Police Thread Continued

[Suttree]

Guess what happened in Rialto, CA when police started wearing cameras.

So it is in Rialto, Calif., where an entire police force is wearing so-called body-mounted cameras, no bigger than pagers, that record everything that transpires between officers and citizens. In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.

[Sturn]

Guess what happened in Rialto, CA when police started wearing cameras.

So it is in Rialto, Calif., where an entire police force is wearing so-called body-mounted cameras, no bigger than pagers, that record everything that transpires between officers and citizens. In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.

That's why I'm also for them.

I wonder what they meant though by "use of force by officers declined". Details of what that meant in the article would have been nice being that just giving verbal commands to someone is considered a use of force. What types of use of force declined? Also, if it's reported use of force as reported by OFFICERS, that's one thing. If it's reported use of force as reported by a CITIZEN, that's probably a different number. What do I mean? Some people report cops do bad stuff when cops didn't. Is that 60% all about the cops acting better or is it because there was a sudden drop in false complaints by citizens? Probably some of both. It would be nice to know which factor carried more weight.

There is some evidence to the later in the second stat from the article - complaints against police fell 88%. There's probably quite a few complaints not being made because the liar knows his bullshit will be revealed by the video.

But yes, I'm all for getting body cams on all officers with the caveat I can turn it off when talking to my wife over lunch, pinching a loaf, or sitting alone in my office humming a tune while I do paperwork. I want them to keep cops and citizens honest, not something interfering with my personal privacy.

[mcbigski]

From the other thread, when the police become militarized they go from protecting and serving to fighting enemies, where the enemies are the civilian population.

WE ARE NOT THE ENEMIES!

Commander William Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

[Davos OnionKing]

Commander William Adama: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.

I think this sums it up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFia3Uo0TQ

[awesome possum]

Here's one of those "reasonable" cops with some advice for you: shut up and obey the cops or else.

"If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground," warns Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department, "just do what I tell you."

The thing is, Officer Dutta (pictured) is also anAdjunct Professor of Homeland Security and Criminal Justice at Colorado Technical University. And he uttered those words not in the heat of the moment, but in an opinion piece in theWashington Post responding to widespread criticism of police attitudes and tactics currently on display in Ferguson, Missouri, but increasingly common nationwide.

Dutta continues:

Don't argue with me, don't call me names, don't tell me that I can't stop you, don't say I'm a racist pig, don't threaten that you'll sue me and take away my badge. Don't scream at me that you pay my salary, and don't even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?

Dutta actually comes off as a reasonable law enforcement officer, when compared to some of his colleagues who can be found venting on police-only bulletin boards or referring to Ferguson protesters as "fucking animals." Dutta acknowledges that police can abuse their authority, saying "When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves."

He endorses the use of body cameras and dashcams to record interactions between police and the public. He counsels, "you don't have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there's no warrant."

And yet he demands unresisting submission to police without argument or even legal protest. Just how do you "refuse consent to search your car or home" without running afoul of the no-nos Dutta warns may get you "shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground"?

Remember, this is a thoughtful police officer, with a PhD., who teaches criminal justice.

[eyenon15]

What's a field stop?

[awesome possum]

I think its just any stop in general. When cops are on duty they are out in "the field" so basically any time they stop someone for any reason that's not a call-in response, its a field stop.

[eyenon15]

Cops around here must be abnormally slow. I've never seen one last only 5 minutes.

I record pretty much every stop I witness, they are never under 5 minutes.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

I actually see what he is saying. It would have been better phrased as "be polite".

In South Carolina any party necessary to a case who has been directed to come to court and is within 30 miles of the Courthouse is exempt from detention or arrest. If I'm pulled over by an officer while I'm within that zone I will absolutely not argue with the officer on the side of the road about the proprity of the manner in which the officer has detained me. While I would be within my rights to demand to be released it doesn't make sense to argue there. It will only inflame the situation and put me at risk.

I attempt to contact the officer after the fact or before court starts regarding the ticket and to resolve matter there. It works 90% of the time and doesn't piss anyone off.

To bring this back to the article. I think the point is that aggressively responding to a police stop may be within your rights but, as I tell my children, you catch more flies with honey and if you are polite with the officer who is detaining you you are much less likely to get some violent response.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

AP,

I actually see what he is saying. It would have been better phrased as "be polite".

