- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,707
- Reaction score
- 58,413
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Problems in a bureaucracy start at the top.
There is no national police bureaucracy.
So far as I know, at least.
What if she beat the **** out of a 90 y/o woman and stole her money? Would she deserve to get her ass whipped? Or, what if she was turning out little girls to be prostitutes?
You simply are not grasping the concepts here. All police are the same.
If my grandmother is crazy enough to go for a walk on a busy freeway and she got tased while resisting police who were trying to remove her....I would be mad at her, not the cops.
Where's your source on pedestrian freeway fatalities?
Your source....why does it matter if the tazed person was unarmed? Tazer is less-than-lethal force, legally identical to using mace, am I right? If the perp is armed wouldn't you want a firearm over a tazer?
What if she beat the **** out of a 90 y/o woman and stole her money? Would she deserve to get her ass whipped? Or, what if she was turning out little girls to be prostitutes?
If I was that cop and that woman was my grandmother I would taze her long before I ever got on top of her and rained down punches.Would you taze your gramma if she was walking in traffic? Even if she resisted?
Its important to account for all the hazards in that situation and weigh each of them in context to the total situation.WTF does that have to do with anything?
I can't decide if they should be mandatory or not, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty damning... "Oh, so you CAN restrain yourself in what you would otherwise claim are heated situations when you think the chances of getting caught increases, eh?"I've read that before, American. I think the reason is multi. One, people know it's on video; so they can't lie. Two, officers know it's on video and they behave better. I honestly don't know why we don't make it a requirement for every LEO in the USA.
I think the reasons are probably: money, storage space and opposition by local police/law enforcement unions. Worker unions aren't the only people who oppose things ya knowfirefighters, police officers and healthcare professionals have their own unions and they tend to get away with blocking a lot of **** too.
I can't decide if they should be mandatory or not, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty damning... "Oh, so you CAN restrain yourself in what you would otherwise claim are heated situations when you think the chances of getting caught increases, eh?"
Taxes to pay for it.
...here, have a 'free' MRAP...
Yeah, I'd bet those unions fighting for the jobs of those accused of wrong-doing would just hate having video evidence.
Cases in which police, prison guards and other law enforcement authorities have used excessive force or other tactics to violate victims' civil rights have increased 25% (281 vs. 224) from fiscal years 2001 to 2007 over the previous seven years, the department says.
This news story is from a different case, but it shows the CHP's attitude towards being accountable to the public. I couldn't find a story on the results of the June 17th hearing.
DA, public defender butt heads over release of video from traffic stop
By Chris Roberts @cbloggy
The City's prosecutors and defense attorneys are fighting over whether video from a California Highway Patrol traffic stop should be released to the public.
First Amendment rights are at stake, according to the office of Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who is sparring with District Attorney George Gascón over footage from a May 12 traffic stop.
The case involves Jeanine Williams, who was charged with misdemeanor DUI, providing false information to police, driving with a suspended license and expired registration, according to records.
The CHP provided the prosecution with a DVD containing footage of the incident recorded from the CHP officers' patrol car, but on the condition that the video would not be released to the media, the public or anyone else without express permission from a judge.
Releasing the video -- which "may contain" CHP radio chatter or "tactics" -- to the news media or posting it on social media YouTube would threaten "public and officer safety," according to the CHP.
The District Attorney agreed and asked a San Francisco Superior Court judge to bar releasing the video or any stills pulled from it to the public.
The DA's order amounts to a "blanket protective order" that would block public access to any footage of CHP stops, the public defender argued, which also violates Williams's First Amendment rights.
State law protects much law enforcement activity from public disclosure, though the state Supreme Court ruled last week that the names of officers involved in shootings should be public.
A judge is scheduled to hear arguments in this case on June 17.
