Looting in Missouri after cops shoot 18 year old (1 Viewer)

[BustedKnuckles]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

I wonder how hard would it be to block the picture while in an act of shooting someone? The camera is on the police uniform soooo....

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

The officer's privacy? Suspects? Both? How is this different from cruiser cams? And, how might it be dealt with?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

Maybe this helped the Grand Jury you think?

For sure it did. But remember this wasnt a show trial or anything. Especially when the prosecutor doesnt even know the law. They can indict a ham sandwich, but cant indict a cop who killed an unarmed man. Birds of a feather.

This is a race issue so some are going to take the side they want regardless of facts. Like the fact that people are justifying killing an unarmed man because he stole cigars and walked toward a cop as if the cop has a right to kill someone then get upset at football players in the local community for supporting the cause they are in support of. Amazing the trust people have in the cops honestly.

If Wilson was so justified in this shooting why did the DA have to use such biased actions and tactics to make sure he was cleared no matter what? Strange GJ proceedings for sure...like i said ...something doesnt smell right

 

[fantasycurse42]

Some angry St Louis Bosnians out protesting after someone in their community was attacked and killed by multiple teens for no reason with hammers:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html?mobile_touch=true

Still not a mention of this basically anywhere, not even in this awful thread.

Like to see who the killers are and/or if they have been partaking in the "protests".



ETA:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/30/us/st-louis-man-dead-hammers/

If the victim was black and the assailants white, I'd wager my penis that it would've already been mentioned and the outrage would be everywhere.

 

[squistion]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

The officer's privacy? Suspects? Both? How is this different from cruiser cams? And, how might it be dealt with?

The suspects more than anything. Concern is that possibly embarrassing footage could be leaked and aired on the evening news or on the net. Found an article discussing this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/lapd-body-cameras_n_3985430.html

The question of public access to footage obtained by police is a murky one. Michael Donaldson, a partner at Beverly Hills law firm Donaldson & Callif specializing in fair use and privacy issues, said he believes body-camera footage is part of the public domain because it probably can't be copyrighted by a police department and it is a public record created by a public employee.

But whether the public should have access to the footage is a different question entirely, he said, and gets at possibly the most important legal issue surrounding the body-camera footage.

"The privacy issues are paramount," said Donaldson to HuffPost. "For instance, if the cops were to break down your door, you'd have a legitimate expectation of privacy in your home. Therefore, that footage would invade your privacy if it were shown outside of strictly, tightly controlled police usage."

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

The officer's privacy? Suspects? Both? How is this different from cruiser cams? And, how might it be dealt with?

I think the primary issue is that people who have an expectation of privacy - law abiding citizens in their own homes, for instance - will be suddenly videotaped, as will the interior of their homes, regardless of whether the officer is allowed in by consent, barges in with a warrant, etc., including domestic calls. Basically it turns an evidence server into a potential gold mine of embarrassing footage rivaling "COPS" but with no consent forms signed, probably terrible cyber security, and no current understanding of what the policies will be on access to and sharing of that data.

A cruiser cam (hopefully) won't ever be inside someone's home.

 

[timschochet]

To expand on my previous concern: I believe that anytime there is an altercation between a white policeman and a black male which comes to the attention of the public, as a general rule, whites are likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman, and blacks are likely to give the benefit of the doubt to the black youth. Obviously the hope is that cameras will provide factual evidence that will serve to sway one side or the other. But I'm not certain of this. I'd like to think that most people, if they are given the facts would react accordingly. But I'm not sure.

For instance, if Wilson's testimony is true and if it was on film, would that sway an Al Sharpton? If Wilson turned out to be a liar, and it was on film, would that sway a GrandpaRox? My hunch is that both of them would find a way to interpret the film in such a manner as to justify their own position, rather than ever change their mind.

 

[Henry Ford]

Some angry St Louis Bosnians out protesting after someone in their community was attacked and killed by multiple teens for no reason with hammers:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html?mobile_touch=true

Still not a mention of this basically anywhere, not even in this awful thread.

