8 ms·

I pseudo-randomly sampled 30 videos... Almost all of them had outright wrong, or heavily misleading titles and/or descriptions with contradictory claims in the

I pseudo-randomly sampled 30 videos... Almost all of them had outright wrong, or heavily misleading titles and/or descriptions with contradictory claims in the comments - and almost none of them provided context to the police actions. This list is really more about stoking emotions than providing evidence of anything. I mean look at this one... https://twitter.com/jayjanner/status/1267111893753307137 https://twitter.com/jayjanner/status/1267111893753307137 A large volume of misleading hyperbolic claims by a biased collector/poster don't get more meaningful through volume of posts.

SamuelAdams 6y ago
This is why any footage of an incident used in court must include the entire interaction. Police body cam footage can be rejected as evidence if it does not start with the officer stepping out of his vehicle. This is why so many iPhone recordings from bystanders gets thrown out in trial. Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely. But it doesn't help anyone when people are cherry picking instances where escalation of force was warranted, but they do not show the full context leading up to that escalation. I would like to see meaningful police reform as much as anyone else. But we need to be pragmatic about any examples we cite as "abuse of force". Let's create a list of absolutely cut-and-dry instances of police brutality, then move from there.
- tartoran 6y ago
  Handcuffing a lifeless freshly shot body is more than enough. I’ve seen it over and over. Why is that a policy? Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy? The police rule by fear. I’ve never broken the law and yet Im really affraid of cops in the US. I know I should not have a reason to but can’t help but be intimidated by their tactics, their orders, their demeanour. And I act like a scared ghost anytime I get stopped by them: I am afraid that if any answer I’d give them might make them punish me with one more more tickets.
  - racnid 6y ago
    1) Because "freshly shot lifeless" bodies can and have come back to kill people. 2) Because there is no such thing as shoot to wound. If you've gotten to the point where you're shooting at someone they need to be dead. Any bullet holes in your body are potentially fatal. Especially the famous leg shot; damage to your femoral artery will kill you extremely quickly.
    - tartoran 6y ago
      Yikes. No. If you don’t get threatened with a gun or another weapon you don’t shoot period. Some people have mental issues and normally they twitch a lot. And cops claim they were afraid for their lives, it’s the easy license to kill. I find that barbaric and no wonder we see so much backlash against the police force!!!
      - wl 6y ago
        It doesn't take a weapon to kill someone. A blow to the head can be fatal. And as we recently saw in the case of George Floyd, positional asphyxiation and/or choking can be fatal, too. When considering whether or not the use of deadly force was justified in a given situation, the lack of a weapon isn't the trump card indicating the force was not justified that many people think it is.
  - tlear 6y ago
    1. Simple. People go into shock look incapacitated, then come out of it. People get pumped with a dozen rounds and keep fighting. 2. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever shot a pistol? Now to simulate the Andrenaline dump run few sprints then try again. You CAN NOT shoot to disable this is not a Hollywood movie, it does not work. Most people can’t hit anything past few meters away with a pistol. Gun is not a taser or a nightstick. It is a lethal weapon and should only be employed when you have a reason to kill.
    - bhandziuk 6y ago
      Then they shouldn't have a gun at all
- standardUser 6y ago
  "Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely." That's really all we need to know to demand radical changes to police culture, if not the entire concept of ubiquitous armed police forces.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    That isn't a logical conclusion to draw. Are there instances where doctors negligently kill their patients? Absolutely. That does not mean we need to "radically" change doctor culture, if not the entire concept of doctors performing surgeries with sharp objects. The RATE is abuse is more important than the mere existence of abuse. These emotional comments have lost touch with logical thinking. The media is driving people crazy.
