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.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
The riot is, at least.
This, as that is what is being referred to. They willfully mislead, resulting in damage and pain to ordinary citizens. After she buries her husband, she should probably prepare to be sued. I know I would be all over her, and the police chief for good measure.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
Is the cop who did not have his camera on being punished? It seems he really screwed the pooch on this one by not having it on in an extremely volatile situation. Is the cop who was blocking the dash cam being punished?
Given the amount of distrust LEOs across the nation are currently getting, one would think they would be turning these on to protect themselves. But it seems that time and time again they are intentionally left off, obstructed, or tampered with.
It makes sense for people to think something is being hidden by the LEOs in these situations.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
Do you have proof the Charlotte police have been "repeatedly lying?" Please share this with us.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I haven't really been following this but did the LEO not have his camera on, did it malfunction, or was it not sufficiently charged?
Even if it was not recording for whatever reason does that have an impact when it was recorded by another officer present for the entire encounter, whose cam footage was released?
Dreadwinter wrote: Is the cop who did not have his camera on being punished? It seems he really screwed the pooch on this one by not having it on in an extremely volatile situation. Is the cop who was blocking the dash cam being punished?
Given the amount of distrust LEOs across the nation are currently getting, one would think they would be turning these on to protect themselves. But it seems that time and time again they are intentionally left off, obstructed, or tampered with.
It makes sense for people to think something is being hidden by the LEOs in these situations.
I used to ride motocross/GNCC and I can not tell you the number of times I plugged my camera in after a day of riding and realize I kept forgetting to turn it on after a break. Now in that situation, it would be even worse. Adrenaline is high and the number one concern is the person with the weapon, not a camera which you forgot was even there you have been wearing it so much, however if it violates policy, then there should probably be some sort of sanction.
As for the one blocking the dashcam, that would not be punishable, because you would have to prove it was being done on purpose, and it looked to me like he was simply maneuvering, and unless you have been shot at, or had that threat be a real situation, you can not understand that the fething camera is the last thing on your mind. To think other wise is a bit ignorant of the dangers of the situation they were in.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
Do you have proof the Charlotte police have been "repeatedly lying?" Please share this with us.
They have been mentioned in this thread already.
First off, the claim by the chief that procedure prevents the release of video. This waa a lie, besides the point that they released the video.
Second, the claim by the police that 70% of the protesters that were arrested had out of area ID's. Big fat whoppin lie.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
Do you have proof the Charlotte police have been "repeatedly lying?" Please share this with us.
They have been mentioned in this thread already.
First off, the claim by the chief that procedure prevents the release of video. This waa a lie, besides the point that they released the video.
Second, the claim by the police that 70% of the protesters that were arrested had out of area ID's. Big fat whoppin lie.
Both statements occurred after the rioting starting though, so that doesn't support your argument.
Do you have evidence concerning the 70% arrest rate and what police procedure is for Charlotte?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
actually if you read above a bit, I definitely said hold whomever lied responsible, including the chief. However I am a person that believes in individual responsibility. So if the chief is wrong, then the wife is wrong. Its not one or the other, its both. The problem with the train of thought your steaming ahead at full speed it that it doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions, just the ones you deem fit.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
Do you have proof the Charlotte police have been "repeatedly lying?" Please share this with us.
They have been mentioned in this thread already.
First off, the claim by the chief that procedure prevents the release of video. This waa a lie, besides the point that they released the video.
Second, the claim by the police that 70% of the protesters that were arrested had out of area ID's. Big fat whoppin lie.
Both statements occurred after the rioting starting though, so that doesn't support your argument.
Do you have evidence concerning the 70% arrest rate and what police procedure is for Charlotte?
If it's procedure not to release the video then why release the video? This was discussed earlier in the thread. Same as the 60-70% statement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 20:25:29
Dreadwinter wrote: Is the cop who did not have his camera on being punished? It seems he really screwed the pooch on this one by not having it on in an extremely volatile situation. Is the cop who was blocking the dash cam being punished?
Given the amount of distrust LEOs across the nation are currently getting, one would think they would be turning these on to protect themselves. But it seems that time and time again they are intentionally left off, obstructed, or tampered with.
It makes sense for people to think something is being hidden by the LEOs in these situations.