Like to see who the killers are and/or if they have been partaking in the "protests".

Don't hold your breath for the national outrage over that fatal attack because the incident won't garner enough national media traction to elicit mass outrage. Horrific black-on-white crime doesn't get a scintilla of the national media coverage of the far more rare white-on-black crime because black-on-white violent crime contravenes the media's black victim-white oppressor narrative. It's so self-evident that everybody knows this or at least should know it.

Also, because two suspects are already in custody and the police have the nickname of a third.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime/2014/12/01/bosnian-community-upset-brutal-murder/19725065/

Before leaving the scene, Chief Dotson thanked the group for bringing up their concerns.

"The whole idea of standing out in the street is to get our attention, you got my attention," Chief Dotson said.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Some angry St Louis Bosnians out protesting after someone in their community was attacked and killed by multiple teens for no reason with hammers:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html?mobile_touch=true

Still not a mention of this basically anywhere, not even in this awful thread.

Like to see who the killers are and/or if they have been partaking in the "protests".

Don't hold your breath for the national outrage over that fatal attack because the incident won't garner enough national media traction to elicit mass outrage. Horrific black-on-white crime doesn't get a scintilla of the national media coverage of the far more rare white-on-black crime because black-on-white violent crime contravenes the media's black victim-white oppressor narrative. It's so self-evident that everybody knows this or at least should know it.

Are you assuming the perpetrators are black? Maybe they were Yugoslavian loyalists that are still angry!!

 

[timschochet]

Some angry St Louis Bosnians out protesting after someone in their community was attacked and killed by multiple teens for no reason with hammers:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html?mobile_touch=true

Still not a mention of this basically anywhere, not even in this awful thread.

Like to see who the killers are and/or if they have been partaking in the "protests".

Don't hold your breath for the national outrage over that fatal attack because the incident won't garner enough national media traction to elicit mass outrage. Horrific black-on-white crime doesn't get a scintilla of the national media coverage of the far more rare white-on-black crime because black-on-white violent crime contravenes the media's black victim-white oppressor narrative. It's so self-evident that everybody knows this or at least should know it.

If there is a connection between this story and the Brown shooting, the article doesn't indicate it. There seems to be speculation that the guy died because he was Bosnian, though the police state there's no evidence of it. First time I've ever heard of an anti-Bosnian feeling in this country.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Strike, regarding your pm to me: the basement comment was meant to be humorous and not insulting. Many of us engage in back and forth humor here, and that's much different from people saying straight out "you're stupid" or "you're an #######" etc. At least I think it is. I'm sorry that you took particular offense at that comment. I will not repeat it.

Right, like "teabagger" eh? Just "humorous" to you? Just remember that when you take offense to something I might call you ok?

OK. You just called me a ######## in another thread- are we even now?

Nope. I don't normally call you names. Since you don't feel it necessary to apologize for the insult, just that I took exception to it I'll feel free to insult you as much as I want. If you take offense I'll make sure to apologize for you being offended but not for the actual insult. When you learn to not be insulting I'll consider changing my stance. But why should I when you don't even feel you should apologize for insulting someone, just that they took offense?

I think there's a big difference between what I did and making personal insults.Fine whatever. Go ahead and insult me anytime you feel like it. I won't ever mention it again. If you want to look foolish and rude, have at it.

Cool. Just don't "report me" as you've been known to do. You can be a real p***y sometimes.

i have never reported you. During my 7 years here I think I have only reported two people, Clinton and LHUCKS, and I regretted doing so afterward. I'll never do it again. It's not my place to police this forum.

BS. The one and only time I was suspended on this forum a MOD told me it was due to a report by you. And I've seen you post that you've reported others, most recently last week. I know you lie regularly on here, but please....On things I know for a fact don't lie.

