26 ms·

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If police body-worn-cameras had been the norm in the US, we wouldn't have the riots (or at least not for the same reaso

by pluma 12y ago

This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. If police body-worn-cameras had been the norm in the US, we wouldn't have the riots (or at least not for the same reasons). Either because there would be substantial evidence against the police officers involved in the incidents that sparked them, or because there would be substantial evidence in their defense. Additionally, the problem with police cameras during protests (at least in my experience in Germany) is that they are routinely turned off just before the shit hits the fan. At the least, recorded evidence of police brutality that then isn't prosecuted would substantiate the claims of those currently accusing the police of corruption. It's better to be outraged about factual evidence, than about wild accusations.

clarkevans 12y ago
Please account for Eric Garner; the public, recorded evidence is rather graphic.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  Obviously, body cams are not a panacea. Cases of possibly criminal police violence should be handled by special prosecutors who do not normally depend on police cooperation in their career.
icantthinkofone 12y ago
Let's not blame everything on "police brutality". Anyone who is stopped by the police is not stopped just so a cop can beat him up. In all cases, there's a reason they were stopped and in all, the person reacted violently except in the most rare, actual "bad cop" cases (the only ones you read about). Before this, there was research to show that recording people at a scene, such as protestors, and letting them know they are being recorded, also reduced violence initiated by such groups. It's often ignored that clashes with police are virtually always started by people who failed to comply with the law or orders given to them. For example, I know someone who has a business where protestors had gathered. The police allowed this large group of a hundred, or so, to do their thing until they blocked entrances to the businesses. The police ordered them to stay to one side of the businesses but few complied. After three such warnings, the group was surrounded. Some pushed back, threw rocks and bottles at the police, spit at them, etc. Some started throwing punches at the police as they were crowded out and that's when things went really bad. You can guess what happened next. People started yelling about "police brutality" as they grabbed the rock and punch throwers and had to drag them out of the crowd. As things got worse, they had to use tear gas and the epithets really came flying out. In the meantime, my poor friend, whose business barely survives, lost money on what is normally his best day of the week.
- throwaway_hhdh 12y ago
  Last year we had huge protests in Brazil. They were sparked by police brutality against a tiny, routine protest in Sâo Paulo. That thing spread to every other major city in the country. Some state governments decided to send the police to the protests, some didn't. Guess what: where there were no policemen, the protesters went, did their thing, and no violence or damage to property was reported. Where there was police, the protest always escalated, and always in the way you decribed: the police sets some random arbitrary limit, the huge mass of uncoordinated people do not follow their orders, police attacks. Take from that what you will.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    So you're saying that, when protestors have no police to fight, they don't fight with the police?
- chrismcb 12y ago
  Actually sometimes a person is stopped just so the officer can beat the person up. And many times people are stopped because "they look funny." Yes most cops are good and wouldn't stop someone without a reasonable suspicion. But not all cops are that way. Glad to know the police allowed some people their constitutional right to protest.
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    I knew a guy online once who claimed just that. He said he was just walking down the street, doing nothing, and a cop car pulled up in the median near him. Both cops got out of their squad car, walked over to him and just started beating the hell out of him for no reason at all! I'm sure it happens all the time! (People posting things like that I mean.)
icantthinkofone 12y ago
Just this morning a black guy was shot and killed. Before the video survelliance was shown, a gas station was broken into and looted. Protestors are complaining the video footage is either edited or they claim they see things that are (and are not) there.
- pluma 12y ago
  I have a suspicion this might have more to do with everything else that has been going on before (e.g. Ferguson) rather than simply that guy being shot. If a fire is still smouldering, you barely need any fuel to get it going again. With black communities in the US, I'd wager that that fire had never fully died down in the first place.
GVIrish 12y ago
> Additionally, the problem with police cameras during protests (at least in my experience in Germany) is that they are routinely turned off just before the shit hits the fan. To address that very real problem there needs to be a 'missing video presumption' law. Simply put, if the police account of an encounter contradicts the citizen's account, and the police video went 'missing', the citizen's account will be assumed to be corroborated in the eyes of the law. The other piece to addressing police abuse is that complaints need to be investigated by independent investigators (maybe federal) and indictments should not be up to local prosecutors who often have a collegial relationship with officers. If a grand jury is convened, the victim/plaintiff should have representation to make their case as well. As we've seen in the Eric Garner case, having video evidence of misconduct is sometimes not enough.

by pluma 12y ago

clarkevans 12y ago

Please account for Eric Garner; the public, recorded evidence is rather graphic.

