self-fulfilling prophecy.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 12:24 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by caffeine, posted 02-23-2019 4:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 6:21 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5790
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 187 of 277 (849072)
02-23-2019 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
02-23-2019 12:37 PM


Re: More Brilliance from the Police
The reason training won't solve the police shooting problem is the same as why training won't solve the motor vehicle accident problem: it's impossible to maintain a high level of training across so many people. The emphasis has instead gone into improvements in automobile safety and technology. Analogously, all police officers should wear body cams that are always on and can't be turned off (neither video or sound), especially if they're carrying guns.

And yet, curiously, you seem to have less of a problem with 15 million 15 year olds out there on the open highway than you do one cop with a gun. Perhaps even more interesting, you take no issue with 18-year old men training and carrying high-capacity assault rifles in the military, but if they carry weapons 10 years later as civilian law enforcement officers somehow it then becomes an absurdity. A little continuity would go a long way towards advancing your position.

As to BWC's continuously running, there's policy in place for most departments that they be turned on and passively recording except when in restrooms, hospitals, courtrooms, etc where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. So the cameras are running within an entire shift and capable of capturing every critical incident.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 12:37 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 7:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5790
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 188 of 277 (849073)
02-23-2019 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
02-23-2019 1:00 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Well, what a surprise: 'ER' actress Vanessa Marquez's mother files wrongful death lawsuit after fatal shooting by police (news report is from Fox News, the gold standard of news reporting, so we know this is true).

Now can we start placing bets about how many millions South Pasadena will be paying out? Everyone gets to pick a number between $0 and $10 million. I pick $3 million.

This is the world's most litigious nation in human history. Of course the lawsuits will fly. That'll never go away, whether police are in the right, in the wrong, or just plain in existence. It's par for the course.

By the way, way to go ignoring all the invalidations of your points when you posted a 56 word response (your Message 154) to a 1329 word message.

Oh, I'm so sorry for not remembering that 6 months ago. Would you like me to leave?


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 1:00 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 7:33 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1682
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 189 of 277 (849077)
02-23-2019 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 1:14 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
First of all, police encounters have been documented for a longer period of time than there's been smart phones used by the general public. Law enforcement knows that audio/visual recordings weeds out the officers who would use excessive force and protects good cops from false accusations. So the assertion that police are out to "maintain secrecy" is misguided and misinformed.

As to the auditors, and I'm speaking in generalities as some are actually respectable, I find most of them needlessly antagonistic. The goal is to CREATE an encounter, not merely document one, vis a vis by instigating one through self-fulfilling prophecy.

We used to do 'auditing' in my reckless youth when I did a lot of political protesting, but we didn't call it that. It was actually the police who started it (for context, this is the UK I'm talking about) - they would very conspicuously film protestors, so as to remind people who might get carried away that they will be prosecuted if they do something criminal.

In response, we started conspicuously filming the police, to make the point that their actions were being recorded too, should they get carried away in the heat of the moment. Most had no issue with this, but you get the odd hothead who would try to stop you from filming (which they had no legal right to do).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:14 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 190 of 277 (849079)
02-23-2019 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 1:14 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:

First of all, police encounters have been documented for a longer period of time than there's been smart phones used by the general public.

Oh, do please go on about this pre-video-era documentation.

Law enforcement knows that audio/visual recordings weed out the officers who would use excessive force and protect good cops from false accusations.

Fixed your grammar, which was as bad as your argument. Yeah, right, cops want cameras. That's why the damn things have on/off switches and audio kill.

Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations. Tamir Rice's homicide was ruled justified. Anyone beaten to a pulp is simply accused of resisting arrest. Just look at all the videos of police yelling at a helpless person to stop resisting while the person is yelling, "I'm not resisting." Police officers are so very familiar with the elements of accepted police conduct that they lie about their adherence to it even as they are violating it.

So the assertion that police are out to "maintain secrecy" is misguided and misinformed.

Oh, sure, that's why it took so much effort to unveil the details of the death of Freddie Gray, shoved unrestrained and handcuffed into the back of a police van that then took him on a wild ride that killed him. That's why it took 13 months to make public the police dash cam video of the murder of Laquan McDonald - police officer Jason Van Dyke was found guilty at trial of second degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.