What? I don't know what that MOD told you but I don't recall ever reporting you. It's possible that it slipped my memory but I doubt it because it's so rare that I ever report anyone. And I certainly did not report anybody 2 weeks ago . You must be thinking of someone else.

All of my suspensions are after a comment critical of you, Tim. Just saying....

 

[fantasycurse42]

Some angry St Louis Bosnians out protesting after someone in their community was attacked and killed by multiple teens for no reason with hammers:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html?mobile_touch=true

Still not a mention of this basically anywhere, not even in this awful thread.

Like to see who the killers are and/or if they have been partaking in the "protests".

Don't hold your breath for the national outrage over that fatal attack because the incident won't garner enough national media traction to elicit mass outrage. Horrific black-on-white crime doesn't get a scintilla of the national media coverage of the far more rare white-on-black crime because black-on-white violent crime contravenes the media's black victim-white oppressor narrative. It's so self-evident that everybody knows this or at least should know it.

If there is a connection between this story and the Brown shooting, the article doesn't indicate it. There seems to be speculation that the guy died because he was Bosnian, though the police state there's no evidence of it. First time I've ever heard of an anti-Bosnian feeling in this country.

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

 

[Henry Ford]

Some angry St Louis Bosnians out protesting after someone in their community was attacked and killed by multiple teens for no reason with hammers:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html?mobile_touch=true

Still not a mention of this basically anywhere, not even in this awful thread.

Like to see who the killers are and/or if they have been partaking in the "protests".

Don't hold your breath for the national outrage over that fatal attack because the incident won't garner enough national media traction to elicit mass outrage. Horrific black-on-white crime doesn't get a scintilla of the national media coverage of the far more rare white-on-black crime because black-on-white violent crime contravenes the media's black victim-white oppressor narrative. It's so self-evident that everybody knows this or at least should know it.

Also, because two suspects are already in custody and the police have the nickname of a third.

http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/crime/2014/12/01/bosnian-community-upset-brutal-murder/19725065/

Before leaving the scene, Chief Dotson thanked the group for bringing up their concerns.

"The whole idea of standing out in the street is to get our attention, you got my attention," Chief Dotson said.

Yes, I'm aware there were arrests, and yes I'm aware that at least some of the attackers were decribed as Hispanic and not black. But if a group of white teens decended on a car with a black couple and smashed in the black man's skull with hammers (I know the idea is so ridiculous in 2014 that it's hard to fathom, but pretend for a second), do you really think that incident wouldn't be part of a national dialogue about racism and receive far more attention than the present incident even if the arrests were made immediately? C'mon man!

To paraphrase much of the rest of this thread - is this really the case you want to hang your hat on for that proposition?

 

[timschochet]

Some angry St Louis Bosnians out protesting after someone in their community was attacked and killed by multiple teens for no reason with hammers:

http://m.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/motorist-beaten-to-death-by-several-juveniles-with-hammers-teens/article_9f15bf49-c8b7-5bc3-8671-ac291f666084.html?mobile_touch=true

Still not a mention of this basically anywhere, not even in this awful thread.

Like to see who the killers are and/or if they have been partaking in the "protests".

Don't hold your breath for the national outrage over that fatal attack because the incident won't garner enough national media traction to elicit mass outrage. Horrific black-on-white crime doesn't get a scintilla of the national media coverage of the far more rare white-on-black crime because black-on-white violent crime contravenes the media's black victim-white oppressor narrative. It's so self-evident that everybody knows this or at least should know it.

If there is a connection between this story and the Brown shooting, the article doesn't indicate it. There seems to be speculation that the guy died because he was Bosnian, though the police state there's no evidence of it. First time I've ever heard of an anti-Bosnian feeling in this country.

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

Actually it does mention the race of the suspects: black and Hispanic. But it doesn't tie them to the Brown shooting.

 

[Henry Ford]

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

If the victim was black and the assailants white, I'd wager my penis that it would've already been mentioned and the outrage would be everywhere.

So the wager would be my $100 against your penis?

