[Discussion] Violence by or at Police

Posting news articles about recent events involving either violence directed at police officers or violence done by them, as well as discussion of those events and the general subject.

I noticed that the one black lady cop that spoke against the murders got suspended but nothing happen to any of the cops that called BLM supporters terrorists.

From last year but we probably need reminding again:

FBI's warning of white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement nearly forgotten

Several key events preceded the report. A federal court found that members of a Los Angeles sheriffs department formed a Neo Nazi gang and habitually terrorized the black community. Later, the Chicago police department fired Jon Burge, a detective with reputed ties to the Ku Klux Klan, after discovering he tortured over 100 black male suspects. Thereafter, the Mayor of Cleveland discovered that many of the city police locker rooms were infested with “White Power” graffiti. Years later, a Texas sheriff department discovered that two of its deputies were recruiters for the Klan.

Thanks, Obama.

New ACLU Cellphone App Automatically Preserves Video of Police Encounters

Edit: link derp and yes it was new... A year ago.

This link links back to this thread.

IMAGE(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f5/60/09/f5600977940cff1ada37130409eb5800.gif)

Baron Of Hell wrote:

This link links back to this thread.

Also not new, and not available in all states.

https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-ap...

Downloaded. Hopefully I'll never have cause to use it, but better to have it and not need it than the reverse.

What was that I said?

Demosthenes wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

Family of Charlotte victim to view video of fatal police shooting
...but not the general public.

CHARLOTTE — After a second night of violent protests over a police-involved shooting, police chief Kerr Putney said Thursday he will honor a request by the victim's family to view video of the incident but will not release the footage to the public.

Putney also told reporters the video "does not give me absolute definitive visual evidence that would confirm that a person is pointing a gun" but that the evidence "taken in totality" supports the police version of events that led to the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott.

Do they not realize this opens a massive gap where the family can say what they believe happened, and being the sole witnesses to the video who are not vested in the police department, and massively shape the narrative of this?

Oh right.

Keith Scott’s Family Sees Videos of His Killing, and Says the Public Should, Too

The wife and other relatives of the dead man, Keith L. Scott, watched his killing from two angles, recorded Tuesday by police dashboard and body cameras, and “it was incredibly difficult,” a family lawyer, Justin Bamberg, said in a statement.

He said the family had come away with more questions than answers and a different interpretation from the account offered by the police, who have said that Mr. Scott, 43, was shot after he got out of his car brandishing a gun.

“When told by police to exit his vehicle, Mr. Scott did so in a very calm, nonaggressive manner,” Mr. Bamberg said. “While police did give him several commands, he did not aggressively approach them or raise his hands at members of law enforcement at any time.” When an officer opened fire, he added, “Mr. Scott’s hands were by his side, and he was slowly walking backwards.”

sometimesdee wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

This link links back to this thread.

Also not new, and not available in all states.

https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-ap...

I'm curious - do you happen to know why it's not available in all states? Vagaries of state law?

Jonman wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:
Baron Of Hell wrote:

This link links back to this thread.

Also not new, and not available in all states.

https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-ap...

I'm curious - do you happen to know why it's not available in all states? Vagaries of state law?

In some states you can record as long as one party is aware and consenting (so someone recording two other people talking that didn't know he was listening is illegal, but you could still record any conversation you were actually involved in without getting consent). In other states you can only record as long as all parties are aware and consenting. It's probably those states that this app isn't released in.

Caught some news at lunch. Charlotte PD said again this morning they would not release video.

State AG and governor candidate Roy Cooper issued a statement that releasing the video is the right thing to do and will build trust.

Current gov McCrory is having a press conference at 2. He's the one that signed the bill in the summer saying police didn't have to release video anymore. Pretty sure what he's going to say.

As you might expect from a cell phone in a very stressful situation the video doesn't really show enough to make a judgement.

If only police wore something to record these interactions...some kind of camera on their body perhaps.

If Minority Report were real, would Tom Cruise be racing to every pre-crime scene to stop cops from committing a crime of passion, or would they all get rounded up due to pre-meditation?

Chairman_Mao wrote:

If Minority Report were real, would Tom Cruise be racing to every pre-crime scene to stop cops from committing a crime of passion, or would they all get rounded up due to pre-meditation?

