Police Shot Man in the Back

[John Cuthber]

Cameras are small and cheap. we can put them on officers' guns as well as on the police.

The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

[iNow]

Yes, indeed. Good clarification.

[Airbrush]

 

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

 

You should see the movie "Nightcrawler". It is about a paparazzi, who gets paid for interesting video of crime scenes. Those kind of people have police scanners and they learn the codes police use in radio communications with patrols, so they can go to the scene of a crime and film it and sell the video to news stations. Those kind of people don't require $100 an hour. They get paid for RESULTS only, and results means something news worthy.

 

That kind of work is perfect for a homeless person. He likes to be on the street, so he is already street-wise. He gets self-defense training and carries a cell phone and STAYS in communication with the local police patrol. What's the problem with him making a few bucks finding and filming bad guys doing bad things or even police shooting people or bombers putting a suspicious package containing a nuke somewhere?

 

Good cops don't like it at all when bad cops do bad things.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Airbrush

[John Cuthber]

 

 

That kind of work is perfect for a homeless person. He likes to be on the street,

Got any evidence for that?

[dimreepr]

 

You should see the movie "Nightcrawler". It is about a paparazzi, who gets paid for interesting video of crime scenes. Those kind of people have police scanners and they learn the codes police use in radio communications with patrols, so they can go to the scene of a crime and film it and sell the video to news stations. Those kind of people don't require $100 an hour. They get paid for RESULTS only, and results means something news worthy.

 

 

I have seen the film but you have to realise he is an extreme, of that type (why else make a film about him), and so untypical.

 

 

That kind of work is perfect for a homeless person. He likes to be on the street, so he is already street-wise. He gets self-defense training and carries a cell phone and STAYS in communication with the local police patrol. What's the problem with him making a few bucks finding and filming bad guys doing bad things or even police shooting people or bombers putting a suspicious package containing a nuke somewhere?

 

 

 

As John suggests evidence is required and what’s to stop the homeless just selling the phone and hang the potential future earnings?

[swansont]

You should see the movie "Nightcrawler". It is about a paparazzi, who gets paid for interesting video of crime scenes. Those kind of people have police scanners and they learn the codes police use in radio communications with patrols, so they can go to the scene of a crime and film it and sell the video to news stations. Those kind of people don't require $100 an hour. They get paid for RESULTS only, and results means something news worthy.

 

You do realize that this was a work of fiction, right? That movies rarely reflect real life in these details? The "good guys" always are in the right place at the right time, while in real life there would be 99% downtime. That drudgery never makes it into the movies. Or TV — at best it's shown as a musical interlude of whatever duration they need to fill the show out to 44 minutes.

 

 

That kind of work is perfect for a homeless person. He likes to be on the street, so he is already street-wise. He gets self-defense training and carries a cell phone and STAYS in communication with the local police patrol. What's the problem with him making a few bucks finding and filming bad guys doing bad things or even police shooting people or bombers putting a suspicious package containing a nuke somewhere?

Beyond that it won't work? Do there need to be other problems? How much time will you waste with false positives, like someone putting a lite-brite display somewhere, and having everyone freak out because it had wires and a battery?

 

 

Good cops don't like it at all when bad cops do bad things.

These good cops too often stay silent when it comes to reporting such behavior, which raises the question of how good they are.

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)

You need context, not just the moment of shooting. A lot can happen, or not happen, before an officer draws a weapon.

[Greg H.]

 

You need context, not just the moment of shooting. A lot can happen, or not happen, before an officer draws a weapon.

 

I don't disagree. I'm in favor of both body cams and gun cams, in additional to the dashboard cameras most departments already have.

[Airbrush]

Got any evidence for that?

 

Evidence that some homeless people actually like to live on the street? No, I thought that was common knowledge. I've heard many are offered apartments and just figure out how to convert that to money by renting it to another homeless person and they return to "camping" out, because that is fun to them. That's in the MILDER climates only, of course, not NYC in the winter. It will be hard for us to understand if we have never been homeless. I had a lot of fun camping in my van parked next to a college campus, near the beach, for several months, as a youth.

 

 

I have seen the film but you have to realise he is an extreme, of that type (why else make a film about him), and so untypical.

 

As John suggests evidence is required and what’s to stop the homeless just selling the phone and hang the potential future earnings?

 

He was an extreme only insofar as he was a creepy, conman, willing to do anything for money and power. There are paparazzi who live by their cameras, not only filming celebrities, but also police activity. You can do it yourself if you get the proper equipment and learn police code numbers.

 

If he sells the phone he loses his security deposit, and big deal he loses a job. That can happen to anyone. There are homeless people who would like the opportunity to make a little money and help their community.

[MigL]

Not to mention that 'Nightcrawler' was one of the crappiest movies I've ever seen.

Had to quit halfway through, although Renee Russo still looks good.

[John Cuthber]

 

Evidence that some homeless people actually like to live on the street? No, I thought that was common knowledge. I've heard many are offered ...

OK, that's the hearsay.

Where's the evidence?

[Airbrush]

I don't disagree. I'm in favor of both body cams and gun cams, in additional to the dashboard cameras most departments already have.

