FBI Chief Links Video Scrutiny of Police To Rise In Violent Crime (nytimes.com) 372
HughPickens.com writes: This year, murders have spiked in major cities across America. According to FBI director James B. Comey the additional scrutiny and criticism of police officers that has come in the wake of highly publicized incidents of police brutality may be the main reason for the recent increase in violent crime. "I don't know whether that explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind that has blown through American law enforcement over the last year," says Comey. He says he's been told by many police leaders that officers who normally would stop to question suspicious people are opting to stay in their patrol cars for fear of having their encounters recorded and become video sensations.
That hesitancy has led to missed opportunities to apprehend suspects and has decreased the police presence on the streets of the country's most violent cities. Officers tell Comey that youths surround police when they get out of their vehicles, taunting them and making videos of the spectacle with their cell phones. "In today's YouTube world, there are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime," says Comey. "Our officers are answering 911 calls, but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns."
That hesitancy has led to missed opportunities to apprehend suspects and has decreased the police presence on the streets of the country's most violent cities. Officers tell Comey that youths surround police when they get out of their vehicles, taunting them and making videos of the spectacle with their cell phones. "In today's YouTube world, there are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime," says Comey. "Our officers are answering 911 calls, but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns."
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If the police acted respectfully during encounters with private citizens, I doubt there would be much need to record these encounters. I know I don't record my neighbor getting his mail or washing his car, because I don't consider either behavior threatening. Police have abused their positions of trust and the recording is one of many symptoms of this fact.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
But... But... If they have nothing to hide, they should have nothing to fear!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
that's their job. sorry if it's difficult. it doesn't help when the director of the FBI essentially calls them all bitches who are afraid of a camera.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Nobody is forced to work as a policeman. But I have the impression a lot of people do this job for all the wrong reasons, namely being able to be violent without repercussions, to wield authority that they would never ever have been able to earn personally, etc. It is almost like some type of criminal found becoming a policeman the perfect solution to their desires. And, unlike in sane states, the US does not seem to filter these people out anymore. That is what typically happens in a police-state: You want violent goons as policemen to keep the population in fear and timid. This call to essentially ignore crime committed by policemen fits that picture perfectly.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If the job is impossible then there will soon be obvious, highly visible problems. To maintain law and order, society will then have to come up with democratically acceptable solutions to those problems, which might include legislating to give more or different powers to law enforcement and accepting the consequences.
But hypothetical problems aren't very interesting, and fear of hypothetical problems should not be allowed undue influence in public debate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What happens to society if that turns out to be an impossible job?
We abolish policing and return to the Militia, with YOU having to report for drill every week and YOU doing the patrolling.
the only way the job is impossible is if your goal is not Law Enforcement but Police Intimidation!
Re: (Score:3)
Let's pretend it is and think it through. It becomes impossible to do an effective job, crime rises, people notice, want less crime, make changes to make it less impossible.
"What if" is a poor argument. Let's try going back to police acting as public servants and see if we miss police bullying. Perhaps you are right. Let's find out.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not an opinion on cops being filmed nor a statement supporting or refuting it. However, the cops wear body cameras and have dash cameras because we told that that's what we wanted. I don't see that as hypocrisy, really.
If asked, then yes, I think cops should have to accept that they're *also* being filmed by the public.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is, there's a long history of recording accidentally going missing, or accidentally not having been recorded, when the police do something bad and the victims want to see the videos. It's a good start, but they just can't be trusted.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, the system is set up so that they shouldn't be trusted.
Eliminate victimless crimes, and their job gets a whole lot easier -- both in terms of the behaviors that they need to "enforce" against, and also in terms of their safety because they will be far less likely to harm innocents (a percentage of whom will fight back).
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
So... the cops are justified in arresting "bad guys" on no grounds just because they think they're "bad guys"?
The problem is that a lot of people are in jail for possession of drugs who are not bad guys.
We need to stop putting all of these non-violent victimless "criminals" in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
How can it not?
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, but I don't see any hypocrisy which is what I was responding to. The cops didn't, usually, want the videos in the first place. They still don't. I'm not sure what you're responding to.
Re: (Score:3)
However, the cops wear body cameras and have dash cameras because we told that that's what we wanted. I don't see that as hypocrisy, really.
... pulling in the quote you replied to:
Why is it that cops aren't to be filmed, but it's okay for cops to wear body cameras and have dash cameras to record the public?
