Police Shot Man in the Back

[Airbrush]

From all video evidence, there seems no reason to shoot a fleeing man in the back. When officer went to his car to run info, there were no warrants. However, man ran away. Police apparently overreacted.

 

Here's my idea. Put a small number of homeless people to work carrying around video cameras. There job is to film anything like this. They should be trained to hold the camera steady, unlike the video we have.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Airbrush

[Greg H.]

Or you could just make it mandatory for police to have body and gun cams. Unless you have one homeless person per cop, you'd still miss some incidents.

[Phi for All]

Why are we putting civilians in harm's way filming armed incidents? Is it because they're just homeless people?

 

This really seems like a kneejerk idea. The kind of legislation that mollifies some, profits others, and does nothing to help the problem.

[Robittybob1]

From all video evidence, there seems no reason to shoot a fleeing man in the back. When officer went to his car to run info, there were no warrants. However, man ran away. Police apparently overreacted.

 

Here's my idea. Put a small number of homeless people to work carrying around video cameras. There job is to film anything like this. They should be trained to hold the camera steady, unlike the video we have.

The evidence only worked in this case because the police did not know they were being filmed. With body cameras there maybe ways of standing side-on when firing so the film still doesn't capture the scene.

[CharonY]

Though the offending officer would supposedly also wear one.

[Robittybob1]

Though the offending officer would supposedly also wear one.

You can't be prejudiced like that in calling the officer "offending". He is doing his duty. But if they what to smear the evidence they would fire side-on to the victim if they intended to have less evidence in the case.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Arete]

You can't be prejudiced like that in calling the officer "offending". He is doing his duty.

 

In this particular case, the officer in question has been charged with murder, so "offending officer" would appear to be entirely appropriate.

 

I think the ultimate aim of police wearing body cams is both to allow for evidence to be collected in the event of police misconduct, but to act as a deterrent for the misconduct in the first place, which I think we can all agree would be the preferential outcome. The only question that really remains is whether or not they are effective at reducing police misconduct or not.

[Airbrush]

The evidence only worked in this case because the police did not know they were being filmed. With body cameras there maybe ways of standing side-on when firing so the film still doesn't capture the scene.

 

Has anyone seen the movie "Night Crawler"?

 

If dozens of people who have CHOSEN to live on the street, even after they are offered housing are in need of money, what's wrong with them doing a little work? Maybe some would be glad to have a video camera to "defend the public". It would make them feel important, useful, and earn them a living. In this age of terrorism, when a single person can destroy a city, it would be a good thing for the terrorists, and police, to NEVER KNOW when an inconspicuous homeless person is filming whatever dirty business is going down.

 

Wow, someone really hates my idea. I got a minus 1 for that.

Why are we putting civilians in harm's way filming armed incidents? Is it because they're just homeless people?

 

This really seems like a kneejerk idea. The kind of legislation that mollifies some, profits others, and does nothing to help the problem.

 

Who says they will be in harms way? They would be trained to stay out of harms way. They can be equipped with cameras with powerful zoom that are not noticeable. They should also have a cell phone to call police. Why should anyone who is not doing something bad be concerned about cameras in PUBLIC places? The general knowledge that there MAY be cameras watching public places would put a damper on all kinds of crime.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

 

Has anyone seen the movie "Night Crawler"?

 

If dozens of people who have CHOSEN to live on the street, even after they are offered housing are in need of money, what's wrong with them doing a little work? Maybe some would be glad to have a video camera to "defend the public". It would make them feel important, useful, and earn them a living. In this age of terrorism, when a single person can destroy a city, it would be a good thing for the terrorists, and police, to NEVER KNOW when an inconspicuous homeless person is filming whatever dirty business is going down.

 

Wow, someone really hates my idea. I got a minus 1 for that.

 

Who says they are put in harms way? They would be trained to stay out of harms way. They can be equipped with cameras that are not noticeable. Why should anyone who is not doing something bad be concerned about cameras in public places?

This idea is below stupid; don't you think the majority of homeless people are vulnerable to enough threat-types without being seen as a snoop as well?

[Airbrush]

This idea is below stupid; don't you think the majority of homeless people are vulnerable to enough threat-types without being seen as a snoop as well?

 

Oh, then you gave me the minus one. hahaha.

 

This is not for the "majority" of homeless, only those that are qualified and willing. Public cameramen don't need to be homeless. Anyone can be a public cameraman or woman. I only suggested homeless because they are always on the streets. What about anyone that WANTS to make a difference? You have decided this is below stupid, even though many people may WANT to do it. Have you taken a survey? I don't know who would want to do this. What about our freedom? You decided I cannot get a job as a street cameraman because I am vulnerable. You don't know how vulnerable people are. Why don't you let them decide?

 

As the population increases, and resources dwindle, and the nuclear bomb threat grows, you can bet there will only be more and more cameras watching public places.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Airbrush

[Greg H.]

The evidence only worked in this case because the police did not know they were being filmed. With body cameras there maybe ways of standing side-on when firing so the film still doesn't capture the scene.

Thus the gun cameras.

[Acme]

... Why should anyone who is not doing something bad be concerned about cameras in PUBLIC places? ...

Cops regularly try & put the kibosh on people recording them. A search of "police try to stop cameras" returns many hits. Here's just one. >>

 

Cops vs. cameras: filming cops illegal

...They're part of a simmering national fight between citizen journalists and police departments that believe subjects have no right to film them. The battle over whether cops can arrest you just for videotaping them is quickly becoming the most hotly contested corner of American civil liberties law.

 

"As more professionals and amateurs use equipment to record police activity, they're facing the ire of officers who just don't want to be recorded," says David Ardia, director of Harvard University's Citizen Media Law Project. "We need a clear answer from courts that this is legal, or else police officers' instincts will always be to snatch the camera."

 

It might seem like an open-and-shut argument cops are public figures, after all, and they're operating in plain view on the street. But it isn't, at least in the dozen states, including Florida, that require both parties in any conversation to consent to audio recording.

 

Since video cameras also record voices, police argue, citizen journalists are breaking the law when they record cops without permission. Publishing cops' photos also jeapordizes their safety, says Detective Juan Sanchez, a spokesman for Miami Beach police. ...

The homeless have more than enough to put them in conflict with police already, and while your idea seems well-intentioned it is not very practical.

[Airbrush]

The homeless have more than enough to put them in conflict with police already, and while your idea seems well-intentioned it is not very practical.

 

Ok then forget about using the homeless. We have a valuable video from a brave soul who saw something wrong and filmed it (very poorly). With a little training, it would have been a better video. I would love the opportunity. Why not hire professional camera people, who are trained by the very best, to sweep through public areas, dressed like maintenance people? They keep moving to cover the maximum area. Their cameras start filming only when something looks wrong. The police or CIA probably already do this without telling us.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

Who says they will be in harms way? They would be trained to stay out of harms way. They can be equipped with cameras with powerful zoom that are not noticeable. They should also have a cell phone to call police. Why should anyone who is not doing something bad be concerned about cameras in PUBLIC places? The general knowledge that there MAY be cameras watching public places would put a damper on all kinds of crime.

 

How do you stay near the vicinity of people firing weapons and NOT be in harm's way? What kind of training keeps you safe from stray bullets while filming?

 

By the way, you're giving high-tech equipment to people who live on the street, among a criminal element. You just put them in harm's way when the cops aren't around as well as when they are. You're going to need more homeless training, to defend themselves when people try to steal their camera phones.

 

The best part about this idea is, after all that training, the homeless person could probably get a better job than filming police shootouts.

[Airbrush]

Like I said before, it doesn't have to be homeless people doing the camera work. These can also be professional, covert camera crews. Here, let me quote what I already wrote above, because apparently you didn't notice it.

 

"Ok then forget about using the homeless. We have a valuable video from a brave soul who saw something wrong and filmed it (very poorly). With a little training, it would have been a better video. I would love the opportunity. Why not hire professional camera people, who are trained by the very best, to sweep through public areas, dressed like maintenance people? They keep moving to cover the maximum area. Their cameras start filming only when something looks wrong. The police or CIA probably already do this without telling us."

 

[iNow]

The cameras would likely be used to record a lot of non-police shooting stuff that most of us don't really want to see. Also, London has achieved these abilities with surveillance via CCTV, another better idea.

