Police Shot Man in the Back

[Airbrush]

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?

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

 

Sorry, I cannot help you with evidence. No "police are not entitled to shoot people". Are you mad or am I THAT bad a writer? Payment for TV-worthy videos obviously comes from TV stations.

 

If Feidin Santana had only seen the movie "Nightcrawler" he might have realized he had great value that could be sold to TV stations. TV stations got a free ride for that one.

 

Everyone will criticize the movie "Nightcrawler" because what a despicable character Jake played. But that was simply a preview of what is to come. Stay tuned folks.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightcrawler_(film)

 

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

 

What do you mean? Santana was not aware his video had a monitary value to him, as well as a value to the victims family. He was kind-hearted but ignorant. So what?

Edited April 18, 2015 by Airbrush

[iNow]

You asked how much money he had earned for his video and then further asked us all to assume it was more than $1,000, when in reality he has received zero dollars.

[John Cuthber]

Sorry, I cannot help you with evidence.

looks like the end of that aspect of the debate then.

 

OK so what if Feldin Santana had decided to hold out for a million dollars but nobody had felt inclined to pay that much.

If the deceased's family hadn't been able to raise the cash, the policeman would have got away with it..

Your idea seems to be that such an outcome is acceptable.

 

And I don't understand why you assume that he didn't understand that the video had value.

To me, it seems reasonable to assume that he did realise that but that he knows right from wrong and holding up justice while he negotiated a price would be wrong.

[Airbrush]

You asked how much money he had earned for his video and then further asked us all to assume it was more than $1,000, when in reality he has received zero dollars.

 

True, apparently so far he has not earned anything from the video. Now he must get $10,000 for it to be used again. Will that happen? It seems sad that he could not be a good guy by doing the right thing AND ALSO make money for it. This should be a lesson for all paparazzi camera people. First get legal advice before releasing your valuable video.

looks like the end of that aspect of the debate then.

 

OK so what if Feldin Santana had decided to hold out for a million dollars but nobody had felt inclined to pay that much.

If the deceased's family hadn't been able to raise the cash, the policeman would have got away with it..

Your idea seems to be that such an outcome is acceptable.

 

And I don't understand why you assume that he didn't understand that the video had value.

To me, it seems reasonable to assume that he did realise that but that he knows right from wrong and holding up justice while he negotiated a price would be wrong.

 

If he held out for a million dollars, no TV station would have paid that much, nobody would have ever seen the video, and the police would have gotten away with it, and nobody would know about it.

 

Obviously he didn't understand that his video was worth money to TV stations, who got to use it for free, as well as evidence in legal action. "Holding up justice while negotiating a price"? Your assumption is that negotiation will take a prohibitive length of time, which is absurd. Such negotiations can also move quickly.

[Delta1212]

If I had taken that video, making money off of it would be way, way down at the bottom of my list of things to do with it, despite knowing perfectly well that there are people who would pay for it.

 

Profiting from the sale of a recording I took of a murder feels incredibly ghoulish to me.

[Robittybob1]

If I had taken that video, making money off of it would be way, way down at the bottom of my list of things to do with it, despite knowing perfectly well that there are people who would pay for it.

 

Profiting from the sale of a recording I took of a murder feels incredibly ghoulish to me.

I hope the Justice Dept gives him due reward for handing it in.

[Delta1212]

I hope the Justice Dept gives him due reward for handing it in.

I hope so, too. But that is a bit different from selling it.

[Arete]

Obviously he didn't understand that his video was worth money to TV stations, who got to use it for free, as well as evidence in legal action. "Holding up justice while negotiating a price"? Your assumption is that negotiation will take a prohibitive length of time, which is absurd. Such negotiations can also move quickly.

 

Again, the idea is terrible. If you film a crime and refuse to hand it over to the authorities until they pay you a sum of money, it constitutes a crime called "obstruction of justice".

[Airbrush]

 

Again, the idea is terrible. If you film a crime and refuse to hand it over to the authorities until they pay you a sum of money, it constitutes a crime called "obstruction of justice".

 

The authorities should have compensated him. Did this happen to the camera person who captured the Rodney King beating? Something is wrong with our justice system if it is not prepared to fairly compensate people for providing evidence, in this case a market value of $10,000, for the justice system, which tv stations also covet. That is unjust.

 

The law is not equiped to handle the complexities of paparazzi cams everywhere. We need new laws to deal with it.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Airbrush

[Arete]

 

Something is wrong with our justice system if it is not prepared to fairly compensate people for providing evidence.

 

Something is wrong with people who expect to be paid for providing evidence of crime to the authorities.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

What do you mean? Santana was not aware his video had a monitary value to him, as well as a value to the victims family. He was kind-hearted but ignorant. So what?

