open All Channels
seplocked Out of Pod Experience
blankseplocked UK Police guncam.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.14 17:46:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Jago Kain on 14/08/2011 17:49:53
I had an idea this morning and I've done my level best to pull holes in it, but can't. I even phoned my most cynical and obnoxiously antagonistic mate in Brum and he couldn't find fault with it either... a rare occurence indeed.

Here it is:

Every single time
an armed policeman goes on an operation where there might be gun play, he takes with him two cameras. One is fitted to his gun and the other to his person (helmet would seem best for this, or possibly goggles with a cam built in) and they both record to a device carried about his person that the data is dowloaded from when he hits the station at end of operation.

That's it basically. tl;dr version follows.

This ensures that there is video evidence of exactly what is happening when guns are in use and, if things go pear shaped, where every shot that is fired by police goes and what exactly is occuring in the field of view of the copper who fired it and at exactly what time.

This works well for all parties involved.

If there is an incident where suspicion of improper behaviour by an armed policeman is suspected (rare I know) then there is a clear record of what actually happened which can help to clear the innocent rozzer and allay public fears about police misconduct.

No more "He had a gun and gave us no choice!" and "We don't believe you; he was shot because he was black/white/asian/welsh/martian (delete as applicable)." back and forth... after all the camera never lies.

Obviously this would cost to implement, but consider the savings. How much police, IPCC and court time is spent on investigating cases where the only evidence is written statements from those at the scene? How much does it cost in legal fees (on all sides) for over-priced bloodsuckers to argue the matter in court? How much time could be saved by having video evidence of exactly what went on, undistorted by innacurate recall (no-one's memeory is perfect after all) and conflicting statements from different sources. I reckon it would pay for itself in very short order indeed.

If, for example, the Metroplitan Police had been able to produce actual video of the incident involving Mark Duggan showing that there was a clear and present danger to the officer(s) who shot him and that they had no choice then there would have been no protest march and consequently no riot in London. After all, who is going to protest the shooting of an armed criminal intent on murdering policemen?

OK, I know, they couldn't have released a video so shortly after the event as it may have formed part of the evidence for an investigation, but the mere knowledge that it existed may well have encouraged folk to wait and see what shook out before deciding on a version of events that made sense to them... whether or not this version is accurate.

There's also a benefit you can't put a price on; restoration of faith in the police service by the community in general. How much would that be worth in improved community relations?

I can't possibly see why anyone would object to it either. There are extremely strict rules about deployment of armed officers and the conduct of same in the UK, which we are told are followed religiously by those officers involved. If they aren't breaking any rules then there isn't going to be an objection from them surely?

In a country where public surrveillance by CCTV is endemic, surely a bit more of the same isn't going to hurt? After all; if you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear have you?

Now, I am a aware that this subject might seem contentious, but it is absolutely not about politics; it is merely a suggestion that I think might help to improve public accountabilty of the police, the public perception of the same, increase the amount and quality of evidence available to those that need it in some pretty serious situations and may well save a sigificant sum in various ways into the bargain.

Your thoughts please.


Henry Haphorn
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.14 17:52:00 - [2]
 

I like the idea. In fact, this idea is not new. It was discussed earlier by either my local news or CNN. The major problem with this is the quality of the audio in the video. Tests have shown that you can barely make out anything at all in the audio due to outside factors such as wind, traffic, and the occasional movement of the officer. That can present a big problem in a court of law if the case becomes a he-said-she-said situation.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.14 17:57:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Shadowsword on 14/08/2011 17:57:53
I tought about this dual-cam concept a few months ago, in one of my "what would I change if I ruled the world" moments, and I agree that it would be a vast improvement. The only flaw I see in it is that the videos would end up leaking on youtube or whatever, and that it would be a step toward police as a TV-reality show. And that in case of technical issues, like a empty battery or hardware failure, it might generate by itself suspicion toward the cop.

Citizen20100211442
Minmatar
Carebear Evolution
AEQUITAS.
Posted - 2011.08.14 18:01:00 - [4]
 

Interesting, in Third Reich police was ordered get rid of baton sticks, just because society would feel less intimidated, and crime rates was very low asswell. Is this right direction world goes on?

