Likes: 
Faceplams: I can't find words to express how racist and ignorant you are.Originally Posted by littlemonkey613
Quiet Member
I can't find words to express how racist and ignorant you are.
Throbbing Member
Back to my original point. How could you possibly think that its an exaggeration when it comes to racism in America but not when it comes to your example of defending Darren Wilson? Your further trivializations of the problems I was talking about were offensive and stupid.
You don't need to inform an oppressed group that their have been gains in the movement for their own equality. "Shit was way worse before" is hardly ever an appropriate response to someone describing atrocities that exist in the present.
Black people are literally targeted institutionally when it comes to the justice system, harassment and the drug war.
I just don't understand your cognitive dissonance, employing the "weve come a long way" argument and comparing racism now to the past and yet refusing to make a logical comparison between experiencing racism in America and experiencing the reactions to being a Darren Wilson supporter. You seem to be good noticing when things are worse than others...
I expected you to be slightly annoyed at my comment on the meme and perhaps facepalm it but I didn't think you'd actually disagree. lol
You should try.
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 11-30-2014 at 01:36 AM.
Quiet Member
You just might have enough white guilt on this forum to believe all the bullshit you're spewing. congrats!
Quiet Member
The most I've seen in a long time....And thats coming from a white boy that has had racial slurs yelled at him in East Cleveland (by violent thugs) and also takes care of all people because I don't care what color people are.
Throbbing Member
I am black. Also I welcome any explanation for why what I'm spewing is bullshit. Like I can see not fully supporting everything I am saying but I'm truly at a loss on how its mostly bullshit. Come on try and find the words.
Edit: oh u meant there is enough white guilt on here for me to believe what im saying? aight
Last edited by littlemonkey613; 11-30-2014 at 01:48 AM.
Quiet Member
Michael Brown was a violent thug that robbed a convenience store then attempted to murder a police officer.
Throbbing Member
Amazing counterpoint. -_-
Also to everyone else, is the whole police wearing body camera thing something that is even possible or is it sort of one of those perfect solutions that could never happen b/c of how our systems are set up? I feel like its rare that something so pragmatic and obvious and simple presents itself when it comes to helping fix a problem and it'd be really sad if it were literally just an impossible thing to implement because of other interests.
Quiet Member
Body cameras are expensive. I'm gonna assume that you pay a lot of money in taxes to pay for these cameras or are planning on donating money to police forces to fund them!
Captain Rustleboots
I brought up body cameras to a cop buddy of mine, and his reservation wasn't what I was expecting to hear.
It removes all discretion, the police officer would no longer be able to give you 'breaks' without risking reprimand.
Bite me
That's total bullshit. Nobody sits around reviewing the daily camera footage. Cops are given the ability to give warnings, not always tickets. Also, those cameras are dirt cheap.
Captain Rustleboots
I'm a big supporter of those cameras and it should be mandatory to wear them. Also the cameras aren't the main cost, it's the storage of the footage that's needed.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...eras/15522059/
Quiet Member
$800-$1200 is dirt cheap? Thats 2-3x more than their handguns cost.....
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
That is cheap when we are talking about saving lives.
Active Member
Just read this from a Cleveland website. Really disturbing to read the police didn't even bother to try and give first aid to the boy? Surely as soon as they shot him, they knew he was a child?
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/ind...hooting_b.html
Bite me
Those two rookie cops were really dumb, for sure.
Bite me
Right, but that will come down.
See this: http://m.wsj.com/articles/what-happe...20244?mobile=y
Sometimes, like the moments leading up to when a police officer decides to shoot someone, transparency is an unalloyed good. And especially lately, technology has progressed to a point that it makes this kind of transparency not just possible, but routine.
So it is in Rialto, Calif., where an entire police force is wearing so-called body-mounted cameras, no bigger than pagers, that record everything that transpires between officers and citizens. In the first year after the cameras' introduction, the use of force by officers declined 60%, and citizen complaints against police fell 88%.
It isn't known how many police departments are making regular use of cameras, though it is being considered as a way of perhaps altering the course of events in places such as Ferguson, Mo., where an officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager.
What happens when police wear cameras isn't simply that tamper-proof recording devices provide an objective record of an encounter—though some of the reduction in complaints is apparently because of citizens declining to contest video evidence of their behavior—but a modification of the psychology of everyone involved.
The effect of third-party observers on behavior has long been known: Thomas Jefferson once advised that "whenever you do a thing, act as if all the world were watching." Psychologists have confirmed this intuition, showing that something as primitive as a poster with a pair of glaring eyes can make test subjects behave better, and even reduce theft in an area.
One problem with the cameras, however, has been cost. Fortunately, fierce competition between the two most prominent vendors of the devices, Vievu LLC and Taser International Inc., which makes the cameras used by Rialto police, has driven the price of individual cameras down to between $300 and $400. Unfortunately, one place where expenses can mount is in the storage and management of the data they generate.
Both Taser and Vievu offer cloud-based storage systems for a monthly subscription fee. Think of it as an evidence room-as-a-service, where vendors are happy to see police departments outsource some of their most critical functions, and be subject to the same kind of vendor lock-in that can make corporate IT managers wary of the cloud.