One of the reasons that "we" wanted dash/body cameras is because people were, reportedly, simultaneously being told they were not allowed to record the events and the events were violating rights. The hypocrisy is that they want to be able to tell the public when they can and can't record public events, while retaining the ability to control whether they are recording the event. The always on dash/body cam is what is being contested, because they can no longer (illega
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
They've always wanted to not be recorded. Hell, were I a thug in a blue uniform, I'd want the same thing (I imagine). There's no hypocrisy here - they're just still wanting to hide their misdeeds.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. The police have apparently decided that if they're not going to be allowed to beat people to death once they're in cuffs, there's no point in arresting them at all.
Nobody I know of has claimed we need less police, just that we need police who will act like police rather than goons.
They spent decades inspiring community hatred, it's not going to go away overnight, especially when they have yet to take steps to accept responsibility and make amends.
Re:Good (Score:4)
America's law enforcement community is peopled with absolutely the wrong types. The worst have risen to the top and fixing this problem will take at least a generation.
We can't let this sort of press release reporting sway us from a just and fair legal system.
Re: (Score:3)
Now of course a depressed economy (for the majority, even with the illusion of recovery but it is all going to a minority), crap wages, temporary employment, run down streets, footpaths et al(you are nto going to respect where you live if it looks like shit), constant hammering of violence by main stream media (news or creative content), hate being broadcast by politicians at every opportunity and racism fuelled hatred on the rise. None of that is a problem but naughty law enforcers scared to get out of th
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you gain and keep the respect of a group of people, whose sole goal in an encounter is to show they world how little they respect you?
I'm guessing that beating them up and shooting them isn't likely to work.
In too many countries, modern police act like an occupying army, and are then surprised when they're treated like one.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe we could just take them all off the street and let everyone wear a gun and handle their own justice? Wonder how that would work out? I know already anytime I have to take a trip to Atlanta to visit Emory University Hospital Midtown that I pack heat. It's gotten to the point that it's not paranoia anymore, they really are out to get you. It's not the fucking police I'm worried about either. They're the lightweights.
Re:Good (Score:4, Interesting)
It's odd that this sort of situation seems to happen so much more often in the US than most places, though. It's hard to get an accurate picture from outside based on just what the TV reports, because that will naturally highlight the big wins and big failures but probably most police work fits somewhere in between. Still, the picture of US law enforcement that is shown to the outside world is often not a positive one, and makes me wonder how much of any cultural problems with law enforcement in the US were caused by the past behaviour of the law enforcement organisations themselves. Perhaps borrowing more of the community-based neighbourhood policing that is used in a lot of other places and accepting the greater degree of scrutiny they now operate under will help, at least in the long term.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just the picture, it's the reality. US police are trained to believe the public is their enemy, and they treat them as such. Oddly enough, the public have now started to believe the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard a few disturbing stories over the years that sound a lot like that, but I always imagined it was just hyperbole, at least in most cases. If that is literally true, then it is hard to see how the police organisations with such policies could ever maintain the good community relations necessary for effective police work. Creating a them-and-us culture seems like a sure route to all kinds of problems, not least losing the willingness of witnesses or other relevant members of the public to step up an
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been dragged out of a car at gunpoint for 'stopping at the side of the road while sounding a bit foreign.' Think I have much respect for the US police after that? I'm lucky they weren't 'acting recklessly' that day, or I'd be six feet under.
I read an interesting article a while back by a US soldier who'd become a cop after he left the army. He said that Americans were scared of ex-military police, because they assumed they'd been trained to airstrike first and ask questions later, but he saw the civilian police do things every day that would have got him courtmartialled when he was in Iraq or Afghanistan. The rules of engagement there, where most people really did want to kill him, were much tougher and much more strictly enforced than on the streets of American cities.
Now, maybe he's making it up to make himself look better, but I can certainly believe that.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
By sane standards, the US is now a police state. A key indicator is that the law does not get applied to police members anymore. (There is still some residual rule-of-law that keeps them under some control, but this seems to be become less and less.) A police-state is one of the more benign forms of totalitarian state, but it usually devolves to full fascism over time.
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
You gain / maintain respect by ensuring those wearing the uniform of a Law Enforcement agency act like professionals instead of thugs.
You solidify that respect by bringing down the hammer on those unfit to wear that uniform and you do it publicly.
You SHOW the people that criminal and thuggish behavior will not be tolerated by those in uniform. A zero tolerance policy to remove the idiots and a better screening process to remove them from the pool before they're even hired.