[swansont]

Like I said before, it doesn't have to be homeless people doing the camera work. These can also be professional, covert camera crews.

 

Right, because that would only cost billions of dollars, even if you had enough unemployed camera crews to begin with. 10,000 crews at $100/hr is "only" $8.76 billion a year for 24/7 coverage

[iNow]

The odds of one them actually being in a location where some transgression is taking place and then further managing to catch any meaningful/useful footage of the situation are astonishingly low.

[Willie71]

Doesn't the NSA have spy cams everywhere? Maybe Americans can tap into those cameras like they do on CSI.

[StringJunky]

The odds of one them actually being in a location where some transgression is taking place and then further managing to catch any meaningful/useful footage of the situation are astonishingly low.

Given the ubiquity of mobile phones in the last few years, how often have ordinary people filmed police shooting people? I bet most people would film, if they felt safe enough, given the stuff you see on the internet social sites; it's news isn't it? I agree,it wouldn't make a substantial difference and it would likely cause new problems.

[iNow]

Thankfully, our representatives here in Texas are actively taking steps to address the true root cause of the issues at play here:

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/texas-representative-seeks-filming-police-illegal/

Austin, Texas – On Tuesday, a bill was filed by Texas Representative Jason Villalba (R-Dallas), HB 2918, which would turn private citizens who film police into criminals.

 

The bill attempts to usurp citizens of the ability to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions by negating people’s ability to create an accurate and impartial record of police interactions.

 

If passed, the bill would amend the current “INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES” statute (Sec. 38.15), to include language only allow filming of police (within 25ft) by “news media.”

We should clearly all thank patriots like these for their service to our nation and her citizens and for their love and protection of the underlying intent of our constitution, a document written by Jesus himself.

.

Texas Representative Proposes Bill to Make Filming the Police Illegal for Everyone But Mainstream Media

[StringJunky]

Thankfully, our representatives here in Texas are actively taking steps to address the true root cause of the issues at play here:

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/texas-representative-seeks-filming-police-illegal/

 

We should clearly all thank patriots like these for their service to our nation and her citizens and for their love and protection of the underlying intent of our constitution, a document written by Jesus himself.

.

Texas Representative Proposes Bill to Make Filming the Police Illegal for Everyone But Mainstream Media

For once, your sarcasm is perfectly appropriate I would smile brightly at your wit if it were not so sad. That is so not the reaction you want to see from the powers-that-be.

 

A white man just got a kicking by 10 deputies after being tasered, so we can safely say they aren't totally racist.

 

 

The sheriff of San Bernardino County, California, said on Friday he has suspended 10 deputies involved in the videotaped beating of a suspect who appeared to have surrendered and was lying on the ground after making a failed getaway attempt on horseback.

 

Sheriff John McMahon said at a news conference he was "disturbed and troubled" by what he saw in the video, which was shot by a KNBC-TV news helicopter as the confrontation unfolded on Thursday near the desert town of Apple Valley, east of Los Angeles.

 

"It appears to be excessive to me based on what I saw in the video," he said of the force used in restraining the suspect, Francis Pusok, 30, after the man had already been shot by a Taser stun gun and was splayed face down in the dirt.

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32259709

Edited April 11, 2015 by StringJunky

[swansont]

The odds of one them actually being in a location where some transgression is taking place and then further managing to catch any meaningful/useful footage of the situation are astonishingly low.

 

Absolutely. Unless they went along with the police everywhere (which means ~10-20x as many crews and cost), or, HEY! you just attach the cameras to the police officers. Gosh, why has no one thought of this before? (he asked, sarcastically directed at the OP)

[Greg H.]

 

Absolutely. Unless they went along with the police everywhere (which means ~10-20x as many crews and cost), or, HEY! you just attach the cameras to the police officers. Gosh, why has no one thought of this before? (he asked, sarcastically directed at the OP)

Or, if what you really care about is the discharge of firearms, you attach them to the actual firearms. (he said, for the third time)

Edited April 11, 2015 by Greg H.

[iNow]

Not all deaths caused by police are the result of a firearm. See also: Eric Garner / Staten Island, NY