But Taser's system stores video data on Amazon.com Inc.'s cloud, where prices are falling rapidly, and there isn't much about cameras from either vendor that couldn't be reproduced by an enterprising startup. Given that body-worn cameras use components from the mobile industry, where prices are ground down by scale and competition, it's possible police forces will soon be able to come up with their own solutions, or use off-the shelf products such as Google Glass.
These are all reasons that Michael White, a professor of criminology at Arizona State University and, as the sole author of the Justice Department's report on police and body-mounted cameras, says the cameras, now a curiosity, could soon be ubiquitous. It has happened before: Taser's guns went from introduction to use by more than two-thirds of America's 18,000 police departments in about a decade. "It could be as little as 10 years until we see most police wearing these," says Dr. White.
Not everyone is happy about this possibility. After an order by a federal judge that the New York Police Department equip officers with body-worn cameras in some districts, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association issued a report declaring that they would be an "encumbrance." In the mid-1990s the rollout of dashboard cameras, now standard issue in most patrol cars, met the same resistance, which is why Dr. White says it is important that the adoption of this technology be accomplished through consensus.
"There is a presumption that citizens will be happy with this because it seems to provide more transparency and accountability, but that might not be the case, especially in areas where there are long-term tensions between police and their communities," says Dr. White.
Still, privacy issues abound, and rules about protecting both witnesses and police must be established and tested. Officers would have to turn on their cameras during every encounter with citizens, argues the American Civil Liberties Union, but there might be exceptions, such as when officers are interviewing victims of assault, says Dr. White.
None of these issues have stopped police forces in the U.K., where departments have a decade head start on their counterparts in the U.S., from ever-wider adoption. Police in England and Wales are engaged in large-scale trials, and the aim is to make body-worn cameras standard issue.
In the U.K., where tests with them began in 2005, studies have shown that they aid in the prosecution of crimes, by providing additional, and uniquely compelling, evidence. In the U.S., in some instances they have shortened the amount of time required to investigate a shooting by police from two-to-three months to two-to-three days.
And they represent yet one more way we are being recorded by means that could eventually be leaked to the public.
Of course, sometimes events happen that accelerate the adoption of a technological fix. The tragic irony is that police in Ferguson have a stock of body-worn cameras, but have yet to deploy them to officers.
Last edited by allegro; 11-30-2014 at 11:18 AM.
Active Member
Love this guy. I guess the internet donated a bunch of money to him.
Quiet Member
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/1/73...e-body-cameras
Do work, Obama!
Active Member
#1 - Before getting excited, let's stop and think through the possible unintended consequences of increasing the federal involvement with local police forces. Resources for local PD should come from local residents. Have we not learned from the whole "police militarization" thing?
#2 - That'll cover what, 6%? of the police in the US? Where did that number come from? Why? Why not the whole? How will they select who gets the cameras?
#3 - Congress has to pass this
Bite me
Funding must be MATCHED by state and local police:
It also says at least part of it is an Executive Order.
See the linked article:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...e-body-cameras
"The White House said the funding, which would need to be matched by state and local police, could purchase 50,000 body-worn cameras."
Last edited by allegro; 12-01-2014 at 04:33 PM.
Active Member
Interesting. That only slightly diminishes #1 though. The fed involvement is still toxic, even if it's just 50%. You wouldn't accept a resolution to Citizens United as "corps can only put as much money into politics as non-corps"... for example.
#2 still stands
#3 still stands, unless the EO is bypassing Congress in a way that I can't figure out. Power of the Purse, yo. Everyone reporting on this seems to indicate that Congress must approve the spending.
Bite me
Federal funds are mixed with local funds all the time. Through hundreds of programs.
#2, probably based on the funds available for allocation from the discretionary budget.
Re funding an EO, the money usually comes from an area of the budget where he already has authority and discretion.
For instance: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/22...der-impossible
Bite me
Now, according to the below link, it appears that the body camera thing is a proposal that is a part of Obama's proposed budget, and the follow-up on the defense equipment and training is an EO.
http://mobile.pcmag.com/?origref=htt...e-body-cameras
Quiet Member
Obama "budget"? Budget is a funny way to talk about pretend money that doesn't exist.
Captain Rustleboots
I'm going to nip this in the bud before it's posted without context:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rong/18041843/
Active Member
Up next: Grand jury decision in the Garner/Pantaleo case. A decision is apparently imminent.
For those who don't remember. Garner was selling loose cigarettes.
Conservatives narrative is that he had the look of a demon and was resisting arrest. Garner was definitely a thug as proven by the large grey t-shirt and beige shorts he was wearing. Pantaleo was a hero and should be invited to the W.H.
Last edited by Deepvoid; 12-02-2014 at 10:20 AM.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
New York will be next to erupt.
Captain Rustleboots
Never seen that video before, I got really really really mad. Jesus fucking Christ the dude wasn't being violent they didn't need 5 goddamned cops to hold him down.
THAT my friends is an example of what we should be fighting against.
Active Member
What's the basis for the subliminal anxiety and fear that seems to be some of the cause here. Why do these "people" who should be trained to deal with these situations seemingly and more commonly act like they do. It's a law enforcement cultural issue to a point I'm sure. Though due to the very nature of their job something about our general culture that isn't being addressed is at play.
Last edited by Pillfred; 12-02-2014 at 01:20 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote