44 ms·
And being live streamed without consent is the right way? The problem with the adversely approach is that it gets behaviour like this. You back someone into th
by Guthur 6y ago
And being live streamed without consent is the right way?
The problem with the adversely approach is that it gets behaviour like this. You back someone into the corner and how do you think they'll react, defensive and insular or open to mutual understanding and growth.
I'm not a US citizen but I do feel there is something generally wrong with the policing there and a need for universal improvement that aligns the police closer to the citizens.
- notagoodidea 6y agoNot an US citizen but the issue with police is that for a start in every country that I know of, they are not your equal law-abiding citizen when wearing a uniform. Most of the time, they have law tools allowing them to arrest, fine you, etc. if they feel threaten, being at risk or insulted and only by their own appreciation. Nobody will review their appreciation and to contest such case, it fail on you side to make all the necessary steps to contest (best case scenario if you don't end up dead on the street). So being live streamed without consent is first and foremost a citizen tool to overwatch the police's action and honestly you don't have anything else allowing to do that in real-time. Policemen are not backed in a corner when filmed, they are acting in broad light. It may seems adversely but police proved since decades that they always took the violent path when interacting with people one way or the other and giving policeman the power to take it down on people profiled or randomly is a repeated proof. If great powers comes with great responsibilities, an uniform does not seem to come with a way to enforce the later.
- mcdevilkiller 6y agoThey have the same ability/powers in my country and it virtually never happens. To my mind, there's a problem with how US citizens view police officers, an how US police officers view US citizens.
- bluGill 6y agoIt doesn't happen often here either. However when utility does your hear about it.
- inter_netuser 6y agopolice are the enforcers for upper clases. of course they'd be immunized from all kinds of consequences, and they know it. you simply can't do it any other way.
- mschuster91 6y ago> And being live streamed without consent is the right way? Cry me a river. Police, when using the powers that the people gave them, should not have any problem being held accountable for what they are doing. There's a difference between an individual (and that may also be an officer off-duty) being live streamed without consent or an actor acting on behalf of the government like a cop or a politician being live streamed.
- dzhiurgis 6y agoNot a US citizen either, but I feel there something wrong with US citizens to begin with. Policing is just a reflection of it.
- jmpz 6y agoCare to elaborate on this? I am a US citizen, and I find it hard to understand the implication that US citizens are responsible for the violence and aggressive tactics of police.
- dzhiurgis 6y agoThe fact that just about anyone can be heavily armed means police needs to be extra vigilant or else risk their life. Otherwise people feel so extreme and polarised. You've got Hawaii and Bay Area liberals vs rednecks. Both are very strong with their opinions.
- inter_netuser 6y agois hawaii very liberal? more so than bay area?
- thatfunkymunki 6y agoin my experience it's rather conservative there socially, but overall it's like 2/3 democrat voters there.
- kolla 6y agoA lot of you are armed.
- jmpz 6y agoThis does not excuse or allow the frequent and extreme violence that is perpetrated by police on unarmed citizens, which is the reason they feel the need to document their experiences with officers. It was a violent encounter with police officers that led to the proposal that they wear body cameras (https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brutality-george-floyd/ https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brut...) Even with the use of them, the release of them is often blocked or their existence is denied. From the above article: " In Baltimore three years ago, one of the devices caught a police officer as he planted drugs at a crime scene; he was later convicted for fabricating evidence. After Rayshard Brooks was fatally shot by a cop in Atlanta on Friday, body cam footage of the incident was quickly released, and the officer was fired. "
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoWell yeah; they should have nothing to hide because they've done nothing wrong, right? ...right?
- Annatar 6y ago"And being live streamed without consent is the right way?" A public servant or officer of the public, paid for by public funds, must not have any expectation of privacy while performing her or his job.
- rapind 6y agoI'm torn on the idea of body cams. On the one hand, there really needs to be more transparency in public service. On the other hand, no one wants their boss looking over their shoulder all day. I know I wouldn't take that job. Ideally no one, including your boss, can review body cam footage without a good reason (checking to see if the officer is slacking is NOT a good reason). I can't imagine that being practical though (it would be ignored). Body cams don't seem like the right solution. Society can come up with better ideas. Improving training, increase penalties when wrong-doing is proven, etc.