• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Ferguson Live Feed

Still, I think I read that the police unions were against the cameras. That suggests to me that they are a bad idea, but, I dunno.
Interesting, to me it suggests that the way police operate is a bad idea and they don't want that exposed.

If your job was to shovel shit, carve up corpses, or deliver news of death to loved ones would you want your every moment on the job filmed and put on youtube?

Even when cops are acting reasonably and justly, most of what we pay them to do is ugly and unpleasant. Like 99.9% of the people on the planet, cops don't want to filmed every second they are on the job. What evil sinister monsters they must be.
 
People that do shady things during the course of their job wouldn't want those actions recorded. It self evident if someone has something to hide they will resist attempts to expose whatever they're doing.

How would feel about bank tellers that object to cameras watching them while they work counting and exchanging money or anyone verifying their till?
 
Interesting, to me it suggests that the way police operate is a bad idea and they don't want that exposed.

If your job was to shovel shit, carve up corpses, or deliver news of death to loved ones would you want your every moment on the job filmed and put on youtube?

Even when cops are acting reasonably and justly, most of what we pay them to do is ugly and unpleasant. Like 99.9% of the people on the planet, cops don't want to filmed every second they are on the job. What evil sinister monsters they must be.

how did youtube get into this discussion?
 
If your job was to shovel shit, carve up corpses, or deliver news of death to loved ones would you want your every moment on the job filmed and put on youtube?

Even when cops are acting reasonably and justly, most of what we pay them to do is ugly and unpleasant. Like 99.9% of the people on the planet, cops don't want to filmed every second they are on the job. What evil sinister monsters they must be.

how did youtube get into this discussion?
I like it when the simple, quick measures to address a problem are thrown out because, well, YouTube!

I'm pretty certain the Police Departments won't be live streaming their video.
 
If your job was to shovel shit, carve up corpses, or deliver news of death to loved ones would you want your every moment on the job filmed and put on youtube?

Even when cops are acting reasonably and justly, most of what we pay them to do is ugly and unpleasant. Like 99.9% of the people on the planet, cops don't want to filmed every second they are on the job. What evil sinister monsters they must be.
First, its not surprising to see you defending the American militarized police state be it with their domestic or foreign affairs.

But to address your point Hyladae brought up the fact that in jurisdictions where cameras have been introduced complaints of police brutality have dropped. So I'll trust reality over your opinion.

Second, many people have jobs where they are recorded every moment and they cope just fine. Virtually every public business has security cameras now. If you can find cases where unions have fought to have cameras removed from the workplace say for instance UPS warehouse workers then I'll buy your claim that 99.9% of people don't want their workplace recorded.

And most of what we pay police to do isn't ugly and unpleasant so spare us the appeals to police victim-hood. Most of their workday is driving around in the car or sitting in the car waiting to give people tickets. And the homicide detectives that spend their day dealing with horrific crime aren't notorious for shooting unarmed suspects anyway.
 
Do you consider Officer Wilson's testimony to be without bias?

Of course not. That's why I defined it as corroborating testimony. Wilson has a self-interest, clearly. The presumed chief witness for the prosecution, Johnson, also had obvious motive and bias to give testimony favorable to his friend. So the question is whether their disparate testimonies can be verified by other evidence. The physical evidence, witness testimony, and other evidence (like the radio traffic log) backed up Wilson. What motive or bias would any witness have to offer testimony supportive of Wilson's version of events?

The problem is that there is really no testimony other than Wilson's and Johnson's about what happened at the initiation of the confrontation (i.e. at the car door to start). Since it was the initial incident that drives whether there was a crime on Wilson's part or not, it would seem this is important. We have conflicting testimonies about this and the physical evidence can support a couple of scenarios. We don't really know who grabbed whom first. We don't know when Wilson drew his gun. If Brown did hit Wilson in the face, we don't know if that happened as a result of a scuffle initiated by Wilson. We do know that Wilson testified that he considered being hit in the face as justification to draw his weapon so it is likely he drew it on his own, without anyone reaching for it. We don't know if Brown really tried to grab the gun or was fending it off after Wilson drew it. One question I have asked and have not seen answered is whether Brown's fingerprints were found on Wilson's gun. Was the gun fingerprinted? We know that it was not secured at the scene -- Wilson bagged it of his own accord at a later time after leaving the scene.
 