I used to ride motocross/GNCC and I can not tell you the number of times I plugged my camera in after a day of riding and realize I kept forgetting to turn it on after a break. Now in that situation, it would be even worse. Adrenaline is high and the number one concern is the person with the weapon, not a camera which you forgot was even there you have been wearing it so much, however if it violates policy, then there should probably be some sort of sanction.
As for the one blocking the dashcam, that would not be punishable, because you would have to prove it was being done on purpose, and it looked to me like he was simply maneuvering, and unless you have been shot at, or had that threat be a real situation, you can not understand that the fething camera is the last thing on your mind. To think other wise is a bit ignorant of the dangers of the situation they were in.
He knew the camera was on the dash. He knew the camera would have recorded the situation and would have backed up his claims if they were true. He knew blocking that camera is bad and could cause problems with the footage around the incident. Turning on a camera is vital for police officers because of situations like these. It is way different than having a camera on while riding motocross. This should not be something that slips the mind.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
actually if you read above a bit, I definitely said hold whomever lied responsible, including the chief. However I am a person that believes in individual responsibility. So if the chief is wrong, then the wife is wrong. Its not one or the other, its both. The problem with the train of thought your steaming ahead at full speed it that it doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions, just the ones you deem fit.
When did I say lying is okay?
every time you brush it to the side with a "but mommy he did it first" attitude justifying it, you are making it ok. when you say X is wrong, but so is Y, then you are effectively saying both are wrong, equally, not X is wrong, and Y doesn't matter because of X.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
If it's procedure not to release the video then why release the video? This was discussed earlier in the thread. Same as the 60-70% statement.
So you don't have evidence that either statement is false. So the lies noted not only occurred after the riot started, but its supposition on your part to whether they were lies. ok, I was hoping you had actual proof to your statements.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Dreadwinter wrote: Is the cop who did not have his camera on being punished? It seems he really screwed the pooch on this one by not having it on in an extremely volatile situation. Is the cop who was blocking the dash cam being punished?
Given the amount of distrust LEOs across the nation are currently getting, one would think they would be turning these on to protect themselves. But it seems that time and time again they are intentionally left off, obstructed, or tampered with.
It makes sense for people to think something is being hidden by the LEOs in these situations.
I used to ride motocross/GNCC and I can not tell you the number of times I plugged my camera in after a day of riding and realize I kept forgetting to turn it on after a break. Now in that situation, it would be even worse. Adrenaline is high and the number one concern is the person with the weapon, not a camera which you forgot was even there you have been wearing it so much, however if it violates policy, then there should probably be some sort of sanction.
As for the one blocking the dashcam, that would not be punishable, because you would have to prove it was being done on purpose, and it looked to me like he was simply maneuvering, and unless you have been shot at, or had that threat be a real situation, you can not understand that the fething camera is the last thing on your mind. To think other wise is a bit ignorant of the dangers of the situation they were in.
He knew the camera was on the dash. He knew the camera would have recorded the situation and would have backed up his claims if they were true. He knew blocking that camera is bad and could cause problems with the footage around the incident. Turning on a camera is vital for police officers because of situations like these. It is way different than having a camera on while riding motocross. This should not be something that slips the mind.
Have you ever been in that situation, where life, limb, or eyesight was the primary concern at that instant? If so, was your mind on anything other than the task at hand? Dashcam was obstructed as the officer maneuvered in. He did not look and check dashcam to make sure he was standing in the right place to block it, I am 100% sure at that moment in time, the camera was the last thing on his mind. I understand what you are saying, and yes better video would be better, and welcome. However until you can understand what its like in a situation like that, I don't think you can fault someone for forgetting his camera, or maneuvering to a situation and having a camera angle blocked.
Now if it is ever found that the officer purposely did not turn it on, due to that situation, then I say throw the book at him as far as department procedure goes, but I feel confident that one has nothing to do with the other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/27 20:30:46
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
Ouze wrote: I think it's extremely unlikely the cop who obstructed the dashcam view with his head had any idea he was doing so, let alone doing so intentionally.
Im not sure whats going on today Ouze, but that's the second time today we have whole heartedly agreed.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
Dreadwinter wrote: Is the cop who did not have his camera on being punished? It seems he really screwed the pooch on this one by not having it on in an extremely volatile situation. Is the cop who was blocking the dash cam being punished?
Given the amount of distrust LEOs across the nation are currently getting, one would think they would be turning these on to protect themselves. But it seems that time and time again they are intentionally left off, obstructed, or tampered with.