Yes, they deal with monsters from time to time. Becoming one to deal with them quickly blurs the line between protectors and predators.
That line is already so blurry that most don't trust any police because we can't differentiate between the professional and the thug.
You want your respect, trust and peace back ? Begin by clearing your ranks of those who can't seem to live up to the professional standards of those who wore that uniform back when it meant something.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is police situations rarely if ever resolve themselves into black and white instances where an action is "professional" or "thug-like". There's a substantial grey area in between where some observers would interpret the action as appropriate and professional, while others would interpret it as thug-like.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting how the FBI's argument could also be used to stop the use of body cameras. The argument is also based on supposition, the directors "feelings", whereas recent events have proven that cops use excessive force, even to the point of murdering people, and lie about it. I'm not saying it's all cops, or that the other side is blameless. Within minutes of Darren Wilson's death, peo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you gain and keep the respect of a group of people...
They had it. Through their own actions they lost it. Now they have a problem.
Re:Good (Score:4)
Show me a video of a cop gunning down someone who is calm and following directions
Sure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
You have a strange sense of reality.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is approximately like saying that the Holocaust was caused by someone who bullied Neville Chamberlain when he was a kid. The effect is so distant from the supposed cause that it is laughable.
To the extent that video scrutiny leads to a rise in violent crime, it is principally because otherwise non-violent criminals have become scared of excessive police brutality, and thus more frequently choose to arm themselves for their own safety. You cannot foment peace at the tip of a sword. Violence begets v
Re: (Score:2)
Let me get this right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but do your job withing the confines of the law (including the constitution). You get no free pass. If you cannot do your job within those confines, then press to have those laws changed, in an open and democratic manner. If you do not, you are little (or no) better than the thugs and gangsters you wish to imprison.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't objecting to being filmed, they're objecting to people trying to get them to make a mistake on camera.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the kind of "mistakes" that are being filmed are "mistakes" of shooting unarmed people or beating people who have been handcuffed.
So now the FBI director says that because cops are afraid that someone will film those "mistakes" that the cops will refuse to do the job that the public pays them to do.
And that's okay with him.
How in the fuck would that even be logical in any oth
Re: (Score:3)
So? Try being professional then. Change your attitude to "serve the public" instead of "enforce laws" (upon the public). People can tell the difference between helping and bullying on a video, especially if there's sound.
And, while you're at it, run your own camera and make all the raw video publicly available so no one can release edited videos that take your actions out of context.
Re: (Score:2)
Better still, don't go on a pouty sit-in (and get paid) strike because you think somebody has taken the fun out of your job.
If you didn't want to be a police officer that everybody can respect when they see what you do, you shouldn't have applied in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like the comments of an AC who is blind to the fact that police _must_ strive to be paragons of virtue while on the job. The law applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like the comment of someone crazy enough to actually do so alone. Police are not supposed to be an army of one. They are supposed to be a unified force, acting collectively to protect the public. This isn't a movie, and cops aren't supposed to act like John McClane.
Re:Let me get this right.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds like the comments of someone obviously blind to the realities of stepping into a hostile crowd alone.
Why was the hostile crowd there, why was it hostile, why was it necessary for law enforcement to enter it, and why was the officer doing so alone? If your hypothetical problem situation ever actually happens, it sounds like a whole lot of things probably already went wrong long before the officer stepped into the crowd.
Re:Let me get this right.... (Score:5, Informative)
This sounds like the comments of someone obviously blind to the realities of stepping into a hostile crowd alone.
Yes, there is an escalating war against the police. In fact, with one shooting per week [yahoo.com] in 2015, it is a very dangerous time to be a.. toddler? (checks link) Wow.
--- sketchy source [nytimes.com]
Well, c'mon, that was back in 2013, before the "Ferguson Effect." What are the more recent statistics--oh...
2015 may be one of the safest years for law enforcement in a quarter century. [theguardian.com]
So how are these "realities" you speak of any different now than before the new "video scrutiny"?
Re: (Score:3)
Look, the man '[has] a strong sense ...', surely that counts for something!
Re: (Score:2)
When is the last time that an US policeman has been "stepping into a hostile crowd alone"? These days they are mostly cowards that will not dare anything unless they are sure that they can kill them all. Sure, not all of them, possibly not even a majority, but the number of utter scum in police uniforms is staggering.