 

[Henry Ford]

I'd like to tie down the specifics of this "C-note for penis" wager before I decide.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

If the victim was black and the assailants white, I'd wager my penis that it would've already been mentioned and the outrage would be everywhere.

So the wager would be my $100 against your penis?

Are you saying that the suspects were not participants in any of the "protesting"?

I'm fairly confident that they will be connected via social media and other checks into the background. Although, I'm even more confident the media will try to keep hush on it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

If the victim was black and the assailants white, I'd wager my penis that it would've already been mentioned and the outrage would be everywhere.

So the wager would be my $100 against your penis?

Are you saying that the suspects were not participants in any of the "protesting"?

I'm fairly confident that they will be connected via social media and other checks into the background. Although, I'm even more confident the media will try to keep hush on it.

I'd imagine that the connection between these two and the protests will be about as solid as the connection between Wilson and the KKK.

Participating in a protest doesn't make you a special member of a group.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

If the victim was black and the assailants white, I'd wager my penis that it would've already been mentioned and the outrage would be everywhere.

So the wager would be my $100 against your penis?

Are you saying that the suspects were not participants in any of the "protesting"?

I'm fairly confident that they will be connected via social media and other checks into the background. Although, I'm even more confident the media will try to keep hush on it.

I'd imagine that the connection between these two and the protests will be about as solid as the connection between Wilson and the KKK.

Participating in a protest doesn't make you a special member of a group.

I'd confidently say Wilson never took part in any KKK rallies.

ETA: If evidence shows that he did, this would get me to rethink my stance quickly.

 

[Todem]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Don't agree with that. County and state empoloyees, paid by tax payers and pensions provided by the tax payers. They can wear cameras on company time.

 

[Henry Ford]

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

If the victim was black and the assailants white, I'd wager my penis that it would've already been mentioned and the outrage would be everywhere.

So the wager would be my $100 against your penis?

Are you saying that the suspects were not participants in any of the "protesting"?

I'm fairly confident that they will be connected via social media and other checks into the background. Although, I'm even more confident the media will try to keep hush on it.

I'd imagine that the connection between these two and the protests will be about as solid as the connection between Wilson and the KKK.

Participating in a protest doesn't make you a special member of a group.

I'd confidently say Wilson never took part in any KKK rallies.

ETA: If evidence shows that he did, this would get me to rethink my stance quickly.

Almost certainly not, but the KKK took part in Darren Wilson rallies. And the alleged connection between the Ferguson PD and the KKK is a recent Anonymous focus.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Don't agree with that. County and state empoloyees, paid by tax payers and pensions provided by the tax payers. They can wear cameras on company time.

Not the officers' privacy.

 

[SIDA!]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

Just want to make sure. Does this constitute offering an opinion on your part or is this something else?

 

[Da Guru]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?

Why is Kenny Britt protesting? Britt has been arrested 10-12 times without incident. Britt should be doing a PSA how to act when arrested.

 

[Todem]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Don't agree with that. County and state empoloyees, paid by tax payers and pensions provided by the tax payers. They can wear cameras on company time.

Not the officers' privacy.

LMAO liberals cut their nose off to spite their face then in this case!

 

[squistion]

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/01/ben_carson_suggests_feminists_are_partly_responsible_for_ferguson/

Ben Carson suggests feminists are partly responsible for Ferguson

What was the real culprit behind the shooting death of unarmed black teen Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson? Many activists and scholars have pointed to the systemic racism that continues to plague the American criminal justice system, but conservative pundit and potential 2016 presidential candidate Ben Carson thinks Browns death is at least partly connected to feminism.

Appearing on American Family Radio (AFR) last week, Carson echoed a right-wing shibboleth, blaming family breakdown for the woes confronting young African American men and asserting that a lot of it really got started in the 60s with the rise of second-wave feminism.