It makes sense for people to think something is being hidden by the LEOs in these situations.
I used to ride motocross/GNCC and I can not tell you the number of times I plugged my camera in after a day of riding and realize I kept forgetting to turn it on after a break. Now in that situation, it would be even worse. Adrenaline is high and the number one concern is the person with the weapon, not a camera which you forgot was even there you have been wearing it so much, however if it violates policy, then there should probably be some sort of sanction.
As for the one blocking the dashcam, that would not be punishable, because you would have to prove it was being done on purpose, and it looked to me like he was simply maneuvering, and unless you have been shot at, or had that threat be a real situation, you can not understand that the fething camera is the last thing on your mind. To think other wise is a bit ignorant of the dangers of the situation they were in.
He knew the camera was on the dash. He knew the camera would have recorded the situation and would have backed up his claims if they were true. He knew blocking that camera is bad and could cause problems with the footage around the incident. Turning on a camera is vital for police officers because of situations like these. It is way different than having a camera on while riding motocross. This should not be something that slips the mind.
Have you ever been in that situation, where life, limb, or eyesight was the primary concern at that instant? If so, was your mind on anything other than the task at hand?
Dashcam was obstructed as the officer maneuvered in. He did not look and check dashcam to make sure he was standing in the right place to block it, I am 100% sure at that moment in time, the camera was the last thing on his mind. I understand what you are saying, and yes better video would be better, and welcome. However until you can understand what its like in a situation like that, I don't think you can fault someone for forgetting his camera, or maneuvering to a situation and having a camera angle blocked.
Now if it is ever found that the officer purposely did not turn it on, due to that situation, then I say throw the book at him as far as department procedure goes, but I feel confident that one has nothing to do with the other.
The dashcam is the least of this argument. My main issue is the cop not having his camera on. There is no excuse for that. Regardless of intention, there should be a punishment for it. He has called the whole situation in to question by not having it on. Multiple angles of videos could tell you exactly what happened in this situation. More video the better to keep this from exploding in to the riots that have happened.
As far as being in sutations where life, limb, or eyesight was the primary concern, I have been. As a healthcare worker, I have been attacked by patients and assaulted. I have also been in many situations where I have to keep my wits about me or the person I am caring for will die.
Charlotte PD only finished outfitting all their officers with body cameras last September so it's not far fetched to think that the officer involved forgot to turn on the camera in the heat of the moment since it's not like he's had a body camera on his whole career. Apparently CMPD's plan is (was?) to get rid of all the dash cameras and only use body cameras so hopefully none of their officers forget to turn on their body cameras once the dash cams are gone.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article35451150.html
All Charlotte-Mecklenburg police patrol officers are now trained and equipped with body cameras, a CMPD spokesman confirmed Wednesday.
The body-worn cameras are in use through all 13 patrol divisions, spokesman Rob Tufano said. The final cameras were in place in about the last week.
CMPD purchased about 1,400 cameras and has issued about 1,200 so far. The agency contracted with the Taser company for the devices, with the cost for the equipment, maintenance, licensing and data storage coming to about $5.5 million spread over five years.
CMPD officers first started using body cameras in April.
The Metro and Providence divisions were the first to use them, Tufano said. In addition to patrol officers, canine and airport officers also have been trained and equipped.
The body-worn cameras are required to record a variety of activities, including traffic stops, arrests, use of force, when requested by a citizen during an interaction with an officer, disturbances and when officers are in their vehicle and activate the blue lights and siren.
Officers are not required to disclose they are using the body cams in their interactions with the public.
CMPD is evaluating the initial impact the body cams have had with officers using them in the field, Tufano said. That review is expected to be completed this year, he added, but he did not have a specific time-frame for when that evaluation will be finished.
CMPD is phasing out the use of patrol-car dashcams in favor of the body cameras.
Chief Kerr Putney told the Observer this month that dashcams are obsolete. Using the lipstick-sized body-worn cameras “is going to give you a lot more opportunities to capture (what happened),” Putney said.
In January, Charlotte City Council unanimously voted to buy body cameras for the police. Charlotte officials have said that the body-worn cameras are more effective than dashcams in achieving accountability and transparency.
Dreadwinter wrote: Is the cop who did not have his camera on being punished? It seems he really screwed the pooch on this one by not having it on in an extremely volatile situation. Is the cop who was blocking the dash cam being punished?