    - socraticmethod 6y ago
      "The RATE is abuse is more important than the mere existence of abuse." So what's an acceptable rate for the murder of PoC due to ongoing systemic racism and abuse of authority at the hands of the Police?
    - standardUser 6y ago
      Doctors aren't granted a monopoly on violence by the state, so that comparison makes no sense.
- wl 6y ago
  > Police body cam footage can be rejected as evidence if it does not start with the officer stepping out of his vehicle. This is why so many iPhone recordings from bystanders gets thrown out in trial. That's nonsense. Evidence is never excluded because it doesn't tell the whole story. If that were the case, admitting any evidence at all would be a rare occurrence. Rather, each side in a case tries to piece together their version of the story with the evidence that is available to them. Generally speaking, evidence is only excluded if it's unreliable (e.g. hearsay) or irrelevant.
DanBC 6y ago
So, for the example you provide the only contradictory claims come from accounts that have very few followers. The few posts saying "she was throwing things" have fewer than 10 followers. But, also, rubber bullets are less lethal, not non lethal, and so they should be reserved for situations where life is at risk. If she wasn't throwing molotov cocktails or bricks they shouldn't have used rubber bullets on her. The other claim is that she was pregnant and thus shouldn't have gone. This is incoherent: we want protests to be non-violent, so we want pregnant women and children to be able to attend.
- hef19898 6y ago
  As a rule of thumb, coming from my dad who served in the German federal police and was sent to every single castor transport (nuclear waste to be stored in Germany, quite a controversial topic) up to 2007/8, countless fottball games and G8/20, NATO conferences, demonstrtions decrease in violence with increasing numbers of children, women and older people. Applies to both sides, except for the children of course. The worst thing they ever used, as far as I remember, was water cannons and riot shields.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    German police is trained to deescalate if possible and for riot or protest control, use of lethal weaponry is rarely authorized if riot control is necessary at all. Water cannons can still hurt people but they're massively less lethal than any type of bean bag rounds or rubber bullets. Notably, the German police is also trained for much longer, three to four years at minimum. They're trained with guns to aim for parts of the body that make it less likely to kill a target instantly or quickly and instead incapacitates them (of course, with a gun you can never know but you can alter the odds) and to only use guns as the very last resort of stopping someone. Every bullet a german police officer fires in the line of duty is accounted for (54 in 2018) and every person killed is investigated by police officers from a different precinct (11 killed in 2018). From what I've experienced and seen, guns seem to be treated as the first weapon of choice for the police officer in the US, which is the wrong mentality.
    - 6y ago
freeflight 6y ago
> This list is really more about stoking emotions than providing evidence of anything. Yet lists like that is all we have to actually quantify the problem because there are literally zero attempts of doing it on a federal level [0]. In that context, I always consider it quite fascinating how the federal US government is allegedly very informed how many protesters are killed by security forces in countries like Iran, yet the same federal US government couldn't tell you how many of its citizens are killed each year by their own police. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-year-after-ferguson-why-nobody-knows-how-many-people-n405376 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-year-after-ferguson...
- koheripbal 6y ago
  > lists like that is all we have to actually quantify the problem That's obviously not the case. We have mountains of data on the problem.
no-s 6y ago
>>pseudo-randomly sampled 30 videos... same here. I saw a couple out of 20 that looked like gratuitous police brutality. many were labeled as such and didn't seem likely. The deluge of irrelevant examples and confusing commentary confuses the point.

SamuelAdams 6y ago

This is why any footage of an incident used in court must include the entire interaction. Police body cam footage can be rejected as evidence if it does not start with the officer stepping out of his vehicle. This is why so many iPhone recordings from bystanders gets thrown out in trial. Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely. But it doesn't help anyone when people are cherry picking instances where escalation of force was warranted, but they do not show the full context leading up to that escalation. I would like to see meaningful police reform as much as anyone else. But we need to be pragmatic about any examples we cite as "abuse of force". Let's create a list of absolutely cut-and-dry instances of police brutality, then move from there.

tartoran 6y ago
Handcuffing a lifeless freshly shot body is more than enough. I’ve seen it over and over. Why is that a policy? Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy? The police rule by fear. I’ve never broken the law and yet Im really affraid of cops in the US. I know I should not have a reason to but can’t help but be intimidated by their tactics, their orders, their demeanour. And I act like a scared ghost anytime I get stopped by them: I am afraid that if any answer I’d give them might make them punish me with one more more tickets.
- racnid 6y ago
  1) Because "freshly shot lifeless" bodies can and have come back to kill people. 2) Because there is no such thing as shoot to wound. If you've gotten to the point where you're shooting at someone they need to be dead. Any bullet holes in your body are potentially fatal. Especially the famous leg shot; damage to your femoral artery will kill you extremely quickly.
  - tartoran 6y ago
    Yikes. No. If you don’t get threatened with a gun or another weapon you don’t shoot period. Some people have mental issues and normally they twitch a lot. And cops claim they were afraid for their lives, it’s the easy license to kill. I find that barbaric and no wonder we see so much backlash against the police force!!!
    - wl 6y ago
      It doesn't take a weapon to kill someone. A blow to the head can be fatal. And as we recently saw in the case of George Floyd, positional asphyxiation and/or choking can be fatal, too. When considering whether or not the use of deadly force was justified in a given situation, the lack of a weapon isn't the trump card indicating the force was not justified that many people think it is.
- tlear 6y ago
  1. Simple. People go into shock look incapacitated, then come out of it. People get pumped with a dozen rounds and keep fighting. 2. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever shot a pistol? Now to simulate the Andrenaline dump run few sprints then try again. You CAN NOT shoot to disable this is not a Hollywood movie, it does not work. Most people can’t hit anything past few meters away with a pistol. Gun is not a taser or a nightstick. It is a lethal weapon and should only be employed when you have a reason to kill.
  - bhandziuk 6y ago
    Then they shouldn't have a gun at all
standardUser 6y ago
"Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely." That's really all we need to know to demand radical changes to police culture, if not the entire concept of ubiquitous armed police forces.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  That isn't a logical conclusion to draw. Are there instances where doctors negligently kill their patients? Absolutely. That does not mean we need to "radically" change doctor culture, if not the entire concept of doctors performing surgeries with sharp objects. The RATE is abuse is more important than the mere existence of abuse. These emotional comments have lost touch with logical thinking. The media is driving people crazy.
  - socraticmethod 6y ago
    "The RATE is abuse is more important than the mere existence of abuse." So what's an acceptable rate for the murder of PoC due to ongoing systemic racism and abuse of authority at the hands of the Police?
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Doctors aren't granted a monopoly on violence by the state, so that comparison makes no sense.
wl 6y ago
> Police body cam footage can be rejected as evidence if it does not start with the officer stepping out of his vehicle. This is why so many iPhone recordings from bystanders gets thrown out in trial. That's nonsense. Evidence is never excluded because it doesn't tell the whole story. If that were the case, admitting any evidence at all would be a rare occurrence. Rather, each side in a case tries to piece together their version of the story with the evidence that is available to them. Generally speaking, evidence is only excluded if it's unreliable (e.g. hearsay) or irrelevant.

DanBC 6y ago

So, for the example you provide the only contradictory claims come from accounts that have very few followers. The few posts saying "she was throwing things" have fewer than 10 followers. But, also, rubber bullets are less lethal, not non lethal, and so they should be reserved for situations where life is at risk. If she wasn't throwing molotov cocktails or bricks they shouldn't have used rubber bullets on her. The other claim is that she was pregnant and thus shouldn't have gone. This is incoherent: we want protests to be non-violent, so we want pregnant women and children to be able to attend.

hef19898 6y ago
As a rule of thumb, coming from my dad who served in the German federal police and was sent to every single castor transport (nuclear waste to be stored in Germany, quite a controversial topic) up to 2007/8, countless fottball games and G8/20, NATO conferences, demonstrtions decrease in violence with increasing numbers of children, women and older people. Applies to both sides, except for the children of course. The worst thing they ever used, as far as I remember, was water cannons and riot shields.
- zaarn 6y ago
  German police is trained to deescalate if possible and for riot or protest control, use of lethal weaponry is rarely authorized if riot control is necessary at all. Water cannons can still hurt people but they're massively less lethal than any type of bean bag rounds or rubber bullets. Notably, the German police is also trained for much longer, three to four years at minimum. They're trained with guns to aim for parts of the body that make it less likely to kill a target instantly or quickly and instead incapacitates them (of course, with a gun you can never know but you can alter the odds) and to only use guns as the very last resort of stopping someone. Every bullet a german police officer fires in the line of duty is accounted for (54 in 2018) and every person killed is investigated by police officers from a different precinct (11 killed in 2018). From what I've experienced and seen, guns seem to be treated as the first weapon of choice for the police officer in the US, which is the wrong mentality.
  - 6y ago

freeflight 6y ago

> This list is really more about stoking emotions than providing evidence of anything. Yet lists like that is all we have to actually quantify the problem because there are literally zero attempts of doing it on a federal level [0]. In that context, I always consider it quite fascinating how the federal US government is allegedly very informed how many protesters are killed by security forces in countries like Iran, yet the same federal US government couldn't tell you how many of its citizens are killed each year by their own police. [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-year-after-ferguson-why-nobody-knows-how-many-people-n405376 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-year-after-ferguson...

koheripbal 6y ago
> lists like that is all we have to actually quantify the problem That's obviously not the case. We have mountains of data on the problem.

no-s 6y ago

>>pseudo-randomly sampled 30 videos... same here. I saw a couple out of 20 that looked like gratuitous police brutality. many were labeled as such and didn't seem likely. The deluge of irrelevant examples and confusing commentary confuses the point.