I don’t think you’re following me. You asked a question,
to which derleydoo gave a concrete answer that you never addressed. You addressed pictures of Mark Duggan and made some overblown accusations against derleydoo.
I’m sure Duggan’s alleged criminal activity is relevant to many things. My meaning, which you don’t seem to get, is that it wasn’t necessarily relevant to the question you asked. Body cameras on the police officers who shot Duggan may have provided evidence that would put to rest confusion about the circumstances of Duggan’s death and belief of misconduct on the part of the police force - regardless of Duggan being a big time “gangbanger” or not.
I don’t think you’re following me. You asked a question,
to which derleydoo gave a concrete answer that you never addressed. You addressed pictures of Mark Duggan and made some overblown accusations against derleydoo.
“that you never addressed.”
Be fair, fuse. Never is a long time.
Yet to… You have yet to address.
And, in all fairness, it may be the case that he is in trouble with the moderator of this sub-forum.
Quote:
I’m pointing this out because it’s something that I do a little differently than other moderators. I’m not going to ponder endlessly what counts as a personal attack, or what people meant by their implications, or who did what to whom three months ago to provoke some outburst today. But if people are having a Good Conversation, don’t screw it up by going into personal attacks, goading diversions, non-sequitor/provocation image posting, or other internet-child antics. It’s not that I won’t issue bans or warnings for personal attacks, but if two people are going at each other viciously, I’m more likely to just kick the whole thread over to the Rant House where SGE people don’t have to look at it. If, however insulting or otherwise crappy behavior derails the kind of discussion that I feel behooves this place to be here, that will be much more likely to provoke a warning or ban out of me.
He gave a concrete answer?! He copy pasted part of a wikipedia entry. That is literaly ALL he said- he gave it no context, no explanation of how it addressed my question. He acted as though I didn't ASK a question, and just continued to proselytize. Did you READ his concrete answer before you defended it?
So how about you tell me how that quote from wikipedia comes to be an answer to my question.
Or are you referring to his post where he claims not to know what a gangbanger is, and calls me a racist? Is that the concrete answer you’re referring to?
Interesting how the ‘concrete answer’ you defend doesn’t say any of that, or even hint at any of that.
And what the fuck is with you people pretending to not know what a gangbanger is, like I invented the term or something?
Look, here’s what a body camera would do; it would give the people who are starting these riots a data source that they could manipulate and chop up as necessary to make things look the way they want them to look. Would the truth be there too? Sure, but a minority of people would be exposed to it because they don’t want to be. It’s not like people are begging to be talked out of robbing a convenience store in the name of political protest, you know. As far as the confusion being put to rest- that’s already happening. More witnesses defending the cop having acted legitimately are coming out all the time.
Body cameras would work if this problem was caused by a lack of information, I give you that. My assertion is that the problem is being caused by delibrate spin of the information, not a lack of it.
Ucc, a lot of people use words like gangbanger or thug to just describe a class of people that they dislike, without referencing what particular behavior or criteria makes one a gangbanger or a thug. It’s like one of those big generalizations that could mean anything from a guy with baggy pants and a backward hat, to a guy who’s in prison running a set of those ms13 guys.
People just want to know what characteristics that you’re referring to when you use the term.
You were fishing for an opportunity to call me racist so you could avoid the point I was making. When that opportunity didn't arise, you avoiding the point I was making ANYWAY by simply vanishing from the conversation.
Here's the point again, so you can dodge it again- Cops shooting gangbangers is not the problem. The problem is the riots that ensue. The riots are caused by people blowing the situation out of proportion either to sell newspapers, or to stir up racial animosity that isn't there. When derleydoo presents Duggan without mentioning his criminal record, and insists on using a picture of him that makes him look like a 14 year old boy who couldn't possibly do anything wrong, when plenty of other pictures exist, he provides an example of the problem. If the only information you had on Mark Duggan was the information derleydoo chose to give, rioting against the evil police would seem entirely justified. But th information he provides is specifically tailored to cause that result. The exact same thing is happening with the Ferguson situation- people who want to inflame racial tensions, or anti-politice sentiments are filling in all the gaps in the information we have with accuations that serve that end.
A gigantic criminal trying to beat the shit out of a police office and getting shot to death in the process IS NOT NEWS. You have to word it in a very particuar way, ignoring info you don’t like and twisting words around, in order to make it a news story, or something worth rioting about. That’s the real incident that needs to be prevented. The more time that goes by, the more witnesses are coming forward to defend the cop, and the less true the presentation that caused the riots looks. But that doesn’t erase the riots- the damage is done. The truth will be learned about the same time as it ceases to become a news story.
Body cameras would only help prevent the 'Ferguson incident' if you accept it as a given that the Ferguson incident is an example of a cop acting inappropriately. [i]But we don't know that[/i], and increasingly, it looks like that was not the case. So the real question is, would a body camera prevent people from leaping to conclusions about race and police as an excuse to loot liquor stores. Of course it wouldn't- all a body camera would do is reveal the truth, at best, and the people rioting, and the people stoking the attitudes that lead to rioting, have no interest in the truth.