Certainly in a lot of our inner cities, in particular the black inner cities, where 73 percent of the young people are born out of wedlock, the majority of them have no father figure in their life. Usually the father figure is where you learn how to respond to authority, Carson said. So now you become a teenager, youre out there, you have really no idea how to respond to authority, you eventually run into the police or you run into somebody else in the neighborhood who also doesnt know how to respond but is badder than you are, and you get killed or you end up in the penal system.

AFR host Lauren Kitchens Stewards chimed in that young people needed to be taught to respect authority, lamenting that todays youth carry a sense of entitlement a sentiment Carson seconded.

I think a lot of it really got started in the 60s with the me generation, he replied. Whats in it for me? I hate to say it, but a lot of it had to do with the womens lib movement. You know, Ive been taking care of my family, Ive been doing that, what about me? You know, it really should be about us.

 

[whiskey7]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?

Why is Kenny Britt protesting? Britt has been arrested 10-12 times without incident. Britt should be doing a PSA how to act when arrested.

Kenny Britt is a perfect example of a big part of the problem. He's an idiot who has been repeatedly caught doing illegal #### but thinks its all the racist cops just out to get him because he's black.

"Just another bump in the road, another pothole in the road that we've got to go over and smoothing that out," Britt said on Aug. 21. "That's something I'm not putting in my head right now, just hoping to recover from these knee injuries." -Kenny Britt

 

[timschochet]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?

Why is Kenny Britt protesting? Britt has been arrested 10-12 times without incident. Britt should be doing a PSA how to act when arrested.

Kenny Britt is a perfect example of a big part of the problem. He's an idiot who has been repeatedly caught doing illegal #### but thinks its all the racist cops just out to get him because he's black."Just another bump in the road, another pothole in the road that we've got to go over and smoothing that out," Britt said on Aug. 21. "That's something I'm not putting in my head right now, just hoping to recover from these knee injuries." -Kenny Britt

But there a millions of law abiding people, blacks and whites, who share Britt's views on racism . His personal situation doesn't make his viewpoint illegitimate.

 

[StrikeS2k]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?

Why is Kenny Britt protesting? Britt has been arrested 10-12 times without incident. Britt should be doing a PSA how to act when arrested.

Kenny Britt is a perfect example of a big part of the problem. He's an idiot who has been repeatedly caught doing illegal #### but thinks its all the racist cops just out to get him because he's black."Just another bump in the road, another pothole in the road that we've got to go over and smoothing that out," Britt said on Aug. 21. "That's something I'm not putting in my head right now, just hoping to recover from these knee injuries." -Kenny Britt

But there a millions of law abiding people, blacks and whites, who share Britt's views on racism . His personal situation doesn't make his viewpoint illegitimate.

Of course not. The illegitimacy of that viewpoint stands on it's own two feet.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Don't agree with that. County and state empoloyees, paid by tax payers and pensions provided by the tax payers. They can wear cameras on company time.

Not the officers' privacy.

I hadn't thought of that angle.

Do you see body cameras as materially different from dashboard cameras?

 

[Todem]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Don't agree with that. County and state empoloyees, paid by tax payers and pensions provided by the tax payers. They can wear cameras on company time.

Not the officers' privacy.

I hadn't thought of that angle.

Do you see body cameras as materially different from dashboard cameras?

I really did not either.

I think what they need to do is maybe establish a guideline as to when a personal GoPro (for lack of a better term) needs to be turned on. It's a slippery slope. And a tough thing to figure out in regards to privacy rights we have as citizens.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Farrakhan:

Jefferson, oops I mean Ferguson

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

Don't agree with that. County and state empoloyees, paid by tax payers and pensions provided by the tax payers. They can wear cameras on company time.

Not the officers' privacy.

I hadn't thought of that angle.

Do you see body cameras as materially different from dashboard cameras?

In that that they go into people's homes, yes.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Of course there is no mention of the race of the suspects, even though they know who they are and have some in custody.

I'll happily wager anyone $100 that we can connect some of the suspects to protesting in Ferguson if anyone cares for a little action, just a hunch.