DA, public defender butt heads over release of video from traffic stop | Crime & Courts | San Francisco | San Francisco Examiner
I used to train police officers in "continuance of force techniques" (which ironically would have applied here). These techniques allow an officer to start with minimal force and still take control of a subject, all without beating people in the face.
Based on the officers I trained I'd say the problem is simple. It's the culture of most departments and the complete lack of discipline. You can't mix enormous amounts of authority with a lack in self discipline. It's a recipe for exactly what the OP shows.
The above being a perfect example...
When training police I used to see this attitude all the time....Anyone with this attitude should be prevented from being a police officer as it shows a complete lack of empathy and mental self discipline.
Having said that....
Underneath, most officers are generally good people, they just don't know how to handle their emotions. When in situations like this they loose control and the OP is the result.
Am I letting the officer off the hook, NO WAY....I'm just saying that most people would fail in these situations because few people are trained to deal with the emotional stress that comes with being a police officer. Ultimately I blame the system and culture that has moved away from "protect and serve" the public and has increasingly militarized with the justification of protecting itself.
Generally I would disagree that most officers are bad, but I think the way we police the public needs to change fundamentally.
If I was that cop and that woman was my grandmother I would taze her long before I ever got on top of her and rained down punches.
Its important to account for all the hazards in that situation and weigh each of them in context to the total situation.
Ahh, so the emphatic and disciplined thing to do, according to you, is beat the woman in the head like in the video. And you say you train police? I think you're the problem.
No thanks, if she resists that much then I'll just taze her and cuff her.
Agreed.....So what we appear to have here is a delirious 51 year old woman walking around in traffic.....Hmmmm Taze or beat in the face...How about NEITHER!
That's why you'll never see the classified picture of dead Osama, because many things can be deduced from the picture beyond the mere image itself.Releasing the video -- which "may contain" CHP radio chatter or "tactics" -- to the news media or posting it on social media YouTube would threaten "public and officer safety," according to the CHP.
I wish more would explain as you have the situation of police officers. I generally ascribe it to the Law Enforcement mentality vs. Peace Officer mentality which are two different and competing mentalities. The law enforcement mentality is actively looking for trouble, looking for law breakers keeping the peace is tertiary. The peace officer mentality is looking to diffuse or resolve trouble and generally keep the peace, enforcing the law is tertiary. So far that I can see in the urban and suburban areas anyhow the law enforcement mentality seems to predominate, while the peace officer mentality predominates the more rural areas though this is becoming less so over time it seems to me.
It's obvious that there seems to be a bit of excessive force involved. What would you have done differently?
That's why you'll never see the classified picture of dead Osama, because many things can be deduced from the picture beyond the mere image itself.
CHP should know better than to record anything which they don't want the public to know about.
I never said those were the only 2 options. I said I would do one before the other, and that's not saying there are only 2 options. I would listen to the Lego Movie theme-song for 5 hours straight before listening to even one Justin Bieber song, and that's not saying there is only Lego Movie theme and Justin Bieber 'music' in existence.It's not like those are the only two options.
With my grandmother in mind, I would probably tell her that Joe is waiting at the bank, and she would get right into my car. No problem.How about simply restraining your gramma, I mean you can overpower grandma, cant you? And even if you can't, a cop should be able to right?
Do we know she sustained any injury at all yet? I think her next-of-kin is liable to the State for negligence in providing proper care for their relative and creating this public hazard. CHP should sue the old woman and her estate for the cost of the incident and the cop should sue her individually for placing his life in unnecessary risk on the freeway.Agreed.....So what we appear to have here is a delirious 51 year old woman walking around in traffic.....Hmmmm Taze or beat in the face...How about NEITHER!
The reason given wasn't 'privacy', but 'security'.There is absolutely nothing the CHP or ANY others peace officers do which the public should not be privy to with the sole exception of CURRENT undercover operations and then only to hide the identities of the officers currently involved. They are public officials, on public dime, in public space or publicly owned facilities, on public business, they have absolutely NO expectations of privacy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?