You may be unintentionally right. The protesters ARE anti-asshole.
Of course, as we have clearly seen, many whites prefer to literally kill these messengers instead of listen to them. Listening is not an ability that racists have.
When the MSM no longer "reports" news but follows a political agenda it becomes propaganda. I think the case has clearly been made on that issue. They now sit on stories rather than reporting on them that would be detrimental politically to them. I'm not sure how one fights against that except through the Internet which the left also seems Hell bent on controlling as well to squash free speech that is against their agenda as well.
As far as the next pick for AG? Last I read, Al Sharpton claimed he was involved in that process to aid the administration in their next pick. How comforting. :roll: Like I stated, for the next two years of the Obama administration, all white cops need to protect their own backs, and the black cops who speak out against this administration, know that your very character will be run through the meat grinder in the MSM because you dare speak in a voice off the reservation.
If I'm a cop I want it. Just to prove my own innocence.
When the MSM no longer "reports" news but follows a political agenda it becomes propaganda. I think the case has clearly been made on that issue. They now sit on stories rather than reporting on them that would be detrimental politically to them. I'm not sure how one fights against that except through the Internet which the left also seems Hell bent on controlling as well to squash free speech that is against their agenda as well.
As far as the next pick for AG? Last I read, Al Sharpton claimed he was involved in that process to aid the administration in their next pick. How comforting. :roll: Like I stated, for the next two years of the Obama administration, all white cops need to protect their own backs, and the black cops who speak out against this administration, know that your very character will be run through the meat grinder in the MSM because you dare speak in a voice off the reservation.
If I'm a cop I want it. Just to prove my own innocence.
My concern is under which circumstances, if any, that the images/sounds captured (at public expense) would be made public. We now pay billions for all sorts of gov't surveillance that is never made public. When we, the public, are now denied to know what is shown to a GJ then what difference would it make if the government has access to more "secret" data that we must pay for yet cannot ever see?
If the officers can use this evidence to expose the 90%+ use of plea deals, used to avoid the cost of trials, as letting criminals off with wrist slaps then I say fine; but if this data is kept out of public view then why should we have to pay for it? Some wish the public to see what the officer may have done wrong but not what the criminal actually did - as opposed to what they were allowed to plea it down to.
Technically, Loretta Lynch qualifies as AG. But when you research her stance on several issues, she mimics Eric Holder. There is no reason on qualifications that Congress has a right to not pass her nomination even though she is a "little me" of Eric Holder. This is the price we pay for people voting on emotion than with their heads. Even though the people have taken control of the House and Senate this past election, the next two years of the Obama administration in charge of the Executive branch will be dismal. He is so out of control with his abuse of powers using his EO's to by-pass Congress are mounting in lawsuits. Again the price we pay for people who vote on emotion instead of logic.BO nominated Loretta Lynch to replace Holder. Nov 9th.....he figures he would bait the Repubs due to her taking one of Clintons supporters trial.
Of course all police should wear body cams on duty.
There is NO downside. EVERYBODY wins.... except scumbags on either side of the law and we WANT them to lose...
If by "race baiters" you mean the anti-black venom that has exploded in the wake of Ferguson, then yes.
Eric Garner's killer, however, was being filmed. So there.
But... if more cops are found to be scumbags... then people won't wanna be cops...
So you don't want video evidence when a cop goes to far? Why are you defending cops if you support civil liberties?I don't think getting more cameras in the hands of law enforcement is good for our civil liberties. We need less cameras, not more.
Which problem is that?In addition to that, even if we weren't concerned with the inevitable Big Brother surveillance system this would put in the hands of law enforcement, we have to deal with the reality that purchasing and maintaining such a massive number of cameras would be an incredible expense to take on in order to solve a problem that is extremely rare and can be addressed through less expensive means.
Get your popcorn and sit back: Pursuit, shooting of 'cop killer' captured on body cam | BLUtube Best to start at the 3:50 mark for the down cop, and the 6:00 mark for firing at the suspect.My concern is under which circumstances, if any, that the images/sounds captured (at public expense) would be made public. We now pay billions for all sorts of gov't surveillance that is never made public. When we, the public, are now denied to know what is shown to a GJ then what difference would it make if the government has access to more "secret" data that we must pay for yet cannot ever see?