What "most" of the witnesses say is of no importance at all. What the credible witnesses (the ones not making claims clearly contrary to fact and not self-contradictory) say matters.
In other words, those extremely few witnesses YOU agree with are the only credible ones :rolleyes: Even then, apparently witnesses are only credible sometimes but not others - as evidenced by the way Dorian Johnson is put forth as a witness when it suits but vilified as a thug when what he says happened doesn't fit the conservative narrative.

This history of this case is already being re-written to blame the victim (just like so many others before it), and those doing the blaming with never ever ever admit they are repeating out-and-out falsehoods.

Look at the quotes that ApostateAbe posted above--there already was rewriting of history in the testimony. We aren't trying to rewrite history, we are trying to address the earlier rewriting.
no you aren't.

All this crap about Michael Brown being a "thug" or a "robber" or even just less than perfect, and therefore not a fitting symbol for the current protests against police brutality, reminds me of how/why Rosa Parks is the person we best remember in the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and not Claudette Colvin or Mary Louise Smith

And have you stopped beating your husband yet?

(You're assuming this is a case of police brutality.)
Why yes Loren... I do assume police abuse when a man who was retreating, was at least 25 feet away, was already shot, was unarmed still winds up dead, AND the officer who killed him leaves his body laying in the middle of the street for hours without even the decency of covering it. Yes, Loren, there is something VERY brutal about that situation that needs to be addressed, and if you can't understand this reality you are the one who is full of fallacy.
 
How do you figure that?

I don't know about Nexus, but if I were a cop I'd want the cameras. No one can claim brutality if there is a clear video of the incident. Also, in places where the cameras have been implemented, instances of police brutality dropped AND complaints against police dropped considerably. If you want I'll post some links for you when I get back from picking up the wee man from school.

^^^ That
 
Interesting, to me it suggests that the way police operate is a bad idea and they don't want that exposed.

If your job was to shovel shit, carve up corpses, or deliver news of death to loved ones would you want your every moment on the job filmed and put on youtube?
I think the "and put on youtube" part isn't necessary. Nobody needs to see the footage unless there is suspicion of misconduct.
 
If your job was to shovel shit, carve up corpses, or deliver news of death to loved ones would you want your every moment on the job filmed and put on youtube?

Even when cops are acting reasonably and justly, most of what we pay them to do is ugly and unpleasant. Like 99.9% of the people on the planet, cops don't want to filmed every second they are on the job. What evil sinister monsters they must be.
First, its not surprising to see you defending the American militarized police state be it with their domestic or foreign affairs.

Really, because my whole life, I have opposed most of what the US military has done, and despite having 2 brothers in the Army get nauseous at rhetoric about soldiers and cops being heroes. I oppose all criminalization of drug use and sales, and generally think that most cops (including my brother) are authoritarian fuckwads of the sort that were the bullies as kids.
I just don't share you infantile reactionary worldview that paints cops as evil hollywood villains and denies basic realities of the need for cops and the realities of that job. I recognize that ultimately they are human beings and thus I don't invent sinister motives when just being a normal human being explains their behavior.

But to address your point Hyladae brought up the fact that in jurisdictions where cameras have been introduced complaints of police brutality have dropped. So I'll trust reality over your opinion.

That "reality" in no way conflicts with my opinion. My opinion, which is merely that cops like most humans don't want every second of their day filmed and viewed by the world for the purpose of picking apart flaws with every action they take, especially when the nature of the job requires doing unpleasant things in unpleasant situations with unpleasant people.

Second, many people have jobs where they are recorded every moment and they cope just fine.
It isn't a matter of "coping". It is a matter of whether people want to have their every word and action recorded for the purpose of ridiculing them, not for the purpose of their own safety as is the case with things like cameras at banks (which btw, don't record sound or any of the kind of behavioral detail of each employee that you are proposing for cops). The question is merely "why don't the cops want it?", and the clear answer is "For the same reasons almost no one else would want it."


Virtually every public business has security cameras now. If you can find cases where unions have fought to have cameras removed from the workplace say for instance UPS warehouse workers then I'll buy your claim that 99.9% of people don't want their workplace recorded.