Given the amount of distrust LEOs across the nation are currently getting, one would think they would be turning these on to protect themselves. But it seems that time and time again they are intentionally left off, obstructed, or tampered with.
It makes sense for people to think something is being hidden by the LEOs in these situations.
I used to ride motocross/GNCC and I can not tell you the number of times I plugged my camera in after a day of riding and realize I kept forgetting to turn it on after a break. Now in that situation, it would be even worse. Adrenaline is high and the number one concern is the person with the weapon, not a camera which you forgot was even there you have been wearing it so much, however if it violates policy, then there should probably be some sort of sanction.
As for the one blocking the dashcam, that would not be punishable, because you would have to prove it was being done on purpose, and it looked to me like he was simply maneuvering, and unless you have been shot at, or had that threat be a real situation, you can not understand that the fething camera is the last thing on your mind. To think other wise is a bit ignorant of the dangers of the situation they were in.
He knew the camera was on the dash. He knew the camera would have recorded the situation and would have backed up his claims if they were true. He knew blocking that camera is bad and could cause problems with the footage around the incident. Turning on a camera is vital for police officers because of situations like these. It is way different than having a camera on while riding motocross. This should not be something that slips the mind.
Have you ever been in that situation, where life, limb, or eyesight was the primary concern at that instant? If so, was your mind on anything other than the task at hand?
Dashcam was obstructed as the officer maneuvered in. He did not look and check dashcam to make sure he was standing in the right place to block it, I am 100% sure at that moment in time, the camera was the last thing on his mind. I understand what you are saying, and yes better video would be better, and welcome. However until you can understand what its like in a situation like that, I don't think you can fault someone for forgetting his camera, or maneuvering to a situation and having a camera angle blocked.
Now if it is ever found that the officer purposely did not turn it on, due to that situation, then I say throw the book at him as far as department procedure goes, but I feel confident that one has nothing to do with the other.
The dashcam is the least of this argument. My main issue is the cop not having his camera on. There is no excuse for that. Regardless of intention, there should be a punishment for it. He has called the whole situation in to question by not having it on. Multiple angles of videos could tell you exactly what happened in this situation. More video the better to keep this from exploding in to the riots that have happened.
As far as being in sutations where life, limb, or eyesight was the primary concern, I have been. As a healthcare worker, I have been attacked by patients and assaulted. I have also been in many situations where I have to keep my wits about me or the person I am caring for will die.
Not being fecicious, I would argue that 1. you are better equipped mentally to deal with those loss of LLE situations, 2. The last thing on your mind was covering your ass. 3. We still don't know if it was a malfunction, failure to turn on, failure to record.
However I 100% agree with you that more video would be better, the multiple angles would have made a lot of this situation moot.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
Dreadwinter wrote: Is the cop who did not have his camera on being punished? It seems he really screwed the pooch on this one by not having it on in an extremely volatile situation. Is the cop who was blocking the dash cam being punished?
Given the amount of distrust LEOs across the nation are currently getting, one would think they would be turning these on to protect themselves. But it seems that time and time again they are intentionally left off, obstructed, or tampered with.
It makes sense for people to think something is being hidden by the LEOs in these situations.
I used to ride motocross/GNCC and I can not tell you the number of times I plugged my camera in after a day of riding and realize I kept forgetting to turn it on after a break. Now in that situation, it would be even worse. Adrenaline is high and the number one concern is the person with the weapon, not a camera which you forgot was even there you have been wearing it so much, however if it violates policy, then there should probably be some sort of sanction.
As for the one blocking the dashcam, that would not be punishable, because you would have to prove it was being done on purpose, and it looked to me like he was simply maneuvering, and unless you have been shot at, or had that threat be a real situation, you can not understand that the fething camera is the last thing on your mind. To think other wise is a bit ignorant of the dangers of the situation they were in.
He knew the camera was on the dash. He knew the camera would have recorded the situation and would have backed up his claims if they were true. He knew blocking that camera is bad and could cause problems with the footage around the incident. Turning on a camera is vital for police officers because of situations like these. It is way different than having a camera on while riding motocross. This should not be something that slips the mind.
Have you ever been in that situation, where life, limb, or eyesight was the primary concern at that instant? If so, was your mind on anything other than the task at hand?
