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.

 Jihadin wrote:
Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.

That is asinine.

Just in case you are not aware, every LE agency I know of, from my county sheriff's office and up, automatically investigate each shooting and automatically place the cop involved on suspension (generally with pay) until the investigation is done. I am sure out of the many many LE agencies in the US there are exceptions to this, but I suspect there are not all that many.

And again, local LE is not a federal issue, a one size fits all federally mandated solution should not be what we are going for here.

I had thought that was what should happen now, that post was mostly to put forward my idea to discourage tampering with the cameras.

I don't know how many cops would risk suspension without pay, an investigation into their conduct over their whole career, possibly being fired and even criminal charges just so they could beat up/shoot somebody without the camera seeing.

On the other hand, the Ferguson case did show at least one police force not following procedure. They didn't write up an incident report for the shooting until weeks after it had happened and people had issued freedom of information requests for it. Those things are meant to be written within 24 hours of the incident happening, I believe.

 Jihadin wrote:
Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.

Ummm

this is my thoughts on that idea.... (Not that it is yours, because its not)

But:.....

Off topic.

The guy who beheaded people for ISIS for the world to see was he himself has been beheaded

On topic

Not going to fly but the NYPD Unions are making a attempt to get that into play. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests

Edit
grammar

 stanman wrote:
In an act of solidarity I wore a Black Lives Matter t-shirt to a Churches Chicken and tried to get some people organized and did a one man die in chanting hands up don't shoot. They apparently disliked it and I got several drinks and orders of food thrown at me and was told in no uncertain terms to GTFO backed with threats of physical violence. Given the overall reaction I didn't dare suggest rallying for black only places like the brunch protesters. With a cause that's supposed to be promoting colorblindness and racial equality wtf was up with that treatment?

HAHAH BLACK PEOPLE LIKE FRIED CHICKEN, GET IT?

I mean, seriously what even

 Jihadin wrote:
Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.

That seems like a stretch;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."

Isn't attacking an officer in the line of duty already an aggravating factor

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.

That seems like a stretch;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties."

Isn't attacking an officer in the line of duty already an aggravating factor

It is.

Labeling it a Hate crime is definitely not an appropriate course of action. Its already quite illegal to shoot someone, Officer or not.

Police have been targets by unstable individuals and gangs for as long as there have been gangs and cops, this is not knew and I have never known a cop that was unaware of this when they went into the job. So far many police organizations (not the police themselves) seem dead set on doing the stupidest things possible in this situation.

 Ahtman wrote:
Police have been targets by unstable individuals and gangs for as long as there have been gangs and cops, this is not knew and I have never known a cop that was unaware of this when they went into the job. So far many police organizations (not the police themselves) seem dead set on doing the stupidest things possible in this situation.

Reminds me quite a bit of the current situation with many of the unions out there.

 Jihadin wrote:

Not going to fly but the NYPD Unions are making a attempt to get that into play. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests

Groups that protest at funerals:
Westboro Baptist Church
NYPD

Hmm... so some of them want "black only spaces". Yeah. Pretty sure the US once had those, and it ended up with someone having a dream or something?

 CptJake wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Police Unions are trying to push shooting cops (assassination and attempt at assassination) to fall under Hate Crimes.

That is asinine.

So is the entire concept of a "hate" crime, but let's not get into that bag of dicks can of worms.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hmm... so some of them want "black only spaces". Yeah. Pretty sure the US once had those, and it ended up with someone having a dream or something?

Who... Who said "black only spaces"? I missed that. I ask because rambling anecdote ahead:

I had a philosophy professor teaching an intro course (and he was filling in, himself normally only doing graduate level courses) some 12 years ago or so who was talking about how civilization as we knew it was ending. He didn't say what would come afterward; he genuinely didn't know. Doomsaying isn't an uncommon theme throughout the ages, but neither is cultural change. The interesting thing is that he forcasted, in an age before the smart phone was a thing, the concept of the fragmentation of interests such that the concept of a geolocated community wouldn't matter due to people wishing to socialize with those who shared their own common beliefs. He made this observation based upon people talking less to each other on the street, not knowing your neighbors, and so on. He saw this divisiveness between people as causing breakdowns in the ability to relate to the guy next to you. I see it to some extent when I go to a bar and everyone is staring at their phones rather than talking to each other. I think they're probably just waiting on their friends to show up, surely though.

Anyway, it might be crap. Probably even is. I don't think he was thinking along racial lines at the time, but, still, it's interesting to see this happen, and along such similar themes. I wish I could hunt the old guy down and chat with him about what he thinks of how things turned out even a few years later just to see how he'd feel about it now.