So, if your boss put a camera on your desk in on your shirt in order to monitor your every move while on the clock, not to protect you but to control you, you would have no problem with that? Sorry, but your either lying or if not are clearly abnormal and unlike most human beings.


And most of what we pay police to do isn't ugly and unpleasant so spare us the appeals to police victim-hood.
Most of their workday is driving around in the car or sitting in the car waiting to give people tickets.

We don't pay them to wait for crime. We pay them to seek out and stop criminal activity. They spend time waiting and watching because fortunate for all of us, there is not visible acts of crime happening every moment in the eyesight of every cop. Besides, while waiting for crimes cops are having private conversations with each other, talking to themselves, etc.. It is really hard to imagine that they don't want every second of that recorded and accessible to the public?

When cops are enforcing the law inherently means conflicts with people, and usually rather unpleasant people and their victims who are distraught and upset. A huge % of the calls cops investigate are domestic violence and/or drunken disturbances. They deal with the taint of humanity. Even most non-criminal calls, like traffic accidents means dealing with dangerous, stressful, and often sad situations where no one is going to come off as being at their most appealing, especially to detached and unempathic judgers like yourself.
Everything about those situations is unpleasant and that you cannot recognize that shows extreme lack of empathy that explains your irrational villanizing of their every move. I am not claiming they are "victims". They choose the job. I am just recognizing the reality of the job that society asks and pays them to do, and that even if only just and sensible laws existed, theirs would be an ugly job whose day to day details they wouldn't want immortalized and publicly broadcast.
 
If your job was to shovel shit, carve up corpses, or deliver news of death to loved ones would you want your every moment on the job filmed and put on youtube?
I think the "and put on youtube" part isn't necessary. Nobody needs to see the footage unless there is suspicion of misconduct.

Such a limited access policy would not be sustainable. Not only would the footage be routinely hacked, but given the supervillan view of cops by many, the same people saying the DA cannot be trusted to prosecute cops, will say no one in government can be trusted to determine what on the tapes is "misconduct". There would be immediate outcry to make all the tapes a matter of public record, which would mean most of it on you-tube tomorrow.

Besides all of that, ask most people if they want their every move and word recorded "but we'll only expose your whole life if any of the many people with motive to harm you make a claim (no matter how baseless) of your misconduct." How many would have no problem with it? Why should we expect cops to feel differently than typical humans?
 
Besides all of that, ask most people if they want their every move and word recorded "but we'll only expose your whole life if any of the many people with motive to harm you make a claim (no matter how baseless) of your misconduct." How many would have no problem with it? Why should we expect cops to feel differently than typical humans?
They have authority over life and death decisions. They expect deference on such decisions. Frankly, I don't care what the police think about this. I don't care if they want cameras or not. If city or country wants them to have cameras on them, then so be it.
 
I think the "and put on youtube" part isn't necessary. Nobody needs to see the footage unless there is suspicion of misconduct.

Such a limited access policy would not be sustainable. Not only would the footage be routinely hacked, but given the supervillan view of cops by many, the same people saying the DA cannot be trusted to prosecute cops, will say no one in government can be trusted to determine what on the tapes is "misconduct". There would be immediate outcry to make all the tapes a matter of public record, which would mean most of it on you-tube tomorrow.
You know what else happens when cops wear cameras? Police brutality and complaints from citizens plummet. That's not an opinion, and it does not rely on anyone thinking cops are supervillains or anything else.

Besides all of that, ask most people if they want their every move and word recorded "but we'll only expose your whole life if any of the many people with motive to harm you make a claim (no matter how baseless) of your misconduct." How many would have no problem with it? Why should we expect cops to feel differently than typical humans?
When police are on duty, they are not private citizens. I would object to cops being monitored in such an invasive way in their private time.
 
BTW, the question of whether we should record every sound and move cops make is separate from whether it is predictable that they, like almost all humans, would prefer not to have that done, even if they are doing nothing criminal or wrong.

My response is only to the inane and unempathic notion devoid of psychological reality that cops would have no objection to it unless they were hiding criminal activity.