In the OP derley talked about a study in which people filed less complaints and police used force less than half as often after they started wearing body cameras. If the results are actually related to the cameras, then there is a compelling case for police using body cameras.
The Duggan case exemplifies the type of police shooting scenario where there are many conflicting eye witness accounts. There were numerous delays and inconsistencies in police reports and investigation, and the legality of police actions at the scene was called into question. A police officer testified from memory that Duggan pulled a gun, but no gun or evidence of a gun could be found on him. Another policeman was actually shot by his own fellow officer. It seems to me that video evidence/support is among the strongest type of support you can have to settle competing witness claims and get to the facts. So it seems to follow pretty clearly to me that police body cameras could have eliminated all the holes and unreliability of witness information by recording exactly what happened when Duggan was shot.
Not everyone on “the other side” is trying to manipulate information to support an agenda. The less reliable info you have, the more speculation and interpretation is required to understand. There is a lack of timely and trustworthy information. Video evidence is much more difficult to spin than someone’s description of what happened from memory. People are not going to fall for some cut up and doctored video when the official recording is published in full from the police. In the event of a Michael Brown incident, if there is highly reliable evidence in support the police (like video recording), it further takes the wind out of looting and rioting. And though some people will still go out and try to cause mayhem and destruction, a lot less people will be able to tolerate it or sympathize and such aftermath will be reduced. On the other hand, if police are found to violate the law and to use unjust force (as does happen), then it will be more difficult to conceal and it will be known immediately.
Actually it’s almost the opposite. If it’s rioting you’re concerned about, the cameras are likely to help most in the event that the police are telling the truth. If the video recording shows that police acted unjustly, then there would be legitimate cause for protest.
“All a body camera would do is reveal the truth, at best…” Yes, that’s the whole point.
“…the people rioting, and the people stoking the attitudes that lead to rioting, have no interest in the truth.” I think that attitude explains a lot about your approach here. I think it would be more accurate if you had specified looters and criminals taking advantage of the situation, but you said rioters. Most of the rioters have been peaceful. The ones throwing Molotov cocktails and threatening police are very few.
There is a dimension of human experience of a history of racism and abuse of power by authority that continues to this day. It is a prejudice to assume Michael Brown’s killing was unjust simply due to the race difference between officer and citizen, but when Brown is found unarmed, and lacking timely and reliable information, it is impossible for people to completely suspend judgement. This is no justification for crime or violence, people are accountable for their actions, but I don’t think peaceful forms of protest and riot are unreasonable or characterized by having no interest in the truth. That anyone so readily sees the truth, and has known this truth before information could be corroborated, shows a prejudice.
DON"T KILL FOR PLEASURE: DON"T KILL IF YOU DON"T NEED TO.
DON’T MILITARISE THE POLICE.
There needs to be some form of central control and scrutiny of the vast panoply of American law enforcement: central standards of practice, recruitment and behaviour.
Two-thirds of Ferguson’s residents are African-American. All but three of the department’s 53 officers are white.
I’ve never been a supporter of affirmative action; and I do not believe in racial selection. But really this is absurd. Why are there no black policemen?
I imagine it is very much a social thing. Often a Black person that joins the police force is regarded as a trader to his race. Infact, if you want to see true hate, watch a black officer interact with a black civilian, the civilian well throw hate the likes of which you won’t see any other place. I’ve seen racist bastards that act more politely…
No, it will not stop them, it will possibly limit them more, but a racist cop is going to shoot innocent black people, regardless of recordings.
… without either turning off the camera or having the home office discard the data.
The idea is to get everyone to believe that such police affairs are ALWAYS recorded. So when they actually are not recorded or they are erased, no one believes it, “government people would never trick us like that”. “Normalcy Bias”.
Only if the data arrives, intact, to the people who are set to riot, and they accept that data. Remember, these race riots don't happen when the cop shoots the kid or whatever. The riots always happen [i]after[/i] the court decides the cop isn't going to be punished. So the information leading to the cop's exhoneration is already there- and you get a riot because the cop wasn't punished. I don't see a video changing the dynamic that much. Spend some time reading Youtube comments, and tell me that the element that would riot isn't just going to see what they choose to see in video evidence.
Nevertheless, they took to the streets to protest something they knew nothing about, on the presumption that if a black person is killed by a cop, it MUST be racist. They were protesting in ignorance. I think the political component, and the racial components here are too strong to be swayed by reality. If these people were going to be swayed by reality they wouldn't have rioted in the first place, because even without a video tape, the information we have doesn't warrant it!
Yes, Brown was found unarmed. He was also found six-foot-four and three hundred pounds and the cop in question was found with a broken eye-socket.
There is a difference between 'completely suspending judgment' and 'heading to Ferguson to protest something you know nothing about'. Bare in mind, most of the protestors were not natives to the area.