The blue line, more like a blue wall, is not fiction. Police look out for their own, including lying and fabricating or disappearing evidence if necessary. Often the only weapon people have against unrestrained police misconduct is video. Video protects the public by a far wider margin than police, like this video of former NFL player Desmond Marrow being arrested after police mistook his cellphone for a gun in broad daylight (oh, by the way, why don't you tell us again how police officers don't fear guns, they just have a healthy respect for them, so I can again repeat all the documentation of police responding with a hail of bullets to even just what they thought was a gun):

Marrow was rammed against the back of a pickup and thrown to the ground, loosing teeth in the process, and choked (he claims to unconsciousness, though this cannot be verified from the video). There was an investigation and one of the police officers was later fired. Without video that would not have been the outcome.

As to the auditors, and I'm speaking in generalities as some are actually respectable, I find most of them needlessly antagonistic. The goal is to CREATE an encounter, not merely document one, vis-à-vis by instigating one through self-fulfilling prophecy.

Fixed your spelling. Congratulations for again denigrating those exercising their constitutional rights. Seems you find anything police don't like to be objectionable and open to any criticism you can make up. Time to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors.

Face reality - power corrupts and requires meticulous oversight.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:14 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 9:59 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 191 of 277 (849080)
02-23-2019 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 1:24 PM


Re: More Brilliance from the Police
Hyroglyphx writes:

And yet, curiously, you seem to have less of a problem with 15 million 15 year olds out there on the open highway...

Huh? Are you cuckoo, and why are you making things up? First, there can only be around 4 or 5 million 15 year olds in the US, so your figure is nonsense. Second, learner's permits require a licensed adult in the car. Third, there are no states in the union where you can get a driver's license at age 15. Fourth, of course I'm concerned about the competence of young drivers and am in favor of whatever improvements are possible.

...than you do one cop with a gun.

You are making things up again - I never commented on such a comparison, nor could I have since you only just now introduced it. Is this the only way you can debate these days? You're rapidly descending to just one notch better than Faith or Marc9000.

Perhaps even more interesting, you take no issue with 18-year old men training and carrying high-capacity assault rifles in the military,...

Are soldiers carrying their high-capacity assault rifles on our streets and using them to accost our citizens? No? Then no, I don't take issue with an armed military. Got any more nonsensical arguments?

...but if they carry weapons 10 years later as civilian law enforcement officers somehow it then becomes an absurdity.

Not an absurdity - I never used that word in this context. Why can't you argue with what I actually say instead of inventing things you wish I'd said? The term I would use is "public menace." Most police should not have a gun because it turns them into a public menace.

A little continuity would go a long way towards advancing your position.

You mean consistency, not continuity. I grant that the words you're putting in my mouth are not consistent, but that's your fault. Only when you can accurately state your opponent's arguments can you effectively rebut them, and you haven't reached that stage yet. Dropping in every six months for five minutes of typing isn't going to get you there, either.

As to BWC's continuously running, there's policy in place for most departments that they be turned on and passively recording except when in restrooms, hospitals, courtrooms, etc where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. So the cameras are running within an entire shift and capable of capturing every critical incident.

Oh, get off it. Whenever these body cam recordings are needed for evidence too often there are gaps in important places or they weren't even on at all, for example the shooting of Justine Damond, who called 911 to report a rape then walked up to the police car window when it arrived and was immediately shot (even though there was no body cam footage there was still sufficient evidence to arrest Officer Noor for murder - the case still hasn't gone to trial so there's much that's not yet known, but we do know the body cams were off).

You're not even trying. You're just making up what you wish were true.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 04-26-2019 7:37 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 192 of 277 (849081)
02-23-2019 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 1:30 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Hyrogrlyphx writes:

Well, what a surprise: 'ER' actress Vanessa Marquez's mother files wrongful death lawsuit after fatal shooting by police (news report is from Fox News, the gold standard of news reporting, so we know this is true).
Now can we start placing bets about how many millions South Pasadena will be paying out? Everyone gets to pick a number between $0 and $10 million. I pick $3 million.

This is the world's most litigious nation in human history. Of course the lawsuits will fly. That'll never go away, whether police are in the right, in the wrong, or just plain in existence. It's par for the course.