If the victim was black and the assailants white, I'd wager my penis that it would've already been mentioned and the outrage would be everywhere.

So the wager would be my $100 against your penis?

Are you going to have to physically hold your $100 against his penis?

Its a trap!

 

[timschochet]

Great explanation DW. Very informative.

 

[kentric]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

If you don't believe Brown charged Wilson, then why don't you believe Wilson should go to jail?

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I have no doubt that this is where the major sticking point is in a lot of discussions on police misconduct. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed by the facts that:

1. I file lawsuits against police officers/departments who I believe have violated someone's civil rights on a semi-regular basis; and

2. I'm dealing with Louisiana police officers.

I think #2 may be a big issue for me. Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption, and I don't think I could say that less than 1% of the officers around here are abusive or untruthful with a straight face.

 

[Sabertooth]

I pretty much agree with Chris Rock on the matter.

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad he resigned. I don't think he should have gone to jail, but Wilson's obvious fabrication that Brown turned around and charged him- an absurd lie which nobody reasonably minded could ever buy into- proves that he probably could have avoided killing Brown.

If you don't believe Brown charged Wilson, then why don't you believe Wilson should go to jail?

Because not all wrongdoing is worthy of a jail sentence.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I have no doubt that this is where the major sticking point is in a lot of discussions on police misconduct. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed by the facts that:

1. I file lawsuits against police officers/departments who I believe have violated someone's civil rights on a semi-regular basis; and

2. I'm dealing with Louisiana police officers.

I think #2 may be a big issue for me. Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption, and I don't think I could say that less than 1% of the officers around here are abusive or untruthful with a straight face.

There certainly are Departments, regions, and specific units that seem t defy the odds. Louisiana, particularly the parishes around N.O have some notorious problems, as have N.Y.P.D. Chicago P.D., L.A.P.D. (we all remember Darrell gates, no?) and Miami and Dade County agencies, particularly those involved in narcotics.

We could probably have some interesting discussions. One of my favorite issues is that there are attorney's who will fight the firing of Cops for abuses, after all the Cops have rights, while other attorneys demand to know why specific cops are still on the force. A bit of a Catch 22 at times, but that is the nature of public service and any who do not like it out to get out of public service.

I'd love to hear your favorite story about Cops. Every litigator has one.

edit-- BTW, my estimate of less than 15 would be as to propensities to misuse force in any meaningful way. when it comes to honesty, or lack thereof, I would place the figure higher, unfortunately.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I have no doubt that this is where the major sticking point is in a lot of discussions on police misconduct. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed by the facts that:

1. I file lawsuits against police officers/departments who I believe have violated someone's civil rights on a semi-regular basis; and

2. I'm dealing with Louisiana police officers.

I think #2 may be a big issue for me. Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption, and I don't think I could say that less than 1% of the officers around here are abusive or untruthful with a straight face.

There certainly are Departments, regions, and specific units that seem t defy the odds. Louisiana, particularly the parishes around N.O have some notorious problems, as have N.Y.P.D. Chicago P.D., L.A.P.D. (we all remember Darrell gates, no?) and Miami and Dade County agencies, particularly those involved in narcotics.

We could probably have some interesting discussions. One of my favorite issues is that there are attorney's who will fight the firing of Cops for abuses, after all the Cops have rights, while other attorneys demand to know why specific cops are still on the force. A bit of a Catch 22 at times, but that is the nature of public service and any who do not like it out to get out of public service.

I'd love to hear your favorite story about Cops. Every litigator has one.

I can't really discuss my favorite stories about corrupt officers. The settlements usually include some kind of confidentiality provision.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption,

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I have no doubt that this is where the major sticking point is in a lot of discussions on police misconduct. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed by the facts that:

1. I file lawsuits against police officers/departments who I believe have violated someone's civil rights on a semi-regular basis; and

2. I'm dealing with Louisiana police officers.

I think #2 may be a big issue for me. Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption, and I don't think I could say that less than 1% of the officers around here are abusive or untruthful with a straight face.