Policemen _must_ be held to a much higher standard or they become common thugs.
Radical proposal (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is a radical proposal:
don't choke to death petty criminals, don't shoot fleeing suspects in the back. Don't kill people in the vans on their way to the police station, etc... And more importantly: don't support the police officers who do this!
And finally, actually discipline officers for their misdeeds.
Unions (Score:2)
To get any reforms through you'll need approval of the unions. The unions will say no. You aren't anti-union, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what constitutes resisting arrest? Taking a step back. Police officer gets in your face, natural reaction is to preserve personal space, you instinctively take a step back and, boom: resisting arrest.
Also, did you fail to see the news about a policeman violently taking down a suspect who was
1. Accused of a non-violent crime.
2. Not even the actual suspect.
3. Did not have a chance to resist arrest before being violen
why are police so scared of everything? (Score:2, Insightful)
the best part is that the director of the FBI says police are afraid of kids with phones who mock them. the police should resign if they are so afraid.
They used only two years to call this a spike (Score:3, Insightful)
2012 had the lowest crime rate since 1970 and even with the so called spike, the murder rate stills remains far below the record marks witnessed two to three decades ago, in the late 1980s and early ’90s. Can someone in the media call bullshit ?
It is simply a shifting balance (Score:3)
Whether or not to stop, detain, punch or shoot a suspect is always a judgement call — calculations weighting pros and cons, risk and reward are automatically made in our heads.
The additional scrutiny — and TFA talks about all kinds of scrutiny, not just video, that's Hugh Pickens' manipulations — shifts that balance towards the safer (for the policeman) course of action. Because if they do apprehend a dangerous criminal cleanly, at most, they'll get a pat on the back. But if they screw up, or even if they don't, but merely appear to — the entire "Hands up don't shoot" meme is based on a lie [washingtonpost.com], remember? — their lives will change dramatically. For the worse.
The scrutiny is not going anywhere and that, on balance, is a good thing, in my opinion. The public — and the police — just need to learn not to rush to judgement. And the wronged cops need to receive their days in court — of public opinion — not merely "left alone", when they are exonerated. That might push the balance back a little...
Re: (Score:2)
And some officers tend towards the more violent approaches. That's why the complaints against NYPD officers are concentrated amongst a small subset of the officers.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. The amount and measure of violence — is a judgement call too.
If it is a "small subset", then it is automatically off-topic where a nation-wide trend is discussed... Please, do not filibust.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it is likely that nation-wide the excessive force complaints are against a subset of officers in every city. The problem is that there is no effective discipline for this subset.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were, it would've, probably, been reproduced by now. Wake me up, when it is. But remember the saying: New York is not America, and Manhattan is not New York.
Sure. But your statement — thanks to its caveat-words like "likely" and "subset" — is non-falsifiable [vcu.edu] and thus non-scientific. And ther
Re:It is simply a shifting balance (Score:4, Informative)
"Any time"? Really? What if a policeman tells you to go into a bank and start shooting? Or tells you to shoot yourself? Is violence justified then? So, no, not "Any time".
But, it can be recognized when caught on camera.
Frankly, it's people who blindly support the police, irrespective of the violence that they perpetrate on people, that are the root cause of the situation that we are in now.
Too many cops think that a badge (Score:5, Insightful)
is a license to break the law. Cops need to be held accountable for their misdeeds, just like everyone else. Maybe the cops that are afraid to be recorded don't know how to do their jobs while following the law.
Re: (Score:2)
This is entirely true. I have had friends and acquaintances that are cops. Not only are they some of the worst offenders, I and other people have found out first-hand why it's not a good idea to befriend a cop. If they decide for some reason that they don't like you (say you start dating their younger sister) or you have a falling-out in general, they can and very well may make your life a living hell. They have all the tools they need to do it, facts be-damned.
The ones that have made society an us-and-
Re: (Score:2)
The ones that have made society an us-and-them situation
You mean like all politicians? George Washington warned of this in his farewell address.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, because of their special powers, cops need to be held to much higher standards. These days it seems they are held to much, much lower standards.
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, police have no idea how to do their job without being able to assault people, racially profile them, and generally be dicks. If these police are afraid to do their jobs because they might be filmed, the easiest solution is to hire police officers who don't do anything wrong that will be an issue if it ends up on tape. The reason people are taping the police constantly now is because they expect the police to do something wrong because they have shown in a lot of cases they do. If the police get better and stop setting the expectation they will treat people like garbage, then people won;t expect it and won't feel the need to film them constantly.