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.14 19:03:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Jago Kain on 14/08/2011 19:39:20
Originally by: Henry Haphorn
I like the idea. In fact, this idea is not new. It was discussed earlier by either my local news or CNN. The major problem with this is the quality of the audio in the video. Tests have shown that you can barely make out anything at all in the audio due to outside factors such as wind, traffic, and the occasional movement of the officer. That can present a big problem in a court of law if the case becomes a he-said-she-said situation.


Granted it's not an entriely new idea (cameras in cop cars in the USA and the like), but it would be a new application of the idea.

The problems with audio are technical difficulties, not problems with the idea per se, and I am sure that could be addressed; if the average BBC news reporter has mics that work in the middle of war zones how difficult can it be?

edit:- Most court cases are basically a he-said-she-said deal anyway, so a bit of hard evidence isn't a bad idea surely?



Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.14 19:13:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Jago Kain on 14/08/2011 19:38:03
Originally by: Shadowsword
Edited by: Shadowsword on 14/08/2011 17:57:53
I tought about this dual-cam concept a few months ago, in one of my "what would I change if I ruled the world" moments, and I agree that it would be a vast improvement. The only flaw I see in it is that the videos would end up leaking on youtube or whatever, and that it would be a step toward police as a TV-reality show. And that in case of technical issues, like a empty battery or hardware failure, it might generate by itself suspicion toward the cop.


Cops as a reality show? Already with us, witness the various "Police, Camera, ****head" type shows already being broadcast.

Oddly enough, there are rules about security of evidence (statements, audio tapes from police interviews, CCTV etc) to cover what already is used in the UK and I don't recall too many leaks thus far. In any event, if the existing regulations were followed properly there would be no leaks to start with.

Video evidence has occasionally been released where it has been determined that it is in the public interest to do so, a recent example being the CCTV footage of the Ian Tomlinson incident at the G20 protests, and the even more recent videos and photos of rioters that the police would like help with identifying.

Hardware failure is always a possiblity, but given that most operations concerning armed police involve several officers, what is the likelihood that both devices carried by all officers would fail at the same time?

Again not problems with the basic idea, but hardware problems and data protection issues with, presumably, obvious soultions.

The more I think about this, the more sense it seems to make all round.





Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.14 19:18:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Citizen20100211442
Interesting, in Third Reich police was ordered get rid of baton sticks, just because society would feel less intimidated, and crime rates was very low asswell. Is this right direction world goes on?


Godwin's Law so early?

I just want to know if anyone can see any flaw in the basic idea is all; from where I'm sitting it seems sound but I am aware that this may only be my opinion.



VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.14 21:25:00 - [8]
 

Doesn't work, because people are stupid.

Just like you see police officers getting themselves in trouble because they think they have a law degree and say a bunch of stupid **** then end up on youtube... anyone in the system that would get to watch the cameras would potentially make the same mistake and think they know everything about what an officer can or can't shoot. There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand. They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head.



Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2011.08.14 21:50:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Citizen20100211442
Interesting, in Third Reich police was ordered get rid of baton sticks, just because society would feel less intimidated, and crime rates was very low asswell. Is this right direction world goes on?


Stupid reference. First, because something being done by the third reich doesn't mean it's wrong by default. As an exemple, to build the biggest european war machine of the time, must must have taken at least a few good decisions on the industry/military side. Second, because any link between the removal of baton sticks and WW2 or the gaz chambers is so stretched I don't see what reasonning could make you do it.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.14 23:37:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Doesn't work, because people are stupid.

Just like you see police officers getting themselves in trouble because they think they have a law degree and say a bunch of stupid **** then end up on youtube... anyone in the system that would get to watch the cameras would potentially make the same mistake and think they know everything about what an officer can or can't shoot. There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand. They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head.





You really are full of it. What about stockwell? What about tomlinson? If it wasn't for witnesses the filth would of got away with lying about stockwell, saying he ran for the tube when he didn't, saying he was here illigally when he wasn't, saying he jumped over the barrier when he didn't.

If it wasn't for camera evidence the filth would of got away with tomlinson, they tried, bless their cotten socks they tried to lie their way out of it, saying he fell first, then had to retract.

This is acceptable to you is it? Maybe someone can shoot you in the head or send you flying by pushing you in the back with your hands in your pockets, or maybe...maybe they should shoot you if you have a table leg or anything that maybe probably/probably not looks like a gun?


Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.14 23:41:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Jago Kain


I just want to know if anyone can see any flaw in the basic idea is all; from where I'm sitting it seems sound but I am aware that this may only be my opinion.





