Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 On 7/18/2017 at 11:27 AM, ljkeane said: It's pretty bizarre. With police shootings, even if they're not justified, you can usually see why they did it; because they overreacted or misinterpreted a situation or whatever. Shooting a women in her pyjamas, who called the police and was apparently talking to his partner, through the door of a police car is hard to understand. The only thing that makes sense to me is that he wrongfully had his firearm unholstered and it accidentally went off, kind of like in Pulp Fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 apparently the man arrested based on this "discovery" has been in Jain since Jan on $50k bail (sentence has subsequently shorten and ultimately charges dropped after states attorneys office was shown video) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: The only thing that makes sense to me is that he wrongfully had his firearm unholstered and it accidentally went off, kind of like in Pulp Fiction. I read somewhere that a firework went off that might have startled him. No idea why the gun was out, though. What I've been reading about the body cam policy in Minn. is that the officers have to turn them on prior to use of force. How is that a reasonable standard? Is there a reason they are just not always on, or maybe they get turned off when traveling, but otherwise need to be on? Having to manually turn them on prior to using force seems counter-intuitive. How exactly are you supposed to know ahead of time if something unexpected happens? And body cams are not only good for clarifying order of events in situations like these, it helps protect the police from spurious lawsuits brought against them in all kinds of situations. Unless there's some kind of technical limit, I'd think they should be on anytime an officer could conceivably interact with the public.So not while driving (dash cam covers that) and not in the office ... and that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 its a shitty policy based on cops supposed right to privacy; but instead of only being able to turn them off in certain, short intervals like when they use the bathroom, they are supposed to actively turn them on before they shoot a citizen or plant drug evidence... totally makes sense. maybe now that they killed a white lady that might change, as it should. you wanna be a cop, have the power of life and death over anyone you meet? fuck it we all get to see the hog (or equivalent, hog-type analogue) eta: what kind of weirdo points their dang chest down towards their junk when using the can? no one should see your shit anyway, jfc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 20, 2017 Author Share Posted July 20, 2017 13 hours ago, Simon Steele said: I'll be honest--I wasn't sure how this would go. If the people who ignored the messages of groups like BLM would continue to defend the police, or would see this shooting as a problem. Not enough of a problem, though, as evidence that the police are out of control, but interesting they aren't supporting the police one hundred percent. I'm really trying to avoid phrases that paint deniers in a negative/racist light. But this woman being murdered is tragic, same as Eric Garner, Philando Castile, Kendra James, and Alton Sterling. The moment I saw this latest one, I felt some of the deniers might, at least, change their tune. This is what the staunch police defenders are doing; they are focusing in on the religion and place of origin of the officer who shot the vicitim as though his religion or place of origin is in any way relevant: http://silenceisconsent.net/muslim-cop-justine-damond-shocking-dirt/ :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 12 hours ago, Gertrude said: I read somewhere that a firework went off that might have startled him. No idea why the gun was out, though. What I've been reading about the body cam policy in Minn. is that the officers have to turn them on prior to use of force. How is that a reasonable standard? Is there a reason they are just not always on, or maybe they get turned off when traveling, but otherwise need to be on? Having to manually turn them on prior to using force seems counter-intuitive. How exactly are you supposed to know ahead of time if something unexpected happens? And body cams are not only good for clarifying order of events in situations like these, it helps protect the police from spurious lawsuits brought against them in all kinds of situations. Unless there's some kind of technical limit, I'd think they should be on anytime an officer could conceivably interact with the public.So not while driving (dash cam covers that) and not in the office ... and that's about it. The body cams we have in the MPS are not constantly on, you have to activate it on the way to or when an incident occurs, it captures any data up to 30 seconds before the activation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: This is what the staunch police defenders are doing; they are focusing in on the religion and place of origin of the officer who shot the vicitim as though his religion or place of origin is in any way relevant: http://silenceisconsent.net/muslim-cop-justine-damond-shocking-dirt/ :facepalm: Of course they are. Ridiculous. When a minority gets murdered, the minority did something wrong. When a white woman is murdered, it's not the institution, but again, the minority who did it. I guess they're at least consistent in their bigotry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said: The body cams we have in the MPS are not constantly on, you have to activate it on the way to or when an incident occurs, it captures any data up to 30 seconds before the activation. Do you know why this is the standard? What issues do you have with that? In the above video the cop wouldn't have gotten caught if he'd have waited 30 more seconds to clear the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFatCoward Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 i assume its a data thing and also officers can't be searching through 8 hours of footage every time they want to present something as evidence. if anyone shot someone, and didn't turn the camera on within 30 seconds to capture the incident i'd be thinking 'somebody fucked up and is hiding it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 But they wouldn't actually