They certainly CAN be, and in this case they were- the protestors literally were being unreasonable and protesting based on their lack of interest in the truth. Or, if you prefer, they were victims reacting to a misleading presentation of the truth given to them by somebody who presents things they way the creator of this thread does.
I can’t say that enough- what really happened is a 6’4", 300 pound criminal beat the shit out of a police officer immediately after robbing a convenience store, and was shot to death after trying to take the cop’s gun away from him. That IS what happened. That’s what we know. There is nothing in there to justify protesting ANYTHING, unless you want to protest criminals assaulting police officers. The rioters are rioting based on what they have chosen to fill in the gaps in their knowledge with.
So would a body camera on the cop make a difference? It would certainly give the people against this madness another point in their favor to make- IF the footage was clear, and IF the entire footage was made publicly available before the people motivated to stir shit up released their select footage. But would that stop a riot? I think it would prevent some, but cause others. It would also cause every criminal to know he had a chance to make a viral video with his actions every time the police showed up. Think about that a minute.
Bare in mind, none of that was in Derleydoo's quote, and also bare in mind derlydoo's quote wasn't cited or in any way presented as a quote, so there was no expectation I would read the rest of it myself- such as the part where they talk about Duggan's extensive police record, including being brought in on violent assault and attempted murder charges multiple times.
It is certainly possible, yes.
No, just the people rioting and stirring up the rioters are doing that. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable people on ‘the other side’ who are waiting until the facts come in before they decide what’s up, or have made up their minds even without the facts but are nevertheless not going to take to the streets based on their ignorance or defending those who do.
I disagree. Just because some people take it upon themselves to burn a city to the ground because they aren’t satisfied with the amount of timely information they get about something that is none of their business anyway, does not mean that there actually IS a lack of timely information. That’s the other side of this- by saying ‘well, now police need to wear body cameras’, you’re assuming that CNN or the blogosphere is an official part of the judicial process now, such that if we- a bunch of people with nothing to do with it- don’t get our timely and trustworthy information in the time it takes to put together some molotov cocktails, then the consequences we decide to inflict on the community are the responsibity of whomever didn’t give us the information we demanded. Remember that word ‘alleged’? The cop is alleged to have done this, Brown is alleged to have done that- the point of a trial is to work out what really happend and meet out the punishment, if any. THAT is when it becomes our business, not before. This will go to court, it will be decided what to do with the cop. If the lawyers and experts and so on say that THEY can’t decide what to do and that body cameras would help THEM, then I would agree with you that maybe they are needed. But having police wear body cameras so that CNN can leak the footage so that maybe people won’t go on a rampage strikes me as way off.
Shouldn’t the blame be placed on the people who so obviously are doing the spinning, some of whom are in this very thread? Cops have to wear body cameras to prevent Lev and Smears and derlydoo from making up ridiculous stories and stirring up people’s class hatred? I disagree on two levels- it’s unreasonable to cater to their demands in such a way AND it wouldn’t stop them anyway.
If the question is how to prevent this mess, the answer is stop spinning it to create the mess. I realize that’s a little asinine- it’s like saying “The way to prevent rape is for everybody to stop raping each other”, but it seems like the right answer when a Part of the Problem is the one asking the question.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Spent a few minutes on YouTube and tell me what people will and won’t fall for.
Yeah, CNN says no, other sources including Fox say yes. I haven’t seen the sources that say yes post a retraction yet, so I guess we’ll put that in the collumn of things we don’t know. All sources agree he was taken to the hospital and given x-rays to determine whether or not he had skull-fractures, though.
I presented the Duggan case in response to your question: “How would police body cameras prevent riots?” I apologise for not citing the source. However, there was no ulterior motive for leaving out his alleged criminal past. Quite frankly, his past had nothing to do with establishing the veracity of what occurred during the incident. I saw the information and thought, ‘Aha! That will answer Uccisore’s question’. My mistake was in thinking you would think as I did… i.e. cameras would have captured the incident and truth would prevail.
In the immediate aftermath there was a great deal of misinformation placed in the public domain. Duggan was described as having been killed in a police shoot out. A weapon was found a few meters from the scene, however it did not contain Duggan’s fingerprints or dna, tests showed it had not been fired. The officer who shot him insisted he had a gun in his hand.
Please, I didn’t “insist” on posting a picture! I posted it as a response. And I would like to apologise for calling you a racist.
It appears to me that throughout this thread you have endeavoured to paint me as the villain. My objective was merely to help establish the truth in situations where conflicting accounts arise.
The only way to prevent such incidents is reforming social system of countries. And of course the term “democracy” should not be used only for covering over some wrongful actions, but should firstly serve for helping people
Well, then look around better. The information that it’s not broken comes from CNN- as far as I can tell every blog or every other source is citing CNN. Not bashing CNN here, but that’s not everybody agreeing, that’s everybody one source. Fox broke the story about the eye being broken, but you can find blogs independantly verifying it too.
Either way, it’s fine- that’s not something we knw. We just know he was taken to the hospital to be x-rayed to see if his eye socket was broken.