Police murder the person being wellness-checked, a wrongful death lawsuit is filed, and your defense is that it's not because of the possibility of serious misconduct but that we're overly litigious? Seriously? Again, you're not even trying. You're not thinking, just typing.

By the way, way to go ignoring all the invalidations of your points when you posted a 56 word response (your Message 154) to a 1329 word message.

Oh, I'm so sorry for not remembering that 6 months ago.

How does this response even make sense? Six months ago my responses to your arguments were right before your very eyes and you ignored them. That's a fact. Deal with it.

Would you like me to leave?

I pretty much meant what I said and implied, that I would like you to behave as an honest debater, if that's not asking too much, and address responses to your arguments, or at least say that you have no response.

Look, we get it, you like the police, you're police affiliated in some way that if you've made clear I don't happen to recall, and it feels to you like this group you feel close to is being unfairly attacked. But a large number of specific incidents have been entered into evidence in this thread, and they're all indefensible. Defending the indefensible is a losing battle every time. Murdering a 12-year old with a toy gun? Murdering someone who reports a rape? Murdering a person being wellness checked? You're defending these police murders - what is wrong with you?

Human life is sacred and murder is a heinous crime. Murder cannot with any integrity be defended, even if committed by someone or something you love very, very much.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 1:30 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 10:31 PM Percy has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5790
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 193 of 277 (849083)
02-23-2019 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Percy
02-23-2019 6:21 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Oh, do please go on about this pre-video-era documentation.

You said cops like maintaining secrecy, which you have yet to qualify. If that's the case, then why have there been in-car cameras far longer than there have smart phones? Spoiler alert: its because there's evidentiary value to them and departments want them.

Yeah, right, cops want cameras. That's why the damn things have on/off switches and audio kill.

Yes, because as I said there are legitimate legal reasons not to be filming 24 hours day.

Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations. Tamir Rice's homicide was ruled justified. Anyone beaten to a pulp is simply accused of resisting arrest. Just look at all the videos of police yelling at a helpless person to stop resisting while the person is yelling, "I'm not resisting." Police officers are so very familiar with the elements of accepted police conduct that they lie about their adherence to it even as they are violating it.

You do understand that these high profile cases goes to a Grand Jury who either bills or no-bills these decisions, right? Its not as if it goes to the Chief of Police and he or she decides. There's a legal process that goes right past the department to avoid exactly what you're insinuating, which is nepotism. So if you take issue with the outcome of any given investigation then you have to consider the source.

Oh, sure, that's why it took so much effort to unveil the details of the death of Freddie Gray, shoved unrestrained and handcuffed into the back of a police van that then took him on a wild ride that killed him. That's why it took 13 months to make public the police dash cam video of the murder of Laquan McDonald - police officer Jason Van Dyke was found guilty at trial of second degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.

So when the justice system works to hold garbage officers accountable, you're still not pleased with the outcome? I don't understand what your objection is.

Seems you find anything police don't like to be objectionable and open to any criticism you can make up. Time to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors.

I think I was very fair and measured in explaining exactly what I found objectionable. You are obfuscating... I never said I take issue with people filming I said many of these auditors try to manufacture an outcome. That's not documenting, that's instigating something with the intent to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 6:21 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 02-24-2019 2:09 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5790
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 194 of 277 (849084)
02-23-2019 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Percy
02-23-2019 7:33 PM


Re: "ER" Actress Dies in ER
Police murder the person being wellness-checked, a wrongful death lawsuit is filed, and your defense is that it's not because of the possibility of serious misconduct but that we're overly litigious? Seriously? Again, you're not even trying. You're not thinking, just typing.

I told you when that story broke that I wouldn't speak to details that are unknown to me and said that, in general, if you reach or point a weapon at an officer that its pretty cut and dry as to what the ramifications can be. But you mentioned that the family is now suing, as if to insinuate that it alone proves or disproves anything of evidentiary value when it doesn't. People sue the police, they sue the government, they sue corporations, they sue everyone. The act of pursuing a lawsuit is not in and of itself evidence of anything except our litigious nature.

How does this response even make sense? Six months ago my responses to your arguments were right before your very eyes and you ignored them. That's a fact. Deal with it.

