Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I mean, stupid is as stupid does and all, but I have to think that a cop is substantially more likely to only use force when there is no other choice if he knows it's being videotaped.

If this were true, there would be a LOT more incidents with deadly force being used by police. The trouble I have with your statement is that it appears to imply that cops are essentially loose cannons ready to blast at any moment for any reason with only the thread of disciplinary action holding them back. Most police are just hard working people who would honestly love to be that cop who goes his entire career without ever having to draw his weapon. They want to protect people from the worst of society, not gun down anyone in a hoodie like they're playing CoD2 or whatever.

It's not like we have evidence that use-of-force has declined in departments that have issued body cameras...

DO you have evidence that it hasn't?

I do believe that we covered the evidence a number of times in this thread already...

But to summarize it one more time:

Departments that have issued body cameras have seen use-of-force decrease as well as complaints about use-of-force. This could be for two main reasons:

1) police officers know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to use excessive force because of it.
2) people interacting with the police know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to act stupid and the police will be less likely to require use-of-force (which would be warranted). People will be less likely to provoke the police if they know that they won't have a case to sue them over due to evidence.

They keep people on both sides of the camera transparent and use-of-force drops.

 d-usa wrote:
I do believe that we covered the evidence a number of times in this thread already...

But to summarize it one more time:

Departments that have issued body cameras have seen use-of-force decrease as well as complaints about use-of-force. This could be for two main reasons:

1) police officers know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to use excessive force because of it.
2) people interacting with the police know that they are being recorded and that evidence against them will be readily available. So they are less likely to act stupid and the police will be less likely to require use-of-force (which would be warranted). People will be less likely to provoke the police if they know that they won't have a case to sue them over due to evidence.

They keep people on both sides of the camera transparent and use-of-force drops.

So aren't you denying your own position then and we do have evidence cameras reduces incidents.
I'm not getting what you're trying to argue. Are you saying cameras are bad or good?

Clearly they are good. I want cameras on them. I want dash cams. I want drones delivering me pizza...hourly. Wait how did the pizza comment get in there?

I posted the evidence before.

I have argued for their use.

I replied "it's not like we have evidence..." sarcastically.

I've been pretty consistent regarding cameras. Both for holding cops accountable and protecting them from wrongful accusations.

Now for actual Ferguson news.

Looks like the PD finally released the report, and it's almost completely blank? Is that an actual thing or are stupid websites trying to post crap again?

And an apparent audio recording of the shooting has two sets of shots, six followed by four.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/michael-brown-ferguson-shooting/index.html?c=homepage-t&page=0

 d-usa wrote:
I posted the evidence before.

I have argued for their use.

I replied "it's not like we have evidence..." sarcastically.

Ok. Sarcasm doesn't work well without emoticons. Thats why your message was throwing me.

He shot 10 times...

So, he missed on 4 of those in a residential area? Where did those go?

Going the grand jury route eh? Interesting.

The Onion always puts a good perspective on things:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-pros-and-cons-of-militarizing-the-police,36717/

 Frazzled wrote:
Going the grand jury route eh? Interesting.

Why?

They said they were going to do that from day one.

Its all super secret with a grand jury (at least in MO evidently).

 Frazzled wrote:
Its all super secret with a grand jury (at least in MO evidently).

What's the dealio over the "supra secret grand jury" meme that's popping up all the sudden?

I thought that's how grand jurys work...

There's a meme? Does it involve wiener dogs or bacon?

It's how they work, and it's not a new complaint. People have had a problem with it for a long time because:

1) The only person that gets to decide what to present to them is the prosecutor.
2) It's super secret, so you don't know what the prosecutor presented (unless you live in Austin)
3) They pretty much always do what the prosecutor wants.

So the main complaint is that the prosecutor gets to charge, or not charge, and do something that is unpopular while at the same time pretending he didn't actually do it.

"I didn't choose not to charge him. I just presented all the evidence to the grand jury and they made the decision not to charge him. I pinkie swear that I made the best case I totally could."

That's the main beef people have with it.

I do think that MO also has the option of presenting all the evidence and do this whole thing in front of a judge, so there would be transparency doing it that way.

 Frazzled wrote:
There's a meme? Does it involve wiener dogs or bacon?

Sorta...

It all started with the outcry that the DA of St. Louis County is the son of a police officer killed in the line of duty and that whole ordeal. Which was nothing more than an intra-party squabble.