 

I totally agree, and also, for lack of a better term, I'm in favor of "paparazzi cams" wherever possible.

 

Any homeless person who can find a job that will afford him an apartment, or even a room in a shelter, is no longer homeless. Some may be willing, but unable to find work. Help them out if they have what it takes and are willing to work. Teach them how to do the job safely. Let them make a decent living as a paparazzi cam.

Not to mention that 'Nightcrawler' was one of the crappiest movies I've ever seen.

Had to quit halfway through, although Renee Russo still looks good.

 

Too bad the second half is much better than the first. I thought his character was crappy only, the story somewhat implausible, but generally informative about the ambulance-chasing paparazzi business. There are people who do that for a living. That makes is worth my while.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Airbrush

[swansont]

the story somewhat implausible, but generally informative about the ambulance-chasing paparazzi business.

 

How would you know if it's informative or made up? I know a lot of instances where TV/movies seem plausible, except when I know something about what the story is about, and I notice the liberties they take with the truth. Not likely they only cut corners in my little areas of expertise.

 

The bottom line is that "proof by I saw it in a movie" is so feeble an argument it doesn't even rise to being a logical fallacy.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

Any homeless person who can find a job that will afford him an apartment, or even a room in a shelter, is no longer homeless.

did it occur to you that many might not be able to?

[Arete]

You should see the movie "Nightcrawler". It is about a paparazzi, who gets paid for interesting video of crime scenes.

 

This is ironic as one of the pervasive themes in the film is the ghoulishness/immorality of profiteering from other people's tragedy.

 

The idea of getting random homeless people to follow around law enforcement, filming them is rather terrible.

 

1) Law enforcement do a lot of things it is inappropriate to film - attend accidents/suicides, support child services during forced removals, inform family members of deaths, etc etc etc. It would be a rather blatant breach of ethics to have some random walking around with a camera during such tasks. The presence of a random stranger with a camera during other events would be likely to escalate risky situations - police deal with unstable mentally ill people, domestic violence, child abuse, rape, etc, etc. Apart from being inappropriate to film, the potential escalation of such situations could lead to further tragedy. Also, some police tasks would be directly impeded or made dangerous for officers if a random homeless person was following them around filming -e.g. undercover operations or stakeouts.

 

2) A huge proportion of the population is already walking around with video recording devices on them all the time. It's doubtful that handing out a few more would have any appreciable impact on the number of events filmed.

 

3) There's an awful lot of ignorance bordering on offensiveness towards the homeless in your posts. You assume that the homeless like being outside, that they could get work if they wanted, etc. This seems ignorant of the circumstances which lead to homelessness (e.g. poverty, inadequate mental health services, drug addiction, domestic abuse...) and the extreme vulnerability of the homeless population. It's not a section of the population that need to be given something to do to keep them occupied, they need help.

 

Overall, the whole idea is a bad one.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Arete

[Airbrush]

This discussion is only possible courtesy the "paparazzi cam", by the young man who recorded the police shooting the fleeing suspect in the back, on his cell phone cam. I wonder how much money he was paid for that recording?

 

You are making the assumption that this calling is only for homeless people. I'm thinking of carrying a video camera in my car, so I can capture any interesting incident that may be newsworthy and I'm not homeless. Maybe I could make a few bucks by doing that.

 

"Ignorance bordering on offensiveness" because I'm pointing ONE way out of poverty for ONLY those few individuals who have what it takes and are willing to be a public cameraman? You would rather stand in the way of someone finding a calling that will lift them out of their poverty. There already ARE public camerapeople, everyone who carries a cell phone with a camera. Do you want to outlaw that? This is not an all or nothing proposition. All kinds of public cameras are welcome by me, and in this case, police shoots man in back, the only reason we know about it was because of a paparazzi cam.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

You are making the assumption that this calling is only for homeless people. I'm thinking of carrying a video camera in my car, so I can capture any interesting incident that may be newsworthy and I'm not homeless. Maybe I could make a few bucks by doing that.

 

Probably because you started out calling only for homeless people, then switched to professional camera crews, and when that was shown to be hideously expensive you then went back to defending the idea of homeless people behind the cameras. Now it seems to be more hobby/thrillseeker-adjacent.

 

"Ignorance bordering on offensiveness" because I'm pointing ONE way out of poverty for ONLY those few individuals who have what it takes and are willing to be a public cameraman? You would rather stand in the way of someone finding a calling that will lift them out of their poverty. There already ARE public camerapeople, everyone who carries a cell phone with a camera. Do you want to outlaw that? This is not an all or nothing proposition. All kinds of public cameras are welcome by me, and in this case, police shoots man in back, the only reason we know about it was because of a paparazzi cam.

 

This is offensive as well. It's like someone criticizing the war gets asked why they hate our soldiers. Total, total strawman of the general argument.

[Arete]

You are making the assumption that this calling is only for homeless people.

 

Well yeah - to quote you verbatim:

Put a small number of homeless people to work carrying around video cameras.

 

"Ignorance bordering on offensiveness" because I'm pointing ONE way out of poverty for ONLY those few individuals who have what it takes and are willing to be a public cameraman?

