Ferguson Live Feed

[ksen]

guys, remember that doubtingt isn't a defender of the police

 

[none]

Pfft as a cop i'd shoot him in head twice.

 

[Nexus]

I post for everyone to read. Whether you address me directly with your false assumptions and failed predictions is irrelevant. I will continue to point out your flaws for others to see.

For the record neither of us has supported pro or con the assertion on whether cops seek out crime or mostly investigate it after the fact. That would require scrutinizing all police departments official and unofficial policies and determine a consensus of what they mostly do. For you to claim that your assertion is a "clear objective fact" is silly and delusional.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

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. I don't need to waste time arguing with the Nexus of dishonesty and ignorance.

I'm not really sure how it is we pay cops to go find people who haven't committed a crime yet. I guess that would be like setting up sting operations?

 

[doubtingt]

Thank you for pointing out the irrelevant and the obvious.

Sadly, the distinction is clearly not obvious to most promoters here of the idea, since nearly all of their responses to me presume that whether we should have cameras and whether cops are being normal humans to resist them are one and the same question. Their replies directly to my comments have no logical relevance anything I said, unless one presumes these issues are identical.

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

Relevant to what? What is inane is to assert something is irrelevant without specifying to what since everything simultaneously relevant to some things and irrelevant to others. All of my comments are directly relevant to each of the quoted posts to which I was responding. In addition, do you really think that cops having the same basic human desire for privacy as everyone else is completely irrelevant to whether they should be subject to a degree of surveillance unparalleled for any other people, including prisoners? Because that is what a person camera (especially with audio) mounted on your body amounts to.
Of course it is relevant. It may not be sufficient to override the benefits to proper policing, but it is a relevant consideration. To think that basic human desires not to be constantly watched is "inanely irrelevant" to enacting unprecedented levels of surveillance on individuals shows a penchant for authoritarian fascism way beyond that of most cops or their most right-wing defenders.

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.

Counter-reality check: small scale and not well known implementations are not likely to evoke the same byproduct effects as nation-wide well known policies do in the long run once people become aware of it and develop schemes to take advantage of it. If only a few towns were using the internet and few people in the world were aware of it, then there would be very little by way of billion dollars industries striving to hack into people's information on the internet.

 

[doubtingt]

.

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. I don't need to waste time arguing with the Nexus of dishonesty and ignorance.

I'm not really sure how it is we pay cops to go find people who haven't committed a crime yet. I guess that would be like setting up sting operations?

So, you're unaware that cops are called to intervene and stop ongoing criminal activity? It is what they do for every domestic violence call, every break in call, every drug dealing call, etc., etc.. Not to mention, the person most likely to commit the next crime is a person who already committed a crime. So, jailing people for past crimes stops them from committing some of the future crimes that most jailed people would otherwise be likely to commit. That isn't the reason to jail them, but it is a side consequence of police work that does stop some crimes from ever getting started.

As for "seeking out" criminal activity, that is the point of patrols. In addition, even traffic policing is a form of seeking out unlawful activity that poses often deadly threat to others. In addition, nothing I said denies that cops often respond to completed crimes to find the perps. That activity only supports my position that they are paid to confront law breakers which inherently means to engage in conflicts. We do not pay them to sit around waiting, that is just what they do much of the time in between the actions we are paying them to perform. Regardless, this is all a red-herring by Nexus to distract from the clear absurdity of his claim that cops would only object to constant surveillance if they had something to hide. His argument means that no one would object to what the NSA is doing (which pales in comparison to the proposed level of surveillance of cops), unless they are criminals with something to hide.

 

[ksen]

good lord, just stop

 

[none]

problem is cops get called when a crime has been committed otherwise they wouldn't be called.
if cops were so good at stopping crime they wouldn't have to be informed of a crime.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I'm not really sure how it is we pay cops to go find people who haven't committed a crime yet. I guess that would be like setting up sting operations?

So, you're unaware that cops are called to intervene and stop ongoing criminal activity? It is what they do for every domestic violence call, every break in call, every drug dealing call, etc., etc.. Not to mention, the person most likely to commit the next crime is a person who already committed a crime. So, jailing people for past crimes stops them from committing some of the future crimes that most jailed people would otherwise be likely to commit. That isn't the reason to jail them, but it is a side consequence of police work that does stop some crimes from ever getting started.

I see. I was confused. Your original statement was:

We don't pay them to wait for crime. We pay them to seek out and stop criminal activity.

I read the first sentence as the emphasis rather than the second. I'm still not sure if it's exactly right but at any rate it doesn't affect the point that we need cops to do the dirty work and it seems counter-productive to penalize the ones who are willing to get dirty doing it. Why we are angry at the cops who shoot thugs rather than at the thugs who get shot just seems crazy. Right?