Then, there was accusations that the officials already have a good idea that Officer Wilson won't be charged, that they're stretching the "Grand Jury" deliberation as long as they can (till October) in order to defuse the Ferguson situation. Thus, folks were clamoring for more transparency of the current Grand Jury deliberations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It's how they work, and it's not a new complaint. People have had a problem with it for a long time because:

1) The only person that gets to decide what to present to them is the prosecutor.
2) It's super secret, so you don't know what the prosecutor presented (unless you live in Austin)
3) They pretty much always do what the prosecutor wants.

So the main complaint is that the prosecutor gets to charge, or not charge, and do something that is unpopular while at the same time pretending he didn't actually do it.

"I didn't choose not to charge him. I just presented all the evidence to the grand jury and they made the decision not to charge him. I pinkie swear that I made the best case I totally could."

That's the main beef people have with it.

Oh... okay.

*shrug*

Let the judicial system work.

I do think that MO also has the option of presenting all the evidence and do this whole thing in front of a judge, so there would be transparency doing it that way.

It's the fact that some Grand Jury may not agree to indict, but the Prosecutor can still attempt to indict w/o the Grand Jury's support. The only difference is that the Prosecutor must then convince the Judge the there's enough evidence to proceed with the trial.

I'm all about body cams. I think they should be required for all the reasons d-USA said earlier. There is literally no negative to them.

More body cams, less dodge chargers and expeditions and other uneccesary vehicles.

Agreed.

Yep, so many issues and so much money could be saved if they just put camera's on every cop. Everyone (cops and civilians) would be better behaved. We have the technology. I say use it. Less tanks and swat gear for small towns and more cameras on the officers.

Interesting exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/26/bill-oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-face-off-over-white-privilege/

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.

Pretty dang good article from 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ferguson-missouri/

Seriously... check it out.

 cincydooley wrote:
Interesting exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/26/bill-oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-face-off-over-white-privilege/

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.

<--- No. Not enough beer in the world.

----> Maybe. She might just be a ball breaker, though.

Kronk explaining with careful logic and reasoned facts for his preference for talking heads.

Your logic is irresistable.

Interesting read, whembly, but I still can't fathom $15 an hour for McDonald's. That gak is absurd.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yes. Megyn Kelly is an attractive 40 something.

 cincydooley wrote:
Interesting exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/26/bill-oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-face-off-over-white-privilege/

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.

Wow, the comments on that page are, well, insane.

 cincydooley wrote:
Interesting read, whembly...

Agreed with this. Seems kind of like a vicious circle...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Interesting exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/26/bill-oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-face-off-over-white-privilege/

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.

Wow, the comments on that page are, well, insane.

And your surprised?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Interesting exchange between Bill O'Reilly and Megyn Kelly.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/26/bill-oreilly-and-megyn-kelly-face-off-over-white-privilege/

I'm not a huge O'Reilly fan at all, because he does so often ignore statistics like the ones Kelly brings to the table. This is a pretty good representation of why I do like Kelly a fair amount, though.

Wow, the comments on that page are, well, insane.

And your surprised?

I always get a kick out of the ones that make me wonder if I'm not in the south during the early 19th century and I'm not just hallucinating all this technology. And by a kick, I mean sheer horror.

 whembly wrote:
Pretty dang good article from 538:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ferguson-missouri/

Seriously... check it out.

Thanks for sharing. This part really resonated with me...

“It all has to do with economics,” she said. “Who wants to go out and get a job and make $7.50 an hour?”

The civil unrest will only get worse until something changes across the country about this. I recall talking to a women who just had a baby. She was looking at her job opportunities vs. the cost of daycare. It turned out getting a job would be a net loser of income and instead staying home and collecting Government subsidies would make her more money. As a rational actor what do you think she chose to do?

Is the problem that wages are too low or are subsidies too high? Well, keep in mind wages have stagnated or dropped since 1977. Never in my lifetime have I seen "peak" wages in inflation adjusted dollars. IN the meantime, benefits for social programs have actually gone down. So I think it is pretty clear what the answer is. Wages need to move and it is in everyone's best intersts for that to happen otherwise we can expect more civil unrest.

It's like the Guilded Age II- Social Darwinism Harder!

Then why did she have a baby int he first place?

Well Frazz, when a mommy loves a daddy very much; sometimes they have a baby.

Remember, it's a child not a choice.