 

No because you said things like this:

 

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?

That kind of work is perfect for a homeless person. He likes to be on the street, so he is already street-wise.

I've heard many are offered apartments and just figure out how to convert that to money by renting it to another homeless person and they return to "camping" out, because that is fun to them.

 

 

 

You would rather stand in the way of someone finding a calling that will lift them out of their poverty.

 

Nice strawman. Me thinking your idea is bad for a number of reasons (which you've failed to address ANY of by the way) does not equal me standing in the way of someone being elevated out of poverty. Putting already vulnerable people in harm's way is not a particularly good way of helping them. Why not invest in mental health services? Drug addiction treatments? Provide more shelters? Anything but hand them a camera and say "go follow the cops around filming them", really...

 

There already ARE public camerapeople, everyone who carries a cell phone with a camera.

 

This is confusing, as it provides a powerful counter-argument to your suggestion. If a large proportion of the population already carries around cameras, what impact will providing a very small number of people with additional cameras do?

 

Do you want to outlaw that?

 

Another nice strawman. I never advocated banning cameras at all. Criticizing your idea has no bearing whatsoever on banning cameras, nor does it lead anywhere near that suggestion.

 

All kinds of public cameras are welcome by me, and in this case, police shoots man in back, the only reason we know about it was because of a paparazzi cam.

 

A) So you'd be fine with me putting one in a public restroom, then? or a doctor's clinic? or a counselor's office? or your lawyer's office? There are plenty of places and situations where it isn't OK to film.

 

B) The film in this incident was not taken by a "paparazzi" but a regular citizen who noticed something happening.

 

C) You still haven't addressed any of the criticism of the concept in my previous post.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

That kind of work is perfect for a homeless person. He likes to be on the street

I'd still like you to stump up some evidence for this claim.

[Phi for All]

I'd still like you to stump up some evidence for this claim.

 

I think it's more along the lines of "Oh, he's a ditch-digger, he must like to work with his hands", or "Prison is the perfect place for those who can't integrate into society". What the masses call "logical".

[StringJunky]

 

I think it's more along the lines of "Oh, he's a ditch-digger, he must like to work with his hands", or "Prison is the perfect place for those who can't integrate into society". What the masses call "logical".

People who think like that are likely ignorant of the realities of those they purport to know.

[Airbrush]

The trend is more and more people carrying cell phones that are also cameras. So the paparazzi cams are here to stay and will only grow in number.

 

My questions is: "How much money did that video of cop shot man in back earn the cameraman? Nobody knows? Let me venture a guess, since all the major news channels were showing it over and over for a week or longer. How about over $1,000? How much did the Rodney King beating video earn that cameraman? So carry around your cell phone with a video camera. You never know when it will come in handy. In Russia many cars have dash cams because of problems with auto accident liability. Those cameras captured the meteor impact.

 

Right, leave the homeless alone. I thought it was an easy opportunity to escape homelessness that doesn't require much education or training, especially for the homeless veterans. In the USA 22 veterans kill themselves everyday. Not all of them are homeless, but their military training may help. The idea is to ESCAPE homelessness.

 

ANYONE who is willing and able CAN do the paparazzi cam bit, even you, if you are willing and able.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Airbrush

[iNow]

My questions is: "How much money did that video of cop shot man in back earn the cameraman?

 

Nobody knows?

 

Let me venture a guess, since all the major news channels were showing it over and over for a week or longer.

 

How about over $1,000?

Or, how about zero. While a lawyer for the family is right now trying to rectify this, Feidin Satana (the man who captured the video) turned it over the the family of the man who was shot and did so for free. He has not benefited and didn't even desire to. He did what he thought was right and had to be talked into requesting a fee for use by a publicist.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/us/fee-to-be-charged-for-video-of-south-carolina-shooting-publicist-says.html?_r=0

[Airbrush]

Thank you iNow for that great news article. The value of that video is given currently as $10,000, NOT zero. Apparently it was worth zero for Feidin Satana, but only because he was unaware. Just because Feidin Satana didn't ask for anything for the video, does not mean it is worthless. It should be common knowledge that such video is potentially VERY valuable.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

Thank you iNow for that great news article. The value of that video is given currently as $10,000, NOT zero. Apparently it was worth zero for Feidin Satana, but only because he was unaware. Just because Feidin Satana didn't ask for anything for the video, does not mean it is worthless. It should be common knowledge that such video is potentially VERY valuable.

Read - properly - what he was responding to when he wrote that.

[John Cuthber]

Thank you iNow for that great news article. The value of that video is given currently as $10,000, NOT zero. Apparently it was worth zero for Feidin Satana, but only because he was unaware. Just because Feidin Satana didn't ask for anything for the video, does not mean it is worthless. It should be common knowledge that such video is potentially VERY valuable.

Are you saying that the police are entitled to shoot people unless those people can afford to pay whatever fee the cameraman thinks is appropriate?

 

 

 

That kind of work is perfect for a homeless person. He likes to be on the street

I'd still like you to stump up some evidence for this claim.

Edited April 18, 2015 by John Cuthber