As to whether it should be done, I haven't directly addressed that and have no firm position on it but some of my prior observations are relevant.
Hacking of the video and audio streams would be a serious problem. There would be extremely high incentive fueled by billions of $ in yellow journalism to hack these videos, even without accusations of misconduct, merely for their entertainment value. Showing of these videos by outlets would be unprosecutable, just as it is now to prosecute airing of leaked information.
The videos would be of limited use without audio, so that means constant recording of all conversations and verbalized thoughts every officer has on duty. A pretty big invasions of privacy, considering the rampant hysteria here and everywhere about the NSA (by many the same people likely to support this proposed recording of police).
Every arresting officer has people with motive to want to subject him/her to humiliation or unwanted airing of their private life (and don't give me nonsense that someone's private life doesn't exist while in uniform). Thus, unless the video harms the suspect (which wouldn't even matter if other evidence clearly convicts them), almost every case would wind up with a charge of "misconduct" so that the officers videos are investigated. Why would it just be the video of the exact encounter? It would of course be demanded by the defendants attorneys that all his video before and after the incident be reviewed to reveal state of mind, intent, talking about it later, etc.. Who is going to view the videos? Certainly, not anyone associated with the government since just like now there would be claims of bias. Only unrestrained viewing by members of the public would satisfy the people calling for the taping to being with.
 
BTW, the question of whether we should record every sound and move cops make is separate from whether it is predictable that they, like almost all humans, would prefer not to have that done, even if they are doing nothing criminal or wrong.
Thank you for pointing out the irrelevant and the obvious.
My response is only to the inane and unempathic notion devoid of psychological reality that cops would have no objection to it unless they were hiding criminal activity.
It is equally inane to think that is relevant
As to whether it should be done, I haven't directly addressed that and have no firm position on it but some of my prior observations are relevant.
Hacking of the video and audio streams would be a serious problem. There would be extremely high incentive fueled by billions of $ in yellow journalism to hack these videos, even without accusations of misconduct, merely for their entertainment value. Showing of these videos by outlets would be unprosecutable, just as it is now to prosecute airing of leaked information.
The videos would be of limited use without audio, so that means constant recording of all conversations and verbalized thoughts every officer has on duty. A pretty big invasions of privacy, considering the rampant hysteria here and everywhere about the NSA (by many the same people likely to support this proposed recording of police).
Every arresting officer has people with motive to want to subject him/her to humiliation or unwanted airing of their private life (and don't give me nonsense that someone's private life doesn't exist while in uniform). Thus, unless the video harms the suspect (which wouldn't even matter if other evidence clearly convicts them), almost every case would wind up with a charge of "misconduct" so that the officers videos are investigated. Why would it just be the video of the exact encounter? It would of course be demanded by the defendants attorneys that all his video before and after the incident be reviewed to reveal state of mind, intent, talking about it later, etc.. Who is going to view the videos? Certainly, not anyone associated with the government since just like now there would be claims of bias. Only unrestrained viewing by members of the public would satisfy the people calling for the taping to being with.
Reality check: there are police departments now that use these cameras without the plethora of problems predicted.
 
That "reality" in no way conflicts with my opinion. My opinion, which is merely that cops like most humans don't want every second of their day filmed and viewed by the world for the purpose of picking apart flaws with every action they take, especially when the nature of the job requires doing unpleasant things in unpleasant situations with unpleasant people.
As others have pointed out who cares whether they like it or not. It lowers incidences of police brutality.

It isn't a matter of "coping". It is a matter of whether people want to have their every word and action recorded for the purpose of ridiculing them, not for the purpose of their own safety as is the case with things like cameras at banks (which btw, don't record sound or any of the kind of behavioral detail of each employee that you are proposing for cops).
Now I know you aren't thinking clearly if you think cameras in places like banks are for safety. Here's a hint, the cameras can't protect anyone from harm, their purpose is to aid investigation if a crime occurred.

So, if your boss put a camera on your desk in on your shirt in order to monitor your every move while on the clock, not to protect you but to control you, you would have no problem with that? Sorry, but your either lying or if not are clearly abnormal and unlike most human beings.
I worked eights years in a casino and I had multiple cameras recording every move I ever made. And no it never occurred to me to be bothered by that or demand they stop watching me. The 1000's of other casino employees I worked with over the years never mentioned they had a problem with cameras either.