We rehashed the same topic until it was dead, with neither side conceding a single point to the other. So what would you have us do? Go on for 10 more pages in the exact same vein endlessly? I'll disappear again and pop up a month or two from now. I don't have time or give that much of a shit to argue with anyone endlessly.

I pretty much meant what I said and implied, that I would like you to behave as an honest debater, if that's not asking too much, and address responses to your arguments, or at least say that you have no response.

I have always been very open, honest, and candid about things I believe I have gotten wrong. I have apologized at times and have been very forthright in being introspective, have I not? .... especially when compared to some of the blowhards there are on this forum.

Look, we get it, you like the police, you're police affiliated in some way that if you've made clear I don't happen to recall, and it feels to you like this group you feel close to is being unfairly attacked.

I look at it the same way I would if someone made a racial comment based upon a stereotype. Its not fair to make assumptions about people based upon their race alone. Well, I happen to think its not fair nor productive to make assumptions about cops based solely on their profession. I'll be the first one to throw a criminal cop under the bus... but this festering mentality as of late that is incredibly hostile towards police in general is becoming dangerous dogma.

But a large number of specific incidents have been entered into evidence in this thread, and they're all indefensible. Defending the indefensible is a losing battle every time. Murdering a 12-year old with a toy gun? Murdering someone who reports a rape? Murdering a person being wellness checked? You're defending these police murders - what is wrong with you?

When in the fuck have I ever "defended" ANY of those specific cases??? The only case we discussed was the wellness check and you insisted on rushing to judgment. I said I don't have all the facts. You then provided some alleged facts. One of the facts that you alleged was that she pointed a gun at officers. I said if that's true, then its pretty open and shut... BUT, again, I don't know if any of those are facts, so I can't say with any degree of certainty.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Percy, posted 02-23-2019 7:33 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 02-24-2019 3:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18808
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 195 of 277 (849095)
02-24-2019 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Hyroglyphx
02-23-2019 9:59 PM


Re: Shot While Filming Outside Jewish Synagogue
Hyroglyphx writes:

Oh, do please go on about this pre-video-era documentation.

You said cops like maintaining secrecy, which you have yet to qualify.

You're having trouble remembering again, because I have described police trying to maintain secrecy in this thread. There are many cases of police departments sitting on video evidence for months, in some cases not even admitting that it exists, and I've entered evidence of some of them into this thread. There's the blue wall of secrecy where police lie and cover for each other, and I've described some of those too. If it's more evidence of same that you want and you'd like to get into it then you should open a new thread since this thread's about police shootings. I'd be delighted to provide more evidence of police lack of transparency, stonewalling, and coverups.

If that's the case, then why have there been in-car cameras far longer than there have smart phones? Spoiler alert: its because there's evidentiary value to them and departments want them.

Were you born yesterday? Portable video cameras became widely available in the 1970's (VHS and BetaMax), smart phones not until 2007 about 35 years later.

People can argue all day about the interpretation of facts, but not about the facts themselves. That smart phones didn't even exist until 2007 is a fact. That portable video cameras existed for 35 years prior is a fact. Therefore your claim that in-car cameras being around far longer than smart phones has absolutely nothing do with their "evidentiary value" and that "departments want them." It has to do with when they were invented.

And while portable video technology preceded smartphones by nearly half a century, I don't think there were a lot of police departments employing dash cams up until the last decade or so. An NBC report says that by 2007 61% of police departments employed dash cams, though it doesn't say the degree of deployment across department police cars, or what percent of the time they were in working order. This YouTube video is cued up to the exact right spot, you only have to listen for a few seconds:

And dash cam and body cam use is likely to decline outside of large police departments because small departments are finding the cost overhead of maintaining archival video to be too great. It would be nice if state or federal government could step in with subsidies. (Smaller police departments dropping body camera programs amid high costs)

Who do you think wants all interactions with police taped more: the police or your average citizen. If you think it's the police then you are wrong. It's nothing but a headache for the police. First there's the inherent problem that the human mind is not a tape recorder, so police reports will inevitably deviate from any video. The potential problems only escalate from there. How much easier it is for the police when there is no video, when it becomes just a matter of their word against the perp's word, just like back in the good old days when police actions were rarely challenged.

Yeah, right, cops want cameras. That's why the damn things have on/off switches and audio kill.

Yes, because as I said there are legitimate legal reasons not to be filming 24 hours day.

Nobody's complaining about cameras not rolling while police cars are parked in the compound or police officers are off duty. They're complaining about the audio being cut off or the camera being shut off at critical points during interactions and arrests.

Cops don't have to worry about false accusations. My God, police rule almost all homicides justified, why would cops ever worry about mere false accusations. What they actually worry about are true accusations. Tamir Rice's homicide was ruled justified. Anyone beaten to a pulp is simply accused of resisting arrest. Just look at all the videos of police yelling at a helpless person to stop resisting while the person is yelling, "I'm not resisting." Police officers are so very familiar with the elements of accepted police conduct that they lie about their adherence to it even as they are violating it.

You do understand that these high profile cases goes to a Grand Jury who either bills or no-bills these decisions, right? Its not as if it goes to the Chief of Police and he or she decides. There's a legal process that goes right past the department to avoid exactly what you're insinuating, which is nepotism. So if you take issue with the outcome of any given investigation then you have to consider the source.

You're blowing smoke again. There's *video* out there independent of whether charges are ever filed or it ever goes to a grand jury or to trial or results in a conviction.

Let's introduce a new name: Daniel Hambrick. He was running away from Nashville police officer Andrew Delke when he was shot three times and killed. Delke was cleared of any wrongdoing: it was ruled a good kill. Subsequent events led to reconsideration, and Delke now faces a murder trial. The legal process is ongoing at this time, but regardless of the outcome there is still this unequivocal video (you only have to watch the first 30 seconds or so):

So there ya go, yet more evidence that rank and file police should not have guns.

Oh, sure, that's why it took so much effort to unveil the details of the death of Freddie Gray, shoved unrestrained and handcuffed into the back of a police van that then took him on a wild ride that killed him. That's why it took 13 months to make public the police dash cam video of the murder of Laquan McDonald - police officer Jason Van Dyke was found guilty at trial of second degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.

So when the justice system works to hold garbage officers accountable, you're still not pleased with the outcome? I don't understand what your objection is.

You don't remember this, you don't understand that. I don't think popping in every six months is working for you, unless your goal is to make people explain everything all over again from scratch. Go reread the thread if there's things you don't understand or remember. Anyway, my objection is very simple: rank and file police with guns are a menace because they too often injure or kill people. It's not hard to understand.

We shouldn't punish the poor police officers who society should never have issued guns in the first place - it's not their fault they accepted the equipment and training they were told their jobs required. It's not their fault that statistically some police will find themselves in situations ripe for bad decisions, and it just happened that it was them it happened to.

Seems you find anything police don't like to be objectionable and open to any criticism you can make up. Time to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors.

I think I was very fair and measured in explaining exactly what I found objectionable. You are obfuscating...

Now you're just imitating Trump. You may as well have said, "That's just fake news. I think I've been very fair. I don't think there's been anyone in the history of our country who's been more fair than me."

I never said I take issue with people filming...

And I never said you did.

I said many of these auditors try to manufacture an outcome. That's not documenting, that's instigating something with the intent to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You're repeating your mistake over and over again in one post after another, denigrating auditors without evidence. Again, it is time (way past time) for you to reveal the research behind your detailed knowledge of the minds of auditors. How do you know that mostly their goal is to instigate confrontations? I think you've been taken in by the stuff you're reading on the Internet.

But let's say you're absolutely right. Let's say the First Amendment Auditors are trying to manufacture an outcome, that they're trying to instigate an inappropriate police response. What does it say about our police if instigating inappropriate police responses only requires taking video? What kind of inappropriate police response might wearing a hoodie on a hot day instigate? And God forbid don't try to pull out a cell phone, we all know they're indistinguishable from guns.

The thread's topic is police shootings, but this First Amendment Auditor stuff does have a sort of tie-in because of its evidence of the entitlement felt by many police. We're grateful for the service they provide, and that we require that service is why we grant them great power, but with great power comes great responsibility. Most rank and file police are not prepared for the responsibility of carrying a firearm.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-23-2019 9:59 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2019 10:15 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
19Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019