There certainly are Departments, regions, and specific units that seem t defy the odds. Louisiana, particularly the parishes around N.O have some notorious problems, as have N.Y.P.D. Chicago P.D., L.A.P.D. (we all remember Darrell gates, no?) and Miami and Dade County agencies, particularly those involved in narcotics.

We could probably have some interesting discussions. One of my favorite issues is that there are attorney's who will fight the firing of Cops for abuses, after all the Cops have rights, while other attorneys demand to know why specific cops are still on the force. A bit of a Catch 22 at times, but that is the nature of public service and any who do not like it out to get out of public service.

I'd love to hear your favorite story about Cops. Every litigator has one.

I can't really discuss my favorite stories about corrupt officers. The settlements usually include some kind of confidentiality provision.

Indeed, not in any great specificity, but sometimes issues well defined are plenty. that said I have limits to what I will write on this board as well. Prudence first.

BTW, I edited my earlier post to distinguish between those officers who may resort to excessive force and those who will bend, break, or stomp on the truth.

 

[parasaurolophus]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

 

[squistion]

So wait, Tim, can I use as a legit source "I heard it on talk radio"?

Not sure about Tim, but Hang10 would have no problem with that.

 

[Todem]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

The storage requirements for video are staggering. As such there will be protocols for storage durations before video is destroyed. Setting these retention policies will create potential time consuming due process arguments by defense Attorneys whose clients video was not retained. Also, there will inevitably be charges that the video is one-sided, after all it will be the Cops who decide where to point the cameras, when to turn them on, and when off. ( Most systems will automatically arm whenever an officer steps foot outside of their patrol car. Most units also have 30 seconds previous to arming automatically retained. Officers will have the ability to arm the system in their cars. Officers will also have the ability to disarm the system for privacy concerns -rape victims, juvenile victims- but that ability will always be suspect.) Finally, Plaintiff's attorneys will ceaselessly seek video hoping that incidents they are involved with may have been picked up by video wholly unrelated to their matter. Until the Courts come to some understanding on limiting wild fishing expeditions in civil matters having video will mean having crippling amounts of time and resources going to searching that video in response to Criminal Justice records Requests and Subpoenas Duces Tecum.

Most large Departments are moving rapidly to implement body cameras. They will be standard within a year. The concerns, valid though they are, are not sufficient to deter most Departments from moving responsibly towards this protection now that technology has made it somewhat affordable. I note that the technology for this was developed by several companies, including Tazer International, not at the behest of citizen advocacy groups, but at the behest of Police departments.

I have seen proprietary studies of the use and effectiveness of these systems and it is remarkable how often good and true citizens will lie to Cops or about Cops when they are unaware they are being recorded. One would not be exaggerating to say that the majority of complaints most Departments received during these studies are fabricated by defendants trying to achieve leverage in their criminal suit, or for a possible civil suit. Now that said I do note that the Officers using the cameras for most evaluation periods tend to be the best officers a Department has, and they had the advantage of knowing they were on tape will the citizens did not. One is unlikely to act poorly when on tape. In the end it is that fact which is significant. Officers who might otherwise been abusive or untruthful will now have to comport themselves far better. In my experience these Officers are few and far between, somewhere less than 1% of the average police force. Unfortunately with the Officers who are problems they work 200 shifts or so each year, often contacting dozens of citizens on each shift, meaning that even one bad Officer can generate potentially thousands of bad interactions in a year.

I have no doubt that this is where the major sticking point is in a lot of discussions on police misconduct. Admittedly, my viewpoint is skewed by the facts that:

1. I file lawsuits against police officers/departments who I believe have violated someone's civil rights on a semi-regular basis; and

2. I'm dealing with Louisiana police officers.

I think #2 may be a big issue for me. Louisiana, especially southeast Louisiana, has a pretty long and storied history with police corruption, and I don't think I could say that less than 1% of the officers around here are abusive or untruthful with a straight face.