Then again, the cops in Minority Report only carried puke sticks and concussion guns.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

If Minority Report were real, would Tom Cruise be racing to every pre-crime scene to stop cops from committing a crime of passion, or would they all get rounded up due to pre-meditation?

This is almost exactly the plot from Marvel's current big event Civil War 2.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

If Minority Report were real, would Tom Cruise be racing to every pre-crime scene to stop cops from committing a crime of passion, or would they all get rounded up due to pre-meditation?

Probably too busy rounding up whoever was filming the cops.

Charlotte released body cam and dash cam. Honestly can't tell much from the body cam as it's so shaky.

But the dash cam is pretty clear. He gets out of the car, turns towards police, starts backing away and then they gun him down.

Stele wrote:

Charlotte released body cam and dash cam. Honestly can't tell much from the body cam as it's so shaky.

But the dash cam is pretty clear. He gets out of the car, turns towards police, starts backing away and then they gun him down.

:(

You can't really make out what he has (if anything) in he's left hand. The video is darker on that left side. His hands were at his side and there seems to be no visible attempt to reach for anything, but it's hard to tell. I'd like to also know the timing of everything. Why are the cops screaming drop the gun and at what point? Not clear enough information to really make a judgment in my opinion.

Yeah you can't see the hands. It just doesn't appear threatening from what little you can see.

Still a lot of questions.

What I see in a lot of these videos that get released are that the officers are extremely on edge for situations that have no evidence of needing escalation yet. It makes me wonder how much of these nefarious issues have to do with staffing issues (underpaid, overworked, not properly trained, etc.)

Totally not saying that racism and profiling aren't playing a part here, nor am I abdicating responsibility of individuals. Just saying that clearly this would be stressful work and cities seem to be terrible managing/funding these.

kuddles wrote:

What I see in a lot of these videos that get released are that the officers are extremely on edge for situations that have no evidence of needing escalation yet. It makes me wonder how much of these nefarious issues have to do with staffing issues (underpaid, overworked, not properly trained, etc.)

Totally not saying that racism and profiling aren't playing a part here, nor am I abdicating responsibility of individuals. Just saying that clearly this would be stressful work and cities seem to be terrible managing/funding these.

A quip that I heard really rings true for me. "Police, on a daily basis, deal with people who are having their worst possible day". That goes for both criminals and victims of crime. I can easily see how it leads to a default "en-garde" stance.

Which isn't to forgive police brutality at all, but is all the more reason why their training and procedural guidance needs to be on-point to account for this fact

Steroids may also be playing a role.

Well, there's at least one way that the Carlottle police were in violation of their own policy: the body camera wasn't turned on until after Keith Scott had already been shot.

I'm leaning towards the position that police should be required to record their evidence for initiating an interaction before they do it. If you might have to shoot someone, save us all a lot of time and film why first. That, or put cameras on the guns. If we're going to keep shooting people, at least record what the police were actually aiming at.

If an officer steps outside of the vehicle the camera should turn on. End of story. Not optional to turn it on or off. I don't understand why this wasn't in the design in the first place.

JC wrote:

If an officer steps outside of the vehicle the camera should turn on. End of story. Not optional to turn it on or off. I don't understand why this wasn't in the design in the first place.

Because privacy.

Police interview a criminal informant. Boom, cover is blown, as footage is publicly available.

Police interactions with minors require that the camera be turned off.

What about the police witnessing a rape? You want that footage publicly accesssible?

There's a step you're missing between being recorded and being publicly accessible. Otherwise there'd be no Hillary email scandal.

Jonman wrote:
JC wrote:

If an officer steps outside of the vehicle the camera should turn on. End of story. Not optional to turn it on or off. I don't understand why this wasn't in the design in the first place.

Because privacy.

Police interview a criminal informant. Boom, cover is blown, as footage is publicly available.

Police interactions with minors require that the camera be turned off.

What about the police witnessing a rape? You want that footage publicly accesssible?

Tagging system. This timestamp to that timestamp are one of the situations you mentioned, they don't become public. You still have the problem of them claiming it's a situation that should be redacted when it shouldn't, but there are ways around that. Can't redact if it's an officer-involved shooting, etc...

Stele wrote:

Yeah you can't see the hands. It just doesn't appear threatening from what little you can see.

Still a lot of questions.

Number one, still being, if they were pursuing a warrant on someone completely unrelated and, last I heard, in no way resembling the victim, why did these numerous cops decide it was necessary to detour to a guy sitting in his car?