Because they know they're criminals. (Score:5, Insightful)
"In today's YouTube world, there are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime," says Comey.
If they have nothing to hide, why are they afraid of being recorded? If they aren't breaking the law, then they should not fear to do their jobs. That's what they've been telling us all along; if we have nothing to hide, we shouldn't fear their disregard for the fourth amendment. But if the cops have to break the law to save it, what are they fighting for anyway?
The cops are still playing this issue like it's part of the non-existent "war on cops". There is no such thing. Instead, there's a ground swell of support for the idea that the cops should be made to follow the law just like the rest of us, or even moreso. With great power comes great responsibility.
From the article (Score:5, Interesting)
But he acknowledged that there is so far no data to back up his assertion
Now there's a surprise.
More anecdotes (Score:5, Informative)
Since wer're posting anecdotes and vague "feelings", here's what I've noticed.
I've lived in my neighborhood for decades, and haven't had any problem with police... except this year, in which I was stopped and questioned three times. Make that "stopped, handcuffed, searched, ID'd, and questioned" three times. One time I had a prescription in my jacket pocket (antibiotic), and the officer jotted down the drug, my name, and the prescription number in his notebook.
We're supposed to be free to go about our business, and we're not required to interact with police when they call out to us. Police can walk up to someone and try to start a conversation, but I've always been told that they are like any citizen, and you can choose not to interact with them.
In all three cases I *could not* avoid interacting with the police despite trying, and all three situations ended in a confrontation. The officer *began* the encounter visibly irate, and escalated to *enraged* when I wouldn't interact. (Yes, I'm aware of my state's "must identify" law. I don't/didn't lie to them, but I don't show ID when asked.)
One told me he was going to taser me if I didn't show ID, one actually arrested me for not having ID (while hiking on a public trail), but then changed the charge at the last minute. On that last one, the officer stated that not carrying an ID was illegal.
I'm white, elderly, and live in a low-crime bedroom community, and I can't take a walk at night without fear of being randomly intimidated by an angry cop.
A neighboring town had a pumpkin festival last year, and the police had snipers [vocativ.com] out during the event.
I don't know what it is with America these days, but we're definitely seeing more angry police, and this is reflected in the public's perception.
I think it's counter productive. I won't have anything to do with the police now, and I don't know anyone on my block who will. If they come door-to-door asking if we witnessed some crime, they get nothing from me.
The chance of abuse is too high for me to have any interaction with them. If they come door-to-door, I didn't see anything.
Re:More anecdotes (Score:5, Interesting)
A neighboring town had a pumpkin festival last year, and the police had snipers [vocativ.com] out during the event.
Yup. Most police today look and act like extras straight out of RoboCop, and many of them behave as if they're about to be killed at any moment. They overreact at the slightest thing and rarely use their discretion any more. It's just gone fucking nuts.
Most cops carry 2 guns, a knife, a baton, a Taser, and pepper spray. They wear a bullet-resistant vest, steel-toed boots, and have a radio to call for backup with...and yet they're terrified of a guy in shorts and a t-shirt. WTF?
When I was young the police (most police) were actually friendly and you could count on them for help. Most people liked and respected police officers. Now they mostly seem to be dicks itching for any excuse to make an arrest over the smallest thing. I avoid them at all costs.
The problem is that most cops these days can't tell the difference between a felony and just fucking around.
Re:More anecdotes (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that most cops these days can't tell the difference between a felony and just fucking around.
To be fair, the bigger problem is that many things that were 'just fucking around' when we were kids are now felonies. If you demand that the police 'enforce the law', they're far more likely to arrest kids who are 'just fucking around' than gang members who are likely to shoot them.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the bigger problem is that many things that were 'just fucking around' when we were kids are now felonies.
I disagree. I don't think there have been very many civil offenses or misdemeanors that have been upgraded to felonies. Some, I'm sure, but not many.
Drinking beer in a park, hanging out after dark ("loitering"), getting caught with a joint, graffiti, minor vandalism, etc etc have never been felonies. It's just that with the advent of "proactive policing" (also called the Broken Windows theory of enforcement) every tiny little thing is now taken to the extreme and prosecuted.