I have zero doubt there are plenty of cases of corrupt police officers. But the perception being portrayed about this case is that this is a huge nationwide problem and is rampant is being completely blown out of proportion. And in my mind I have little to no doubt officer Wilson had very little choice and acted as he was trained to do.

I am all about privacy protection and our civil rights being protected.

I am not however in support of people who are backing a person who blatantly committed a crime, assaulted a police officer (and failing to comply with a simple order to get on the sidewalk) and then was shot dead for not following a police officers explicit command to freeze with your hands straight up in the air. Too much confirmed evidence points towards Wilson's story.

I completely realize that yourself and Tobias are furious at the process that took place after the fact. I appreciate that. I can understand that. And I could also poke holes and question that as well.

But the ignorant public that is making a spectacle out of this case with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" is beyond belief and strikes to a bigger problem that we have people in our country of law and order (to the best of our ability) basically saying the police are all corrupt, they all racially profile and gun down innocent black men, shooting them in the back as some claimed, shooting them while surrendering as some claim...it's crazy because it pretty much has been diffused by forensic and eye witness evidence that this did not happen in this particular case. I venture to say the majority of our police forces in this country do the right thing to the best of their ability. It is a lousy job. The worst kind of job. But thank god we have young men and woman willing to do it. We grant them certain authority and rights to use deadly force if the situation deems it necessary.

And then you have so called professional football players led by model citizen Kenny Britt (for whatever that's worth has half the league are a bunch of thugs and we know this and if you disagree your being blind) disrespecting the police force that supports their very own team. What they did yesterday was a joke. A complete slap in the face of hardworking dedicated police officers who are doing the right thing and the best they can. But they are too ignorant to realize that their actions have some serious consequence to young people watching.

It's appalling.

Does the process that followed the shooting need to be looked at? Yes I can agree with that.

But this is such the wrong case for the portion of our country who dislike cops to hang their hats on. Just wrong.

 

[Hilts]

I've heard that Officer Wilson appeared on TV this weekend and came out in support of cameras on policemen. I've been unsure of how I felt about it , but now I'm leaning in favor. Do you guys agree this is a good idea?

What is the argument against body cameras (other than maybe cost)?

Invasion of privacy.

The officer's privacy? Suspects? Both? How is this different from cruiser cams? And, how might it be dealt with?

I think the primary issue is that people who have an expectation of privacy - law abiding citizens in their own homes, for instance - will be suddenly videotaped, as will the interior of their homes, regardless of whether the officer is allowed in by consent, barges in with a warrant, etc., including domestic calls. Basically it turns an evidence server into a potential gold mine of embarrassing footage rivaling "COPS" but with no consent forms signed, probably terrible cyber security, and no current understanding of what the policies will be on access to and sharing of that data.

A cruiser cam (hopefully) won't ever be inside someone's home.

This is a very interesting angle/point I hadn't considered. .

There's a lot of cryptosecurity already on the market that allows you to blur faces/whatever you want while filming on your phone. It still needs some tweaking, but the product does exist. What if the camera were able to automatically detect when it was in a home and blur all but faces/bodies? I'm sure it could be turned off/on when entering a home, but then that defeats a lot of the main purpose

 

[whiskey7]

Farrakhan:

Jefferson, oops I mean Ferguson

I watched a good deal of the full video and that is some truly unbelievable ####. If that man is looked to for leadership amongst black people, its no wonder so many of them seem hopelessly lost.

 

[Two Deep]

If the players want to get together after the game and join a protest, or start their own, I thinks that's up to them. To make their little statement on the NFL's stage is not their place. The NFL did not create its production so that players can make political statements. The NFL is selling a product and their antic is antithetical to the product, which is mindless diversion from the events of the day.

THIS!!!

I agree, people should not be allowed to raise their hands because it might offend some.

What is the signal for a TD again?