241–250 of 271 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cops may ask you not to record and even threaten you with arrest for recording. Do not be intimidated; it is your right to record without obstructing. Better advice is to read the situation. Cops can make, and have made, people's lives very difficult, whether through legal harassment, false charges or bodily harm, and it is your word against a cop's when you go before a judge.
Not with video, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stream, but remember anyone can send a DMCA take down request for the evidence, and big companies have law enforcement liaisons who would be more than happy to remove content at the behest of LE. Some platforms will remove any violent content uploaded by users, so with some rules lawyering from LE posing as another user, it can be taken down.
Would the government even have standing to file a DMCA takedown for anything ? Anything the government creates is in the public domain meaning there’s no copyright to infringe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cops may ask you not to record and even threaten you with arrest for recording. Do not be intimidated; it is your right to record without obstructing. Better advice is to read the situation. Cops can make, and have made, people's lives very difficult, whether through legal harassment, false charges or bodily harm, and it is your word against a cop's when you go before a judge.
Not with video, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So, we should have the cops take out liability insurance and pay damages?" No, they should get proper training and be held to professional standards.
Are you ready to double the pay of police? If you wanted to go through a lot of training and be held to high standards, you'd probably look for a more lucrative gig than being a cop
It's a lucrative gig. In NYC, the NYPD runs commercials advertising full benefits, competitive compensation and only having to work for 20 years before being able to retire with a pension.
[1] https://www.nj.com/news/2017/05/how_much_is_the_median_cop_s...
I almost always wear a shirt with a pocket so I can record without it being obvious.
My layperson understanding is that there might be legal implications of the "without it being obvious" part. For example, I don't know whether that could be a problem in Massachusetts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_call_recording_laws#...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's go with this. Every domestic violence case may turn violent - and, again just for the sake of argument, we'll assume that this requires the use of deadly force by the police, so we arm them with deadly weapons. If those cases are extremely rare, and stats I've seen show they are, there is still no need for the weapon in the other cases. We can go ahead and disarm the other officers, and have a small portion mai…
DV cases are rare? On what planet? Police deal with DV cases continually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK? That doesn't matter. If the vast majority of crimes are not violent, it's not really important what the absolute numbers are. It could be 1,000 or 10, the point is that the majority of responders don't need deadly weapons.
95% is not “the vast majority”. To put 5% in more extreme terms: would you play Russian roulette with a 20 chamber revolver and one bullet? Each interaction for police is like pulling the trigger in that hypothetical game of Russian roulette. This is why the absolute numbers are actually very important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
95% is not “the vast majority”. To put 5% in more extreme terms: would you play Russian roulette with a 20 chamber revolver and one bullet? Each interaction for police is like pulling the trigger in that hypothetical game of Russian roulette. This is why the absolute numbers are actually very important.
Again, this is not absolute numbers . With the number 95% we can say that 95% of the time they do not need to bring a deadly weapon . It doesn't matter if that's still every day, it means 95% of the time it is not necessary .
Well, no. 5% of interactions is frequent, especially for police. They need to be prepared for violent situations. That's a pretty core part of the job.
We can talk about deadly weapons being unnecessary for dealing with violent situations but your quoted numbers just don't support the conclusion you seem to be drawing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, well in this case, this cop acted violently and aggressively towards a senior citizen, who was killed through that cop's action. Not murder, but definitely manslaughter. If you did that to someone, that's what you would be going to jail for, and rightly so.
Not at all excusing what happened, but was he actually killed? I thought he was taken to a hospital and recovered?
The policemen attitude in the video is revolting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stop. Think. You're making a "perfect is the enemy of the good" argument which ultimately supports police brutality and systemic racism. (I'll also point out that 8cantwait.org is a Campaign Zero project. Thank you for linking it.)
Do you truly think that there are zero cases where a police officer firing a gun is justified?