Dashcam was obstructed as the officer maneuvered in. He did not look and check dashcam to make sure he was standing in the right place to block it, I am 100% sure at that moment in time, the camera was the last thing on his mind. I understand what you are saying, and yes better video would be better, and welcome. However until you can understand what its like in a situation like that, I don't think you can fault someone for forgetting his camera, or maneuvering to a situation and having a camera angle blocked.
Now if it is ever found that the officer purposely did not turn it on, due to that situation, then I say throw the book at him as far as department procedure goes, but I feel confident that one has nothing to do with the other.
The dashcam is the least of this argument. My main issue is the cop not having his camera on. There is no excuse for that. Regardless of intention, there should be a punishment for it. He has called the whole situation in to question by not having it on. Multiple angles of videos could tell you exactly what happened in this situation. More video the better to keep this from exploding in to the riots that have happened.
As far as being in sutations where life, limb, or eyesight was the primary concern, I have been. As a healthcare worker, I have been attacked by patients and assaulted. I have also been in many situations where I have to keep my wits about me or the person I am caring for will die.
Not being fecicious, I would argue that 1. you are better equipped mentally to deal with those loss of LLE situations, 2. The last thing on your mind was covering your ass. 3. We still don't know if it was a malfunction, failure to turn on, failure to record.
However I 100% agree with you that more video would be better, the multiple angles would have made a lot of this situation moot.
Possibly but not necessarily so. Even with more video footage and with the body camera turned on I don't think the CMPD would have released the footage faster than twitter/Scott's family/whomever could have put out the allegation that Scott was shot by cops while sitting in his car reading a book which would probably have led to riots even if footage was later made public that showed that book reading claim was a lie.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I haven't really been following this but did the LEO not have his camera on, did it malfunction, or was it not sufficiently charged?
Even if it was not recording for whatever reason does that have an impact when it was recorded by another officer present for the entire encounter, whose cam footage was released?
It sounds like they do not keep them on at all times (power and memory issues) and it is policy to turn them on when needed. It appears by the lack of audio initially the camera was in 'buffer mode' initially. Whether he turned it on late intentionally, was preoccupied, forgot, or some other issue like a malfunction, is not known at this point.
EDIT: The cop in question may not have been in position for his camera to have caught the shooting anyway based on the footage from it. He runs up when Scott is already on the ground.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 21:08:23
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Ouze wrote: I think it's extremely unlikely the cop who obstructed the dashcam view with his head had any idea he was doing so, let alone doing so intentionally.
This. If anything, we've learned a lesson about placing cameras on shoulders. Heaven forbid anything happen on the officers left side XD
What we really need is some kind of police variant of Google Glasses, so we can all see what the cops see as the cops see it.
If it's procedure not to release the video then why release the video? This was discussed earlier in the thread. Same as the 60-70% statement.
So you don't have evidence that either statement is false. So the lies noted not only occurred after the riot started, but its supposition on your part to whether they were lies. ok, I was hoping you had actual proof to your statements.
No. I don't feel like going over something that's been gone over ALREADY in this thread. Go back a couple pages. Not my fault you didn't pay attention earlier.
But it wasn't true, as widely reported, that 70% of the protesters arrested in Charlotte had out-of-state IDs. That claim was based on a remark made by Todd Walther, the spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police, during an interview with CNN host Erin Burnett:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney is refusing to release the bodycam video footage of the death of Keith Scott.
The announcement came just moments after Mayor Jennifer Roberts promised that there would be transparency in the case.
Putney claimed that he could not release the video footage because of a state law that requires a court order for such video to be released.
“The law is pretty specific, especially around criminal evidence for an investigation,” Putney said. “I cannot release that.”
But as the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina told ThinkProgress, the law Putney is referencing doesn’t even take effect until October 1, so relying on the controversial law doesn’t make sense in this case.
And people wonder why the police have lost the trust and respect of the communities that they work for.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
actually if you read above a bit, I definitely said hold whomever lied responsible, including the chief. However I am a person that believes in individual responsibility. So if the chief is wrong, then the wife is wrong. Its not one or the other, its both. The problem with the train of thought your steaming ahead at full speed it that it doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions, just the ones you deem fit.
When did I say lying is okay?
every time you brush it to the side with a "but mommy he did it first" attitude justifying it, you are making it ok. when you say X is wrong, but so is Y, then you are effectively saying both are wrong, equally, not X is wrong, and Y doesn't matter because of X.