 

[laughing dog]

Relevant to what? What is inane is to assert something is irrelevant without specifying to what since everything simultaneously relevant to some things and irrelevant to others. All of my comments are directly relevant to each of the quoted posts to which I was responding. In addition, do you really think that cops having the same basic human desire for privacy as everyone else is completely irrelevant to whether they should be subject to a degree of surveillance unparalleled for any other people, including prisoners? Because that is what a person camera (especially with audio) mounted on your body amounts to.
Of course it is relevant. It may not be sufficient to override the benefits to proper policing, but it is a relevant consideration. To think that basic human desires not to be constantly watched is "inanely irrelevant" to enacting unprecedented levels of surveillance on individuals shows a penchant for authoritarian fascism way beyond that of most cops or their most right-wing defenders.

Expansion of an irrelevant point does not make it more relevant.

Counter-reality check: small scale and not well known implementations are not likely to evoke the same byproduct effects as nation-wide well known policies do in the long run once people become aware of it and develop schemes to take advantage of it. If only a few towns were using the internet and few people in the world were aware of it, then there would be very little by way of billion dollars industries striving to hack into people's information on the internet.

I see. Data is only relevant when it buttresses your paranoiac predictions.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why we are angry at the cops who shoot thugs rather than at the thugs who get shot just seems crazy. Right?

A lot of the anger I am seeing is at cops who are shooting people who aren't thugs and at cops who are shooting people who may be thugs but haven't done things that should automatically result in death sentences.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Why we are angry at the cops who shoot thugs rather than at the thugs who get shot just seems crazy. Right?

A lot of the anger I am seeing is at cops who are shooting people who aren't thugs and at cops who are shooting people who may be thugs but haven't done things that should automatically result in death sentences.

Doesn't that presume guilt on the cops' part?

 

[RavenSky]

A lot of the anger I am seeing is at cops who are shooting people who aren't thugs and at cops who are shooting people who may be thugs but haven't done things that should automatically result in death sentences.

Doesn't that presume guilt on the cops' part?

Isn't a cop shooting someone for no good reason a better example of that cop presuming guilt of the civilian?

Less about Michael Brown than about the 12-year-old boy just killed for having a toy gun, or John Crawford for holding the store's own merchandise or any of the hundreds of similar examples.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Doesn't that presume guilt on the cops' part?

Isn't a cop shooting someone for no good reason a better example of that cop presuming guilt of the civilian?

Less about Michael Brown than about the 12-year-old boy just killed for having a toy gun, or John Crawford for holding the store's own merchandise or any of the hundreds of similar examples.

I don't know. Maybe. But cops are routinely tasked with dealing with life threatening emergencies. They have families to go home to also.

 

[RavenSky]

Isn't a cop shooting someone for no good reason a better example of that cop presuming guilt of the civilian?

Less about Michael Brown than about the 12-year-old boy just killed for having a toy gun, or John Crawford for holding the store's own merchandise or any of the hundreds of similar examples.

I don't know. Maybe. But cops are routinely tasked with dealing with life threatening emergencies. They have families to go home to also.

How does that excuse some of them from abusing their power and killing people instead of properly assessing the situation and acting appropriately?

John Crawford had a family to go home to as well.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A lot of the anger I am seeing is at cops who are shooting people who aren't thugs and at cops who are shooting people who may be thugs but haven't done things that should automatically result in death sentences.

Doesn't that presume guilt on the cops' part?

Well, let me put it this way: there are certainly enough questionable actions around the country by police officers that I'm not immediately presuming guilt on the part of the people being shot. And in many cases, it is difficult for onlookers to not question if there were some other way of approaching these situations that would not have resulted in a fatal shooting.

Whether a police officer feels he was justified is not an excuse for getting into a situation without a proper threat assessment and risking the death of an innocent.

 

[ZiprHead]

http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/table-finalfinalup4.png

Chart of witness testimony.

 

[Rhea]

Isn't a cop shooting someone for no good reason a better example of that cop presuming guilt of the civilian?

Less about Michael Brown than about the 12-year-old boy just killed for having a toy gun, or John Crawford for holding the store's own merchandise or any of the hundreds of similar examples.

I don't know. Maybe. But cops are routinely tasked with dealing with life threatening emergencies. They have families to go home to also.

In 2013, 27 cops and 23 cab drivers were killed feloniously. You don't see cab drivers shooting innocent people out of fear of being able to get home that night. Why do you suppose the difference? Killed in the line of dute - all of them. No big city wide parades for the cabbies, alas, nor brotherhood donations to widows and orphans. Nevertheless, killed while doing their job.


Curious, no? Something to ponder.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

taking the word of a bunch of witnesses with an agenda over the word of a cop who's sworn to protect and to serve seems a little bit misguided. No?

 

[Shadowy Man]

taking the word of a bunch of witnesses with an agenda over the word of a cop who's sworn to protect and to serve seems a little bit misguided. No?

The cop can't have an agenda? Witnesses can't be impartial?