 Ahtman wrote:
Police have been targets by unstable individuals and gangs for as long as there have been gangs and cops, this is not knew and I have never known a cop that was unaware of this when they went into the job. So far many police organizations (not the police themselves) seem dead set on doing the stupidest things possible in this situation.

In many states, shooting a cop is already either a higher level crime or a statutory aggravating factor.

Aka murder may get you life, but murdering a cop by statute may put you into the "gets the needle" category.

"Texas, other states are shutting down their executions. We're opening up an express lane."
-Ron White, patron saint of scotch drinkers.

 curran12 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:


I want accountability, but I don't want to make being cop harder than it already is.

Would you mind explaining this one a bit more for me? I find myself on the fence concerning how harshly camera use should be enforced. On the one hand, I believe that if you're going to be a cop, you should be expected to be held to the absolutely highest standards and that if you mess up with the biggest check on your behavior, you should be strictly held responsible. But on the other hand, I also work with people for whom technology is not an easy thing, so I can very much see this as creating a huge learning gap.

Well, first I should clarify that I'm not really super-duper in the "Cops need Cameras" camp personally. I don't like that there is effectively zero accountability in the LE space, and cameras are one potential tool that might be used to help change that. It's just that times where there is room to find common ground with folks that have mostly different world views are rare, and Frazzled was who made the post that kicked off the camera line of discussion in this thread.

When someone like Frazzled is kind of broadly agreeing that a problem I think exists, actually exists and starts talking potential solutions I don't find repugnant I'm inclined to search the common ground. So that's where I'm coming from in all this. I'm just trying to examine the tool and what potential issues it might have, and how those would be addressed. I'm not really advocating for cop-cams, It's just not something I'd be opposed to and I can see some merit in the idea. It isn't really in the set of top changes I'd put in place if I was like super-king of America or something.


All that said, I think the ideal camera solution would be one that's rather hands off for the cops. He clips it on the same way he does his badge and that's about it. It stores a local copy and transmits wirelessly to a long-term storage solution controlled by a 3rd party, probably a private company but also possibly a federal agency. He shouldn't need to turn it on or know how to service it, if something goes wrong it just starts flashing or beeping or something and the department could set whatever policy works to relieve him in as soon as is practically possible.

Cops without cameras wouldn't be allowed out on duty, but the nitty gritty of how lost cameras and the like can be dealt with by the departments themselves. I don't think there is any need for external agencies to be micro-managing the day-to-day of it. What would be important is that that ultimately the two core rules are enforced from outside. That is someone on the state or federal level has the right to randomly drop in and check that the cameras are in use for anyone out on the street and that same agency (whatever it is) also has the right to audit & verify the data stores at any time.

Ayah I'm sure there are ways to make the camera idea more secure and workable, and again its just one tool for greater accountability on all parties. The technology they are currently using is only been in use about a year and has just now moved from pilot programs. It will progress. Evidently many police who have them for awhile like them because it cuts down on bogus complaints against them.

Am I the only one who remembers Robocop and his camera eyes which were admissable evidence in a court of law?

Thank you for your cooperation.

 Jihadin wrote:
. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests

The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests

The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.

Which really begs the question of what we should consider "real crimes" anyway and how do we enforce them?

Do we start to make the "low level" crimes simple violations and issue tickets like we do with illegal parking? What's the solution to that?

I mean, they have to enforce the law, right? Or do they start to get the discretion to pick and choose what laws they enforce?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests

The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.

Which really begs the question of what we should consider "real crimes" anyway and how do we enforce them?

Do we start to make the "low level" crimes simple violations and issue tickets like we do with illegal parking? What's the solution to that?

Actually a few places have taken that route and are no longer arresting people for low level crimes and are issuing citations instead.

I mean, they have to enforce the law, right? Or do they start to get the discretion to pick and choose what laws they enforce?

They already have the discretion. Have you or anyone you know ever gotten a warning for anything instead of a ticket? There is your discretion.

The Broken Window Theory is another form of discretion in which police departments focus on what kind of crimes they want to police and which areas they want to police them in.

 d-usa wrote:


They already have the discretion. Have you or anyone you know ever gotten a warning for anything instead of a ticket? There is your discretion.

The Broken Window Theory is another form of discretion in which police departments focus on what kind of crimes they want to police and which areas they want to police them in.