Funny. I never made a claim about who did what first. My claim has always been that the riot was inevitable because of the way the police there act. If it wasn't this incident, it would have been another. Root cause analysis and all. What happened in the actual incident doesn't matter at all really.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/27 22:51:28
If it's procedure not to release the video then why release the video? This was discussed earlier in the thread. Same as the 60-70% statement.
So you don't have evidence that either statement is false. So the lies noted not only occurred after the riot started, but its supposition on your part to whether they were lies. ok, I was hoping you had actual proof to your statements.
No. I don't feel like going over something that's been gone over ALREADY in this thread. Go back a couple pages. Not my fault you didn't pay attention earlier.
But it wasn't true, as widely reported, that 70% of the protesters arrested in Charlotte had out-of-state IDs. That claim was based on a remark made by Todd Walther, the spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police, during an interview with CNN host Erin Burnett:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney is refusing to release the bodycam video footage of the death of Keith Scott.
The announcement came just moments after Mayor Jennifer Roberts promised that there would be transparency in the case.
Putney claimed that he could not release the video footage because of a state law that requires a court order for such video to be released.
“The law is pretty specific, especially around criminal evidence for an investigation,” Putney said. “I cannot release that.”
But as the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina told ThinkProgress, the law Putney is referencing doesn’t even take effect until October 1, so relying on the controversial law doesn’t make sense in this case.
And people wonder why the police have lost the trust and respect of the communities that they work for.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
actually if you read above a bit, I definitely said hold whomever lied responsible, including the chief. However I am a person that believes in individual responsibility. So if the chief is wrong, then the wife is wrong. Its not one or the other, its both. The problem with the train of thought your steaming ahead at full speed it that it doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions, just the ones you deem fit.
When did I say lying is okay?
every time you brush it to the side with a "but mommy he did it first" attitude justifying it, you are making it ok. when you say X is wrong, but so is Y, then you are effectively saying both are wrong, equally, not X is wrong, and Y doesn't matter because of X.
Funny. I never made a claim about who did what first. My claim has always been that the riot was inevitable because of the way the police there act. If it wasn't this incident, it would have been another. Root cause analysis and all. What happened in the actual incident doesn't matter at all really.
And that's what I am talking about. You are saying it doesn't matter that she lied. Whether it happened this time or would have happened somewhere else does not take responsibility from what did happen now, and what it was based on. I am not disagreeing with you that it was a boiling point, I am simply saying she and her lawyer can be directly linked to this action which did finally tip the scales towards rioting. There fore she bears responsibility as much as anyone else who may have broken laws previously. Inciting a riot I believe is still illegal. She may not have done it intentionally, however she still did it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 00:14:10
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
First off, you have to do it intentionally for it to be illegal
However, without the powder keg that the police set up...There wouldn't have been a riot in the first place. These riots don't happen because of just one incident. It is years of issues that keep on building up. Yes, this incident set off the riot, but ask yourself this...Why would so many people believe her that he was unarmed? The police need to do some serious work to repair their reputation. Putting all the onus of the riots on the 'lies' just masks the real root cause problem.
You need to treat the underlying root cause, not just try to blame it on the symptoms.
skyth wrote: First off, you have to do it intentionally for it to be illegal
However, without the powder keg that the police set up...There wouldn't have been a riot in the first place. These riots don't happen because of just one incident. It is years of issues that keep on building up. Yes, this incident set off the riot, but ask yourself this...Why would so many people believe her that he was unarmed? The police need to do some serious work to repair their reputation. Putting all the onus of the riots on the 'lies' just masks the real root cause problem.
You need to treat the underlying root cause, not just try to blame it on the symptoms.
Treating underlying cause is 100% correct. I am not even attempting to argue that. However it is false that she can not be held responsible for lying when said lie results in illegal activity. Intent vs impact is a staple of American precedent based law. I am simply saying that regardless of which phase the build up for these riots was in, her actions have consequences, and you can not be absolute in your desire to hold everyone else accountable, then say this person gets a pass. That's called bias. Its one of the factors leading up these riots in the first place. Unless you want tensions to start getting worse, then you have to start holding everyone accountable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/28 09:14:52
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
skyth wrote: She should be held as accountable for her lies as Donald Trump should. How's that?