When my friends and were caught w
Re: (Score:2)
Tasers are part of the problem. They were introduced as a way to keep officers from having to shoot with their guns when someone was out of control, but didn't have a weapon. Instead officers think that it's okay to use it to get compliance for everything, thus abusing people while abusing the intent of tasers.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're purposefully being an ass, and then you act surprised when the cops get mad at you?
"Halt! Ihre papiere, bitte!"
How Dare You Watch Us Misbehave! (Score:2)
Seriously, how can we fuck around, beat you, shoot you, and violate your rights on a whim if you pesky citizens are going to video us all the time?
Signed,
The Police
Murders have not "spiked" (Score:5, Insightful)
if you have nothing to hide... (Score:2)
Let's use the usual police argument:
If you have nothing to hide and don't break any laws, why would you object to being reco
Re: (Score:3)
He says he's been told by many police leaders that officers who normally would stop to question suspicious people are opting to stay in their patrol cars for fear of having their encounters recorded and become video sensations
Good...maybe they'll learn a little fucking restraint instead of popping out of their cars and shooting 12-year old kids [wikipedia.org] for holding a toy gun.
Seriously, stay in your fucking copmobile unless you have a reason to be "interacting" with the public. It's not your job to go on fishing expeditions hoping to make another arrest or choking a guy to death for selling cigarettes [cnn.com] or "jogging while black [newsone.com]".
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, police clearly acted recklessly.
I'll remember that, next time I shoot someone. "Sorry, your honour, I was just acting recklessly." "Well then, try not to do it again."
As for Democrats vs Republicans, here's how I see it:
The American left hate the police, because the police prevent them from murdering the rich and stealing all their stuff.
The American right hate the police, because the police prevent them from cleaning out the criminals who the police won't touch.
Everyone else is trapped in the middle, never knowing when they'll be shot by
Re: (Score:2)
so characterizing this as "shooting 12-year old kids for holding a toy gun" is wrong
I (don't really) hate to break it to you, but factually, the cop killed a 12 year old kid who was holding a toy gun. Nobody questions the validity of those facts. If you want to debate the efficacy / wisdom / morality of shooting someone before you know what's going on, I'm up for that.
Too be fair (Score:2)
If the police routinely harass, put in hospital, and arrest for "disrespect cop" random people, you would expect crime rates to go down. After all they'll get lucky occasionally and pick someone who was just about to rob a gas station or something.
Apparently the FBI thinks that's a great way to reduce crime. Which isn't unexpected given the FBI's views on warrantless surveillance.
We prefer Type II errors (Score:3)
Our criminal justice system is biased in favor of Type II errors (false negatives), rather than Type I errors (false positives). We think it is worse to jail, kill, or harass an innocent person than to let a criminal go free. Recently, we have had a lot of Type I errors (false positives), and we have corrected our procedures to reduce this type of error. There is a corresponding rise in false negatives (criminals going free), but this is the way we have deliberately designed the system. We are going back to the way we want things to be.
Somebody has a massive inflated sense of his worth (Score:3)
For example, murders are typically not stopped by police at all as they are very rarely crimes of opportunity. This person must know that. That he choses to ignore this knowledge is is a very bad sign, but what do you expect from the chief official of a police-state. What he also completely ignores is that some of the officers that have become "video sensations" are cold-blooded murderers. He seems to imply that these scum being caught is somehow a bad thing. Another strong indicator the US is a de-facto police-state, because only in a police-state is catching criminal policemen a bad thing.
Illegal Police (Score:4, Insightful)
Also good! (Score:2)
I'd much rather have my ass beat or murdered by a criminal who likely will do hard time for it, than by a cop who gets away with it 'because he's a cop'.
Lying sack of shit (Score:4, Informative)
There is no "rise in violent crime". It's still lower than it was in the '90s, and one data point does not a trend make.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Also,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10... [nytimes.com]
So really, it could very well be that the rise in violent crime is the result of increased surveillance on the general population rather than increased surveillance on police.
You don't have to be dishonest to be in law enforcement, but it helps.
Probably true, but the point is not what he thinks (Score:2)
Wow, all the animosity towards police (Score:3)
Honestly, this is simple to solve. The police should start taking videos of everything they do as well. If an edited video pops up of them doing bad things, then they can simply post the video from their perspective. Now no more "look at this video of a cop beating this innocent man" AFTER the supposed "innocent man" kicks the officer, except not on camera or edited out. Mass surveillance works in every way. Govt. -> public -> police -> public.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. It's the evil stoners. Aggressive lot. They'd kill for their fix on junk food...tomorrow!