Whoops, I think I accidentally cut out a piece of my comment:

The problem, IMO, with the notion of discretion when it comes to enforcing the law is that it opens up huge windows for racism and bias. To me, the job of a police officer when it comes to enforcing the law should be pretty black and white. Was the crime committed, or wasn't it? That's why we have a judicial branch that then interprets and adjudicates. Which of course opens the whole bias conversation again when it comes to sentencing, but I think there are better ways to implement oversight at that level than at the LEO/enforcement level.

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
. NYPD though at the moment pretty much at a work stoppage on low crime arrests

The amazing thing is that if places like the NYPD would have spend the last decade actually only arresting people for real crimes instead of arresting and stopping everybody for everything under their "shattered windows" policy then the situation would likely be completely different today.

Yes. Crime would be much higher-at pre Guiliani levels. That what the policy was before Guiliani.

Thats why crime fell.

Nothing slows crime like treating every citizen like a criminal.

 Ahtman wrote:
Nothing slows crime like treating every citizen like a criminal.

So this is a pretty interesting article:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/nypd-essentially-refusing-job-york-collapsed-chaos/

It's pretty obviously biased in some areas, but I think it does bring up some good points about what should and shouldn't be arrest-able offenses.

Quite frankly, I think it's silly that so many things can yield a court summons. But then again, it still irritates me that I can't pay a ticket online, or hell, when I get it from the officer who gave it to me via Stripe or something.

 Ahtman wrote:
Nothing slows crime like treating every criminal like a criminal.

Corrected your typo. If you don't like the laws, change them. Otherwise even poor people have the right to live in areas without graffiti, vandalism, and petty crimes, just like the rich people in their gated communities and high rises.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Nonsense. Recognising and acknowledging race is not racist. The assumed superiority of one's racial position relative to another's is racist.

So you do agree that assuming moral superiority over another race is racist? Glad we finally got that sorted out.

Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.

 Albatross wrote:

Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.

Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?

#whiteprivilege?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.

Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?

#whiteprivilege?

Well, it's not racist but it could be considered cold. Certainly the particular way you've framed it here comes off as rather crass and callous.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.

Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?

#whiteprivilege?

Nope, I would argue that it makes you kind of complacent but, then, as a fellow whitey I would also argue that complacency is kind of 'our thing'...

 Albatross wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.

Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?

#whiteprivilege?

Nope, I would argue that it makes you kind of complacent but, then, as a fellow whitey I would also argue that complacency is kind of 'our thing'...

Why do you think this is a white / black thing? Maybe in your country but we have lots of variations of nature's tanning salon here.
AGAIN look at the ethnicity of the two cops who were assassinated.

When the race baiters try to make this a black/white thing they destroy it as an issue.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


They already have the discretion. Have you or anyone you know ever gotten a warning for anything instead of a ticket? There is your discretion.

The Broken Window Theory is another form of discretion in which police departments focus on what kind of crimes they want to police and which areas they want to police them in.

Whoops, I think I accidentally cut out a piece of my comment:

The problem, IMO, with the notion of discretion when it comes to enforcing the law is that it opens up huge windows for racism and bias. To me, the job of a police officer when it comes to enforcing the law should be pretty black and white. Was the crime committed, or wasn't it? That's why we have a judicial branch that then interprets and adjudicates. Which of course opens the whole bias conversation again when it comes to sentencing, but I think there are better ways to implement oversight at that level than at the LEO/enforcement level.

Actually... *no*.

The LEO must must be able to use discretion. Otherwise, nothing gets done and we'd effectively be living in a police state.

It's a balancing act... should, the office ticket you always for speeding/tail light outtage? Or, should they, at their discretion, be allowed to let you off with a warning?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

Christ, fine, whatever - the implication that wealthy non-black people don't care enough about black people dying is racist. Now you've 'won', I'll let you get back to your PEGIDA rally, because, as everyone knows, white people are the real victim here. Someone really needs to stick up for white volk *ahem*, sorry, folks. I think you've proven that person should be you.

Is it racist that I (lower middle class and white) don't care about all the white trailer trash killing themselves with and over Meth in the Ohio and Kentucky cities within driving distance of where I live?

#whiteprivilege?

Nope, I would argue that it makes you kind of complacent but, then, as a fellow whitey I would also argue that complacency is kind of 'our thing'...

Why do you think this is a white / black thing?

I don't, necessarily. The protestors certainly seem to think it's a black/non-black thing though, or at least the blackbrunchers do. Maybe ask them.

Maybe in your country but we have lots of variations of nature's tanning salon here.

Dude, we have black people here. They are also, disproportionately stopped, searched, arrested and imprisoned, just like your black people.