Apples and Oranges. Although I loathe Donald Trump, he didn't willfully like to law enforcement, make a video with false claims which could then be linked back to the riots. However since you wanna go way off topic, he will get his. the IRS is worse than the FBI, and they will get that money back. If Hillary had failed to pay her taxes she wouldn't be campaigning right now.
Now back on topic. Why do people think the fair thing to do is ignore illegal activity from one group, to focus on another group and then think that will fix things?? Here is a scenario. Black people get upset so many arrests are happening, and so many patrols are going through the neighborhoods. Cops get tired of being shot, under appreciated, and decide hey you win, we will quit coming to your neighborhoods in masse like we were. months later the crime gets so out of control they are crying saying you don't care about us, why aren't you patrolling our neighborhoods. Police chief then orders more patrols, officers start arresting criminals, then black community starts spitting out percentages of cops arresting black people, and how unfair it is. Do you not see the problem with the way of thinking you are trying to push. Tensions will be bad on both sides till there is equal treatment, and all American humans are held to one standard equally.
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
If it's procedure not to release the video then why release the video? This was discussed earlier in the thread. Same as the 60-70% statement.
So you don't have evidence that either statement is false. So the lies noted not only occurred after the riot started, but its supposition on your part to whether they were lies. ok, I was hoping you had actual proof to your statements.
No. I don't feel like going over something that's been gone over ALREADY in this thread. Go back a couple pages. Not my fault you didn't pay attention earlier.
But it wasn't true, as widely reported, that 70% of the protesters arrested in Charlotte had out-of-state IDs. That claim was based on a remark made by Todd Walther, the spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police, during an interview with CNN host Erin Burnett:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney is refusing to release the bodycam video footage of the death of Keith Scott.
The announcement came just moments after Mayor Jennifer Roberts promised that there would be transparency in the case.
Putney claimed that he could not release the video footage because of a state law that requires a court order for such video to be released.
“The law is pretty specific, especially around criminal evidence for an investigation,” Putney said. “I cannot release that.”
But as the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina told ThinkProgress, the law Putney is referencing doesn’t even take effect until October 1, so relying on the controversial law doesn’t make sense in this case.
And people wonder why the police have lost the trust and respect of the communities that they work for.
skyth wrote: Well, since the police are responsible for a large portion of the antagpnistic relationship between them and the community that they work for, yes the riots are no big surprise and the root cause of the riots can be traced back to the police.
I also like how you seem fine with the police repeatedly lying but someone else does and everything is somehow their fault.
actually if you read above a bit, I definitely said hold whomever lied responsible, including the chief. However I am a person that believes in individual responsibility. So if the chief is wrong, then the wife is wrong. Its not one or the other, its both. The problem with the train of thought your steaming ahead at full speed it that it doesn't hold individuals accountable for their actions, just the ones you deem fit.
When did I say lying is okay?
every time you brush it to the side with a "but mommy he did it first" attitude justifying it, you are making it ok. when you say X is wrong, but so is Y, then you are effectively saying both are wrong, equally, not X is wrong, and Y doesn't matter because of X.
Funny. I never made a claim about who did what first. My claim has always been that the riot was inevitable because of the way the police there act. If it wasn't this incident, it would have been another. Root cause analysis and all. What happened in the actual incident doesn't matter at all really.
There you go. I stand corrected.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I was talking about his lies about immigrants which leads to more violence against them, but a better comparison would be the people thar made the false video about selling baby parts along with all the politicians that went along with that and the Christian terrorist that went and shot up an abortion clinic becausr of that.
You are pushing a false dichtomy. Police are not constantly being shot. At least not at the rate that makes the antagonistic methods and attitudes they use neccessary. Also, you fix the big, structural, problems first, then worry about the smaller things.
The problem with focusing on the incident rather than the structural problems is you lose sight of the big picture. You don't worry about a cracked window when your house is burning down.
The whole situation is like me putting something fragile on a flimsy table that is on a floor that is not well supported and shakes easily. You come up behind a friend nearby and startle them by tickling them. They jump which shakes the floor causing the fragile thing to fall and break. I'm not going to blame you for breaking it even though you 'caused' it to happen.
To get your analogy to be close to what happened your friend would have to deliberately jump up and down.
Telling the media he had a book and never had a gun was purposely jumping up and down on that fragile floor, ensuring it will take a lot longer to fix it.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