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed, AC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense. Relaxed drug laws don't mean people do more drugs - they mean that people don't go to jail for doing the drugs they are doing. In fact, you'd expect more crime where the tougher drug laws are as people are going to drugs regardless. If people couldn't get drugs we'd not have a "drug problem." It's not like lax drug laws means people will suddenly decide to go do heroin. If they want drugs they can already get them.
So, no, the crime rate will not correlate with lax drug laws. And the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I pointed out that the AC was a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
and the people are NOT as afraid of the police as before !
They can't bully, beat, harass, shoot, stalk, etc the people without a witness anymore !
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Martin didn't interfere with police. He was stalked down a blind alley by an aggressive man with a gun who had indicated a desire to hunt. He defended himself when he thought himself cornered, according to the Stand your Ground laws, and was executed by Zimmerman.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Martin wasn't "cornered". His body was not found in a corner or in any place where he wasn't readily able to flee from.
He attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman defended himself. Nothing in the forensic evidence suggests that Zimmerman instigated the violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
because his girlfriend said, in court, under oath, that trayvon made it home, and then went back out to confront "that cracker"
Re: (Score:3)
Rodney King has crack cocaine in his system too.
Still? After all these years? Wow, must have been some party.
Okay, with that out of the way I'll try to be serious.
Nobody talks about the fact Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and *ALL* of the recent highly-publicized decedents that interfered with police had marijuana in their blood.
Some surveys of Americans show regular marijuana use as high as 25% of the population. Few will show marijuana use lower than 10%. Marijuana users tend to be the kind of people that would find themselves running into police. Marijuana can be detected in the blood and urine of casual users for days, perhaps weeks, after last use. Regular users will show detectable amounts of marijuana meta
Re: (Score:2)
Trayvon Martin also owned an illegal pistol, and had pictures of himself posing all "gangsta" with it on Facebook. They sure took *that* picture down a hury.
Mainly because it's irrelevant to all except those that mistakenly think that justifies Martin's death.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't that they're being filmed, its that people are trying to get them to do their job incorrectly.
Re: (Score:3)
They are now using SWAT teams to deal with unlicensed SERVICE operations.
Running a barber shop without the appropriate license and fees? They will bust down your door, weapons drawn. Don't resist. Don't try to run. They are authorized to use lethal force.
Remember, they are on the side of the Law.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on the department, I suppose. In my middle-class and rather quiet neighborhood, the police actually tracked down and caught a kid who ran into my lawn with this car, damaging some shrubbery, then fled the scene. They then stopped by and asked if I would like to press charged, and I got the officer's advice on whether or not I should do so. All very polite, professional, and efficient.
I think what's really different in today's society is that *everyone* has a camera now, and we all have access
Re: (Score:2)
Papers or else (Score:5, Insightful)
Their "jobs" were never to break the law. All this whining about pressure on cops is utter BS. If they had been doing their actual jobs, instead of being criminals, they'd be fine. This is simply their own malfeasance coming back to bite everyone -- us and them -- in the ass.
Every cop that breaks the law is a criminal. Every cop that knows about such things and does not turn the criminal in is a criminal accessory. That's cop culture. They think they are above the law, instead of its servants. I have no sympathy for their current situation at all. I do regret that they have been allowed, both by their internal culture and by the courts, to screw the public over so badly. And that the courts, in particular the supreme court, has failed to obey their oaths to uphold the constitution, instead wreaking sophist havoc on its meaning and intent.
I honestly do not think there is any chance at all of fixing this. The downhill slide is too profound; the public almost completely unaware of the issues at hand until they too are caught in the toxic, broken gears of the system. When that happens, they often disappear into the depths of the world's largest imprisonment undertaking. When (if) they come out of that, they're treated as unemployable and sometimes worse.
The "retribution, not rehabilitation" mindset the media has inculcated into the American public and to which their legislators pander, creates a permanent lower class whose only hope for advance is more lawbreaking, and this constrains almost all of those who actually pursue an upwards economic path. The rest are hopeless, and rightfully so. There is little hope to be had.
The root cause is bad legislators, bad law, bad police, and bad courts. There's actually no reason to expect this to work well. Nor does it.
Now the cops are paying for it, a little bit, as the Internet makes public what used to be a quiet secret known only to the cops themselves and their victims. It won't be enough, though. Because it isn't just the cops. The entire system reinforces these results, from top to bottom.