We don't pay them to wait for crime. We pay them to seek out and stop criminal activity.
:hysterical: LOL no.

Besides, while waiting for crimes cops are having private conversations with each other, talking to themselves, etc.. It is really hard to imagine that they don't want every second of that recorded and accessible to the public?
As already mentioned, no one here is demanding a live stream.

Even most non-criminal calls, like traffic accidents means dealing with dangerous, stressful, and often sad situations where no one is going to come off as being at their most appealing, especially to detached and unempathic judgers like yourself.
Everything about those situations is unpleasant and that you cannot recognize that shows extreme lack of empathy that explains your irrational villanizing of their every move.
You defending the group that kills and brutalizes 1000's of people yearly while calling me the unempathic one is hilariously ironic. Tell you what, name me some other professions that have higher cases of lawsuits/settlements against them due to its members beating or killing the public. For instance, how many plumbers fed up with dealing with backed up shit, snap and attack homeowners culminating into a lawsuit and settlement?

Or maybe we could look into how many emergency room physicians rampage yearly due to the stress of very long hours, hostile patients and their families and other assorted job difficulties.
 
Such a limited access policy would not be sustainable. Not only would the footage be routinely hacked, but given the supervillan view of cops by many, the same people saying the DA cannot be trusted to prosecute cops, will say no one in government can be trusted to determine what on the tapes is "misconduct". There would be immediate outcry to make all the tapes a matter of public record, which would mean most of it on you-tube tomorrow.
You know what else happens when cops wear cameras? Police brutality and complaints from citizens plummet. That's not an opinion, and it does not rely on anyone thinking cops are supervillains or anything else.

It also has zero relevance to the claim I am objecting to which is that cops would have no problem with the cameras if they weren't a bunch of criminals trying to cover up their tracks.


Besides all of that, ask most people if they want their every move and word recorded "but we'll only expose your whole life if any of the many people with motive to harm you make a claim (no matter how baseless) of your misconduct." How many would have no problem with it? Why should we expect cops to feel differently than typical humans?
When police are on duty, they are not private citizens. I would object to cops being monitored in such an invasive way in their private time.

Actually, they are also private citizens protected by all the same laws. They are human beings with civil rights and they still have personal and private thoughts and conversations while on duty, just like every other person in every other job. That speaks to whether we should tape their every word and deed while in uniform, but more importantly it speaks to the issue I was actually addressing which is whether it is a normal human response not to want to be so recorded, and such an objection in no way implicates an effort to cover up wrong doing by cops.

BTW, do you have a cite for an actual randomized experiment showing direct causal impact on "police brutality". Because, otherwise it would be just your opinion. I've only seen one study approaching an "experiment" and not a very good one. The only did a pre-post camera test without any control group no wearing cameras. Given that the study was initiated by the police chief, it was almost certain he did countless other things at that same time to improve his department. In addition, the study did not measure "police brutality", only "use of force" which is not remotely the same since most use of force is not brutality. In order to show an impact on actual brutality they would need to objectively categorize every instance of force as "brutality" or "not" using a clear set of criteria. I'd be surprised if they actually did that since the data needed is almost never available. My guess is that in your ideological opinion all use of force is police brutality, thus it is your unscientific opinion that cameras reduce police brutality. What the study does show is that most accusations of brutality are lies that the liars immediately retract when told the whole interaction was filmed.

Note that is likely that cameras would alter cops actions and use of force. Thus, if actual (rather than claimed) brutality were rather common, cameras would likely reduce it. But your claim that it does reduce brutality is an unsupported opinion, unless you can show well controlled experiments in which each instance of use of force was objectively and reliably categorized as "brutality" or not. Again, all that is besides my actual point you are poorly responding to, which merely that cops have normal non-sinister human reasons to object to constant filming of most of their waking hours.
 
We don't pay them to wait for crime. We pay them to seek out and stop criminal activity.
:hysterical: LOL no
.

Your denial of this clear objective fact that no rational person would disagree with shows a total unwillingness to engage in honest and reasoned discussion of the issue. Given this, along with the vacuous lack of reason and fact in your posts, I'll be ignoring you from now on. Edited
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom