And to contrast, here in the U.S. police are routinely taught that a person with a knife and acting in a threatening manner within 20 feet of an officer is to be considered a deadly threat that warrants deadly force in return.
I will say that I have seen videos that show just how quickly someone from 20 feet can be on you, way quicker than any were able to pull their sidearm and aim, the knife guy won every time.
Yup. The 21 foot rule.
Try this to test it. Give someone a paintbrush (the sponge kind) and put red paint on it. Have that person stand 21 feet away from you and then charge you. Try to draw your weapon, aim, and fire it before you get "stabbed". It's basically impossible to win that game.
- Merg
Requiring state mercenaries to wear body cameras would be a start but that by itself wouldn't be enough. IMO there should also be some sort of 'community police council' in which they have the authority to fire police officers and bring charges against them. The current method of allowing them to investigate and punish themselves isn't working. What say you?
The cameras will only help IF the officers that are interacting with citizens have them turned on and or don't claim that they are broke. In addition the video and audio recorded should be protected from tampering and be live uploaded to a server where the police cannot change or edit the contents. Already right now we see many cops that claim dash cams are broken or a body camera was malfunctioning etc.
But I also believe the body camera's are not enough. There needs to be real consequences for these officers who abuse / neglect citizens or who outright do illegal things. No more paid time off, no more quietly retiring, no more slap on the wrists, no more getting out of jail for free cards.
The policies and some of the laws that the Supreme Court have implemented that give the cops virtual immunity from these type repercussions need to be changed. People have to demand that these laws get changed.
How often are you reading that the camera was broke? It's not something that I see or hear often. .
What laws by the Supreme Court are you referring to that give officers virtual immunity?
How often are you reading that the camera was broke? It's not something that I see or hear often. Also, departments that have recordings have policies and procedures in place in how/when they are used. As fo editing/changing the contents of the video, I don't think that has really every been an issue. Even if you look at the NJ officers' case where they were charged with tampering with evidence, it was due to the fact that they tried to hide the existance of the video and not that they changed the video.
Most cops actually want cameras as it generally clears them of wrongdoing. Take a look at the preacher from SC that just filed a complaint that he was harassed and treated wrongly on a traffic stop last year. The department released the dash cam footage that shows the exact opposite. The biggest issue when it comes to body cameras are privacy issues. When does the camera get turned on and when does it get turned off. You can't say that it is kept on the entire shift. What if the officer needs to go to the bathroom or make a private call to someone in his family? However, if the officer needs to turn it on, that might not be a problem if they are dispatched to a call, but what if something happens right in front of them requiring them to take immediate action? In that case, if the officer reacts and deals with the situation and forgets to turn on the camera, does that mean that they are necessarily hiding something? Also, privacy groups have raised concerns about body cameras. In states that require two-person knowledge for recording, is the officer required to tell every single person they come into contact with or see that is possibly being recorded that they are being recorded?
Also, if the cameras are running for a full shift, that is a lot of data being recorded. Who's paying for the storage of all this data? Think about small departments that don't have a huge budget or larger departments that have hundreds of officers.
I've seen many officers face consequences for the bad/wrong decisions that they've made. What laws by the Supreme Court are you referring to that give officers virtual immunity?
- Merg
It's called qualified immunity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity. It has been held up in several Supreme Court cases.
Type in google or whatever internet search browser you have these words: "officers turn off dashcam" and "officers tampered with video". You will find a huge slew of articles on this. It happens daily. Surely you do not live in a cave? or do you?
Here's several stories. Including one story where a news van was pulled over by 7 cop cars, assaulted by the cops, and ALL SEVEN dash cams malfunctioned at the same time. Mmmm...smells like bullshit.
http://www.theagitator.com/2010/08/12/when-police-videos-go-missing/
Put into a search engine ""officer cleared by video" and you will get just as many results as well. You can always find anything you want via a search on the Internet. I'm not saying that no officers would turn off the video. I'm sure that there are ones that do and there are ones that should not be officers. Every profession has bad apples. But to say the whole lot is bad due to the actions of a few is to overstate things.
- Merg
Maybe the best thing to do would be to get rid of the police and let people fend for themselves.
But, why is it that whenever an altercation occurs with the police it is always immediately that the police that are at fault?
Nice straw man. It sounds suspiciously like Cop Logic®. "If someone doesn't always take a cop's side, then they never do." I don't know of anybody who immediately thinks police are at fault "whenever an altercation occurs".
Most people probably think it's a small minority of altercations in which police are at fault. But if people read an article, see a video, or otherwise find out about a police altercation that sounds bad, of course they are going to initially think the police are at fault.
The cameras will only help IF the officers that are interacting with citizens have them turned on and or don't claim that they are broke. In addition the video and audio recorded should be protected from tampering and be live uploaded to a server where the police cannot change or edit the contents. Already right now we see many cops that claim dash cams are broken or a body camera was malfunctioning etc.
But I also believe the body camera's are not enough. There needs to be real consequences for these officers who abuse / neglect citizens or who outright do illegal things. No more paid time off, no more quietly retiring, no more slap on the wrists, no more getting out of jail for free cards.
The policies and some of the laws that the Supreme Court have implemented that give the cops virtual immunity from these type repercussions need to be changed. People have to demand that these laws get changed.
I know what qualified immunity is. The post made it seem like there are laws out there that give immunity to officers. That is not what qualified immunity is. All that states is that a police officers should be judged by his actions according to what a reasonable person would have known was legal or not.
- Merg
Put into a search engine ""officer cleared by video" and you will get just as many results as well. You can always find anything you want via a search on the Internet. I'm not saying that no officers would turn off the video. I'm sure that there are ones that do and there are ones that should not be officers. Every profession has bad apples. But to say the whole lot is bad due to the actions of a few is to overstate things.
- Merg
A recent ride along with one of my friends (a county sheriff) was really enlightening. Pretty much a game of predator and prey. He says their video is uploaded wirelessly once he pulls into the precinct. I didn't get to see the box that contains the data but it would need to be tamper evident proof IMO to pass muster. I agree an instant upload would be needed but may have to be stored locally before it can be uploaded in some cases. Yes I agree they should not be able to be turned off. Any arrest would have to have video included or charges dropped.
Yet normal people don't get that perk. "Negligence of the law is no excuse....unless you're a police officer".
One bad apple spoils the whole bunch. If those other mercenaries were "good" they'd not allow the bad apple to exist. Instead of justice they condone the bad apples with their code of silence or obstruction otherwise known as the blue line.
Yes, you do need to shoot center mass. -snip-
As for emptying the magazine, officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. -snip-
- Merg
Those we rhetorical questions. No answers required or sought. The ones you provided are the 'excuses' we've long been familiar with. Given the problems I think it time for a re-think.
Fern
Their video system is what many departments are trying to go to. The video recorder is in a locked box in the trunk that only specific people have access to, which does not include officers or their supervisors. The data is uploaded when the officers are in a specific hotspot, usually their station. The video starts recording when a record button is hit or when the lights are turned on. It then records the 30-seconds prior to the record action starting (with no audio). You state that it should not be able to be turned off. So does that mean the officer cannot have a private conversation at any time during the day? What if they need to use the restroom?
True. The Supreme Court, which generally has not been very pro-police in recent years, has continued to uphold Qualified Immunity. And it is not that you can get away with negligence, although I see why you say that, but rather that the court needs to view the incident from a reasonable person's point of view rather than looking at the intent of the officer. Qualified immunity looks at the incident by the officer "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". If the officer has committed a crime, they are not protected.
So, by that thinking, all teachers are bad since there are a few that take advantage of their position. And teachers protect themselves as well with the tenure system. I don't think that we could survive as a society if we all thought that.
And good cops don't want bad cops around. All having bad cops around is give the good cops a bad reputation. And while the blue wall (the blue line is what protects you), is something that made headlines in the 70's and 80's, most cops nowadays want nothing to do with that. Are there still bad ones out there? Yes. Are there still some good ol' boys departments out there? Sure. But, you can't condemn a whole group of people just for the actions of a few.
- Merg
Just out of curiousity, what would your answer to those questions be?
The only way to truely create change is to bring up other solutions and not just say that the current process is broken. (Not specifically directed at you.)
- Merg
I think the policy of deadly force needs to be reexamined.
There needs to be some balance between police protecting themselves and protecting us. Do they really need to empty the magazine? Do they really need to shot at only center mass? Do they really need to confront, or can they contain and wait for reinforcements until they have overwhelming force?
I was in the Red Light district in Amsterdam one time and a US Merchant Marine pulled a knife on a hooker. The police gathered around the front of the building (possibly the back too) and tried to him into calming down. He didn't calm down but when a sufficiently large crew of police had gathered instead of shooting him 6 or 8 times in the chest they just 'charged' him and took away the knife. They didn't even beat him up, just cuffed him and put him the cruiser. Are they that better trained than our police that they don't need to shoot the heck out of people?
Fern
All interactions with 'civilians' should be recorded. Playing your game of semantics is really a waste of time but I suppose you are aware of that.
Then that's not equal protection under the law. If an officer is given leeway that normal people are not then this is a very clear double standard.
Wrong. Teachers can't beat, taze, kidnap or shoot to kill with impunity and end up on paid leave. Did I mention with police/state protection? Those two professions are not even in the same ballpark. Try again.
Bullshit. If police cared about justice at all they would seek it in all situations but thats not what happens and you know it. Anyone who breaks the blue line of silence is ostracized. There are no 'good' cops as long as their police force contains a 'bad' cop. Simple. End of story.
Are you affiliated in any way with law enforcement? You seem to be on this thread like stink on shit and it would not surprise me.
1. I don't I have any real solutions. My education and professional background are irrelevant/non-helpful. maybe some suggestions where we might re-examine polices/practices.
2. My point would be that perhaps we stop blindly accepting the status quo and re-examine our policies. Suggestions for solutions will need to come from elsewhere, but certainly any new technologies and practices other (foreign) police forces use should be considered.
3. Another suggestion: I think the police have been excessively militarized. While there can be times this fire power might be necessary I think it's very rarely. Let's re-think when we deploy it.
4. No-Knock warrants? Again, there are probably very limited times it's justified. Let's re-think when we grant them.
5. Better training and/or policies? Remember Christopher Dorner? Why do we have police panicking and shooting at people/vehicles that don't even match the description?
6. IMO, much of this stuff is unacceptable. Perhaps we also need to re-think the level of accountability we hold individual police officers to. Just having the taxpayers fork over loads of money is no deterrent, or accountability, for the individual officers.
7. Preferring to hire ex-military? Is that the proper 'mind set' for officers? Maybe in limited SWAT type settings, but patrolling the streets? Perhaps we need different psyc profiles/screenings for police candidates?
Fern