 

How do you know he was unaware/ignorant? Any evidence to back up this claim?

 

Maybe he's just a good person, and doing the right thing was enough compensation.

[StringJunky]

 

 

Maybe he's just a good person, and doing the right thing was enough compensation.

That's the standout impression I got: concern for justice. If he can make a few bob now, good for him; he deserves it. Capitalising was clearly not the initial over-riding motive. In hindsight, his actions were notable for its genuine altruism; the first thing he did was give it to the family.

Edited April 18, 2015 by StringJunky

[John Cuthber]

 

 

 

If he held out for a million dollars, no TV station would have paid that much, nobody would have ever seen the video, and the police would have gotten away with it, and nobody would know about it.

 

Obviously he didn't understand that his video was worth money to TV stations, who got to use it for free, as well as evidence in legal action. "Holding up justice while negotiating a price"? Your assumption is that negotiation will take a prohibitive length of time, which is absurd. Such negotiations can also move quickly.

You accept that it's possible that the expectation of payment could prevent justice, yet you still think that expectation is the right thing to do.

Any delay is too long.

 

The authorities should have compensated him.

He might very well think that they did.

 

They took the bad guy off the streets; that's very valuable.

The reason we pay for policing etc is that we value the fact that bad guys get locked up.

[Ten oz]

While there is currently a push underway to get body cameras on police officers I think it is only a short term solution. I live downtown of a larger southern Californian city and see police drones fairly regularly. No secret, no one denies they are up there. It is only a matter of times before all police departments have a fleet of drones. The video they capture will be superior to the single point of view stuff a body camera would be able to record.

 

Cameras aside I think better training and definitions of laws are in order. It is great to record video evidence to better prosecute but I rather people just not get shot in the first place. Police all have to successful shoot a course at the gun range. They all learn a variety defensive combat moves and take downs but far less energy and training is put toward de-escalation. It is more often about taking charge and getting immediate control. How many videos have we all seen where the only de-escalation comes in the form of someone spread eagle on the pavement asking not to be tased. Our law enforcement basic operating proceedures need to change. I have been stopped a few times throughout mylife by the police. I think all citzens have which in itself I think is an example of over policing. In almost every interaction the officer(s) approached hand on gun with agressive demands. It is always a very tense atmosphere.

[John Cuthber]

It seems to me that if police officers knew that the camera would record their failure to attempt to talk down the situation, they might put more effort into it.

Similarly, a record of the fact that they walk into every situation aggressively and carrying a gun that will reflect badly on them and give them an incentive to change.

[Ten oz]

It seems to me that if police officers knew that the camera would record their failure to attempt to talk down the situation, they might put more effort into it.

Similarly, a record of the fact that they walk into every situation aggressively and carrying a gun that will reflect badly on them and give them an incentive to change.

Will carrying a gun reflect badly? Zimmerman hopped out of his vehicle armed yet most people feel Trayvon was probably to blame for his own death. American gun culture is such that being armed is something to be proud of. No negative implications at all. Police approach situations aggressively will be seen by many as the best practice to ensure their own safety. Culture has to change. I don't think just recording police alone is enough.

[Airbrush]

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...

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

A. NO

 

B I'm using the term "paparazzi cam" broadly. No he was not a paparazzi, but he was substantially doing the work of a paparazzi, filming covertly.

 

C. This is my brainstorming session. Sorry if all the details have not been figured out to your satisfaction before I started this discussion. I make LOTS of mistakes during brainstorming, for good reason.. Now I'm thinking about unemployed veterans. They kill themselves at the rate of 22 per day in the USA. It is not very difficult to hold a camera. I personally prefer to solve more than one problem at a time.

 

Airbrush: "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?"

 

Notice I wrote "perfect for A homeless person" and you expanded that to ALL homeless people. I never intended that. No, this is not for ALL homeless, only those FEW who are street-wise, that are willing and able to make a few bucks so they are no longer homeless. What's wrong with that?

Edited April 19, 2015 by Airbrush

[John Cuthber]

Will carrying a gun reflect badly?

If people see the video they will be in a position to make that decision.

 

Airbrush: "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?"

 

Notice I wrote "perfect for A homeless person" and you expanded that to ALL homeless people. I never intended that. No, this is not for ALL homeless, only those FEW who are street-wise, that are willing and able to make a few bucks so they are no longer homeless. What's wrong with that?

Two things are clearly wrong with it.

Firstly the tacit link between these two unrelated concepts

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

and secondly the fact that the second concept

""He likes to be on the street"

is somewhere between unsupported and wrong. In the view of several people here (including me) it's offensive.

 

Essentially the problem is that you mentioned homeless people at all. What does it have to do with them?

Why not just say " we could pay people to take pictures..."?