be searching through 8 hours of footage. I mean, obviously they'd know a ballpark time for when something occurred, right? If they didn't, then perhaps those 8 hours need to be searched to find out why they can't remember a time frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 its a shitty policy based on cops supposed right to privacy; but instead of only being able to turn them off in certain, short intervals like when they use the bathroom, they are supposed to actively turn them on before they shoot a citizen or plant drug evidence... totally makes sense. While that's definitely a part of it, there's actually some concerns (I read an article from the ACLU that, while supportive, also pointed out some issues) with privacy of potential suspects and/or bystanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 3 hours ago, Galactus said: While that's definitely a part of it, there's actually some concerns (I read an article from the ACLU that, while supportive, also pointed out some issues) with privacy of potential suspects and/or bystanders. yeah, there's that too, which is pretty fair. can only too easily imagine YouTube channels full of shitbag cops surreptitiously videoing women on the street etc.... shitty conundrum to be stuck with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 2 hours ago, commiedore said: yeah, there's that too, which is pretty fair. can only too easily imagine YouTube channels full of shitbag cops surreptitiously videoing women on the street etc.... shitty conundrum to be stuck with No, that isn't the main concern. Let's go with, say, the police responding to a domestic violence situation. The person abused is beaten up, he's hurt, scared, and is in a bad situation. The house might be looking horrible. They don't want to have that out on the internet and be ridiculed or identified or anything; it would make a bad situation far worse. Turning every police officer into a walking mobile eavesdropping device isn't good, but arguably there's tech already out there that does things like that. But having police go into a house and having that potentially FOIAed or hacked and leaked? That's really not good, and is a huge invasion of privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centrist Simon Steele Posted July 30, 2017 Share Posted July 30, 2017 On 7/19/2017 at 11:50 PM, r'hllor's red lobster said: its a shitty policy based on cops supposed right to privacy; but instead of only being able to turn them off in certain, short intervals like when they use the bathroom, they are supposed to actively turn them on before they shoot a citizen or plant drug evidence... totally makes sense. maybe now that they killed a white lady that might change, as it should. you wanna be a cop, have the power of life and death over anyone you meet? fuck it we all get to see the hog (or equivalent, hog-type analogue) eta: what kind of weirdo points their dang chest down towards their junk when using the can? no one should see your shit anyway, jfc What I keep coming back to on this is that they murdered a yoga instructor just outside of her home. They're putting us down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Kilmore Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 On 7/27/2017 at 1:03 AM, Kalbear said: No, that isn't the main concern. Let's go with, say, the police responding to a domestic violence situation. The person abused is beaten up, he's hurt, scared, and is in a bad situation. The house might be looking horrible. They don't want to have that out on the internet and be ridiculed or identified or anything; it would make a bad situation far worse. Turning every police officer into a walking mobile eavesdropping device isn't good, but arguably there's tech already out there that does things like that. But having police go into a house and having that potentially FOIAed or hacked and leaked? That's really not good, and is a huge invasion of privacy. Yeah, victim privacy is also an issue and one we forget. I think an interesting factor is the company that supplies the body cams for the officers in the Twin Cities is developing a sensor that turns the camera on whenever a gun is unholstered. I think that is the way to go and probably should be extended to other things like tasers, batons, and/or handcuffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 18 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said: Yeah, victim privacy is also an issue and one we forget. I think an interesting factor is the company that supplies the body cams for the officers in the Twin Cities is developing a sensor that turns the camera on whenever a gun is unholstered. I think that is the way to go and probably should be extended to other things like tasers, batons, and/or handcuffs. That sounds like a sensible idea. And maybe one that turns off if you undo your zipper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 On 8/2/2017 at 7:39 AM, Guy Kilmore said: Yeah, victim privacy is also an issue and one we forget. It's an issue, but it's pretty easily solved. There are ways to redact video evidence just like there are with other kinds of evidence. I don't find that argument particularly compelling. If the private information gets leaked, then there should be accountability for not protecting that information, just like there is with many other professions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 9 hours ago, ants said: That sounds like a sensible idea. And maybe one that turns off if you undo your zipper! Honestly, if a police officer has drawn their weapon AND undies their pants I really think that should be recorded most of all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, Swordfish said: It's an issue, but it's pretty easily solved. There are ways to redact video evidence just like there are with other kinds of evidence. I don't find that argument particularly compelling. If the private information gets leaked, then there should be accountability for not protecting that information, just like there is with many other professions. lol. buddy, i've got some news about police that's gonna just blow your mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 17 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said: lol. buddy, i've got some news about police that's gonna just blow your mind I doubt that very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.