In South Carolina any party necessary to a case who has been directed to come fo court and is within 30 miles of the Courthouse is exempt from detention or arrest. If I'm pulled over by an officer while I'm within that zone I will absolutely not argue with the officer on the side of the road about the proprity of the manner in which the officer has detained me. While I would be within my rights to demand to be released it doesn't make sense to argue there. It will only inflame the situation and put memat risk. I attempt to contact the officer after the fact or before court starts regarding the ticket and to resolve matter there. It works 90% of the time and doesn't piss anyone off.

To bring this back to the article. I think the point is that aggressively responding to a police stop may be within your rights but, as I tell my children, you catch more flies with honeymand if you are polite with the officer who is detaining you you are much less likely to get some violent response.

But that's the problem. Arguing a valid point can get your head slammed against the ground for no reason at all.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I totally agree with the permanent camera idea.

Should solve most problems fairly easily.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB,

No, I think the point of the article is that arguing the point aggressively is what can put you at risk. Calmly and politely stating your position should not cause a problem. I'm not saying it never does simply that it shouldn't.

[aceluby]

That's why I'm also for them.

I wonder what they meant though by "use of force by officers declined". Details of what that meant in the article would have been nice being that just giving verbal commands to someone is considered a use of force. What types of use of force declined? Also, if it's reported use of force as reported by OFFICERS, that's one thing. If it's reported use of force as reported by a CITIZEN, that's probably a different number. What do I mean? Some people report cops do bad stuff when cops didn't. Is that 60% all about the cops acting better or is it because there was a sudden drop in false complaints by citizens? Probably some of both. It would be nice to know which factor carried more weight.

There is some evidence to the later in the second stat from the article - complaints against police fell 88%. There's probably quite a few complaints not being made because the liar knows his bullshit will be revealed by the video.

But yes, I'm all for getting body cams on all officers with the caveat I can turn it off when talking to my wife over lunch, pinching a loaf, or sitting alone in my office humming a tune while I do paperwork. I want them to keep cops and citizens honest, not something interfering with my personal privacy.

Complaints against police are EXTREMELY difficult to do though, so while I think there are 'fake' complaints, I think the majority of this is because all parties know they are being recorded which changes both sides actions.

http://www.theagitator.com/2012/02/28/can-i-get-a-complaint-form/

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

It depends on the sort of ''cooperation'' they want, I guess. Either way, they shouldn't be shooting, tasering (etc) anyone unless they are breaking the law to a level that justifies such a response. Which arguing definitely doesn't meet.

Arguing was enough to get Eric Garner chocked to death by 5 cops.

[awesome possum]

AP,

I actually see what he is saying. It would have been better phrased as "be polite".

To bring this back to the article. I think the point is that aggressively responding to a police stop may be within your rights but, as I tell my children, you catch more flies with honey and if you are polite with the officer who is detaining you you are much less likely to get some violent response.

I don't disagree with you, I'm usually unfailingly polite in my personal interactions with any stranger unless that stranger is a dick first. But I also see the contradiction in saying "just do what I tell you if you don't want to get assaulted" in one breath and "but you have the right to refuse" in the next.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

That's why I think the author of that article didn't really express himself very well with those contradictory points.

[aceluby]

AP,

That's why I think the author of that article didn't really express himself very well with those contradictory points.

Which is sad since he's a professor teaching this stuff to potential cops.

[eyenon15]

I find it sad he's not even willing to even share blame, it's just nope cops always do it right. It's the public to blame when one of them gets shot or roughed up.

[awesome possum]

And in what should be no surprise, new data shows that police are rarely arrested for killing on the job

Philip Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, told TPM on Wednesday that his research showed there were 31 arrests of non-federal sworn law enforcement officers for a murder or non-negligent homicide committed with a firearm while on duty from 2005 to 2011. That would equal a little more than four per year. Another 10 arrests were made for negligent homicide with a firearm on duty in that seven-year time frame.

Over the same period, according to the FBI, the number of justifiable homicides committed by law enforcement officers with a firearm was 2,706 or about 385 per year.

[awesome possum]

This, unfortunately, is the face of the War on Drugs.