If the officers can use this evidence to expose the 90%+ use of plea deals, used to avoid the cost of trials, as letting criminals off with wrist slaps then I say fine; but if this data is kept out of public view then why should we have to pay for it? Some wish the public to see what the officer may have done wrong but not what the criminal actually did - as opposed to what they were allowed to plea it down to.
I don't think getting more cameras in the hands of law enforcement is good for our civil liberties. We need less cameras, not more.
In addition to that, even if we weren't concerned with the inevitable Big Brother surveillance system this would put in the hands of law enforcement, we have to deal with the reality that purchasing and maintaining such a massive number of cameras would be an incredible expense to take on in order to solve a problem that is extremely rare and can be addressed through less expensive means.
RIALTO, Calif. — “Get on the ground,” Sgt. Chris Hice instructed. The teenage suspects sat on the curb while Sergeant Hice handcuffed them. It is a warning that is transforming many encounters between residents and police in this sunbaked Southern California city: “You’re being videotaped.”
Rialto has become the poster city for this high-tech measure intended to police the police since a federal judge last week applauded its officer camera program in the ruling that declared New York’s stop-and-frisk program unconstitutional. Rialto is one of the few places where the impact of the cameras has been studied systematically.
In the first year after the cameras were introduced here in February 2012, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent compared with the previous 12 months. Use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent over the same period.
And while Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg railed against the federal court, which ordered New York to arm some of its own police officers with cameras, the Rialto Police Department believes it stands as an example of how effective the cameras can be. Starting Sept. 1, all 66 uniformed officers here will be wearing a camera during every shift.
William A. Farrar, the Rialto police chief, believes the cameras may offer more benefits than merely reduced complaints against his force: the department is now trying to determine whether having video evidence in court has also led to more convictions.
But even without additional data, Chief Farrar has invested in cameras for the whole force.
“When you put a camera on a police officer, they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better,” Chief Farrar said. “And if a citizen knows the officer is wearing a camera, chances are the citizen will behave a little better.”
Despite concerns about privacy and cost, more citizens across the country will probably soon find themselves on camera when talking to the police.
Albuquerque, Fort Worth and Oakland have all begun arming officers with tiny video cameras. And demand for the devices has exploded in recent years, according to Taser International, one of the companies marketing body cameras to law enforcement agencies.
Experts increasingly say that body cameras are likely to become an industry standard over the coming years, just as cameras in patrol cars, which once prompted similar objections about privacy, have become commonplace in recent decades.
A buddy of mine drives long haul and got a couple cameras to watch his rear-view mirrors in more populated areas due to stupid drivers.There is no right to privacy in public or when communicating with a public official.
The camera systems cost in many cases less then $100 a unit. I drive a truck, I paid $89 out of my own pocket for a dashboard camera. I am not making as much as your typical police officer. The cost is easy to absorb. If the camera stops one bad civil action they've paid for themselves
If I ever became a cop I'd buy one out of pocket if the dept didn't provide them.
The camera is only going to have part of the story. It's a reasonable tool to use but it can cause as much trouble as it stops.
But... if more cops are found to be scumbags... then people won't wanna be cops...
Heya V.Not just White Cops either.
How Many Police Killings Are There Annually?
Today’s Wall Street Journal has a front page story titled, “Hundreds of Police Killings Uncounted in Federal Statistics.”
However, there is an unstated bias at work here. It is in the unfortunate title of the Journal article quoted above. “Uncounted in Federal Statistics.” But the Journal is hardly alone. The bias/assumption is that the FBI “oversees” police departments across America. Thus, it follows that those departments ought to be reporting data to the FBI. This is incorrect. Local police do not report to the FBI. Often departments cooperate with one another. Cooperation should not be confused with a legal obligation.
Governors should be responsible for this data-gathering task, not the federal government. Btw, the article says, “Also missing from the FBI data are killings involving federal officers.”.....snip~
Well now, since the public pays for all the video taken, why can't the public have access to all of it by that logic? Even the daily stuff, the just patrolling. We have an interest in making sure our public servants are doing their jobs. Why not do this with all the public servants?
My concern is that this turns every officer into an NSA drone.
Who told you a single tool had to contain the whole story?The camera is only going to have part of the story.
And most of the protestors blocking traffic and rioting are 100% assholes... people would be willing to listen if they talked.
Instead they are being lead by race bating pieces of crap like Sharpton and Jackson.
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Their words have not been listened to, so now we must listen to their actions. We're simply getting a taste of what we asked for by having ignored their words for so long.
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?