Zigurd 12y ago
Obviously, body cams are not a panacea. Cases of possibly criminal police violence should be handled by special prosecutors who do not normally depend on police cooperation in their career.

icantthinkofone 12y ago

Let's not blame everything on "police brutality". Anyone who is stopped by the police is not stopped just so a cop can beat him up. In all cases, there's a reason they were stopped and in all, the person reacted violently except in the most rare, actual "bad cop" cases (the only ones you read about). Before this, there was research to show that recording people at a scene, such as protestors, and letting them know they are being recorded, also reduced violence initiated by such groups. It's often ignored that clashes with police are virtually always started by people who failed to comply with the law or orders given to them. For example, I know someone who has a business where protestors had gathered. The police allowed this large group of a hundred, or so, to do their thing until they blocked entrances to the businesses. The police ordered them to stay to one side of the businesses but few complied. After three such warnings, the group was surrounded. Some pushed back, threw rocks and bottles at the police, spit at them, etc. Some started throwing punches at the police as they were crowded out and that's when things went really bad. You can guess what happened next. People started yelling about "police brutality" as they grabbed the rock and punch throwers and had to drag them out of the crowd. As things got worse, they had to use tear gas and the epithets really came flying out. In the meantime, my poor friend, whose business barely survives, lost money on what is normally his best day of the week.

throwaway_hhdh 12y ago
Last year we had huge protests in Brazil. They were sparked by police brutality against a tiny, routine protest in Sâo Paulo. That thing spread to every other major city in the country. Some state governments decided to send the police to the protests, some didn't. Guess what: where there were no policemen, the protesters went, did their thing, and no violence or damage to property was reported. Where there was police, the protest always escalated, and always in the way you decribed: the police sets some random arbitrary limit, the huge mass of uncoordinated people do not follow their orders, police attacks. Take from that what you will.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  So you're saying that, when protestors have no police to fight, they don't fight with the police?
chrismcb 12y ago
Actually sometimes a person is stopped just so the officer can beat the person up. And many times people are stopped because "they look funny." Yes most cops are good and wouldn't stop someone without a reasonable suspicion. But not all cops are that way. Glad to know the police allowed some people their constitutional right to protest.
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  I knew a guy online once who claimed just that. He said he was just walking down the street, doing nothing, and a cop car pulled up in the median near him. Both cops got out of their squad car, walked over to him and just started beating the hell out of him for no reason at all! I'm sure it happens all the time! (People posting things like that I mean.)

icantthinkofone 12y ago

Just this morning a black guy was shot and killed. Before the video survelliance was shown, a gas station was broken into and looted. Protestors are complaining the video footage is either edited or they claim they see things that are (and are not) there.

pluma 12y ago
I have a suspicion this might have more to do with everything else that has been going on before (e.g. Ferguson) rather than simply that guy being shot. If a fire is still smouldering, you barely need any fuel to get it going again. With black communities in the US, I'd wager that that fire had never fully died down in the first place.

GVIrish 12y ago

> Additionally, the problem with police cameras during protests (at least in my experience in Germany) is that they are routinely turned off just before the shit hits the fan. To address that very real problem there needs to be a 'missing video presumption' law. Simply put, if the police account of an encounter contradicts the citizen's account, and the police video went 'missing', the citizen's account will be assumed to be corroborated in the eyes of the law. The other piece to addressing police abuse is that complaints need to be investigated by independent investigators (maybe federal) and indictments should not be up to local prosecutors who often have a collegial relationship with officers. If a grand jury is convened, the victim/plaintiff should have representation to make their case as well. As we've seen in the Eric Garner case, having video evidence of misconduct is sometimes not enough.