Yes, there is a major flaw, the filth would say no, that's the flaw. The filth hate, HATE CCTV when it shows them misbehaving, hence why it is illigal in the uk to now film a copper, & why they can take your camera for 'evidence' and you may (read:will not) get it back (otherwise known as theft) This has been proposed before, but it's always the filth that reject it, funny though, when CCTV supports them, they swear by it, can't have it both ways i'm afraid..

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 00:43:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 01:10:18

Originally by: Tai Meijer
This is acceptable to you is it? Maybe someone can shoot you in the head or send you flying by pushing you in the back with your hands in your pockets, or maybe...maybe they should shoot you if you have a table leg or anything that maybe probably/probably not looks like a gun?


Does that have anything to do with people being wrong about correct police behavior?

No?

Then I guess I'm not okay with it.

Don't quote me you sensationalist piece of ****, because I won't pretend your arguments are worth replying to. Everything I said stands unchanged.








Originally by: Tai Meijer

Yes, there is a major flaw, the filth would say no, that's the flaw. The filth hate, HATE CCTV when it shows them misbehaving, hence why it is illigal in the uk to now film a copper, & why they can take your camera for 'evidence' and you may (read:will not) get it back (otherwise known as theft) This has been proposed before, but it's always the filth that reject it, funny though, when CCTV supports them, they swear by it, can't have it both ways i'm afraid..


Pure sensationalism.
Cops don't make laws.

You're either advocating Anarchy because the majority of the government's law making body is conspiring to help police steal your camera, or your perception of the human race is so completely misanthropic that you'll never be happy under any authority at all.

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.15 00:57:00 - [13]
 

this is a smart idea, but no police force would ever allow this.

GreasyCarl Semah
Posted - 2011.08.15 01:04:00 - [14]
 

Here in the states there is a Taser device (stun gun) that has a camera that records when the gun is removed from its holster.

The problem with putting one a firearm is that you would not see where the bullets goes when the gun is fired, the recoil would jar the camera. You would see what led up to the first shot but most likely what came after would not be all that clear.

Lithalnas
Amarr
Privateers
Privateer Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.15 01:39:00 - [15]
 

I know a retired officer who told me that a vast majority of NY state officers rarely if ever operated their gun. He remembers cleaning a smith and Wesson that had been an officers carry gun for just 2 years, it operated but the brass casing had rusted into the cylinder and were nearly impossible to remove. The cylinder would turn as well but it would not unlock and swivel open. I expect that the same level of neglect would incapacitate any electronic device the officer would install into their handgun.

I think the best choice for England is to audit and choose honorable, well minded officers. Considering unemployment numbers, I bet you could have a culling and hire brilliant and psychologically stable officer.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 01:47:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 01:50:56
Originally by: Lithalnas
I think the best choice for England is to audit and choose honorable, well minded officers. Considering unemployment numbers, I bet you could have a culling and hire brilliant and psychologically stable officer.


+1

Careful who you recruit and where you put them. Careful who you let accept applicants to become officers, who you let recruit applicants, and who you let place the new recruits who go on duty. Then have accountability at all levels.

When one of these big public things happen, someone needs to ask who hired them, how long ago, and if there were any red flags that should have prevented someone from being an officer.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.08.15 01:53:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Lithalnas

I think the best choice for England is to audit and choose honorable, well minded officers. Considering unemployment numbers, I bet you could have a culling and hire brilliant and psychologically stable officer.


Pretty much this. If the damage is already done, all the evidence in the world only helps the victims so much, especially when they are dead.

A police officer should in theory be a person of upmost tenacy and judgement, the issue with this in practice is low wages, inadequate equipment and high workload will take a toll on even the best person and they will eventually break.

You get what you pay for, and as long as we are not willing to invest properly in our police forces we'll have to live with the quality we have.

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.08.15 03:01:00 - [18]
 

Did this for some local PD in teh states. I think it should be mandatory. (Wear them on their heads)

1. Keeps the cops in line.
2. If they turn off their cameras they need to explain their actions, and why they turned off the cameras.
3. In many instances it actually showed the cops were in the right. Thus no need to a long investigation or some BS lawsuit.

Will it happen? Give the current budgetary problems probably not. Also in Chicago theres a law stateing that it's illegal to video tape the cops doing anything! Evil or Very MadShocked It's getting fought as the cops in their cars video tape you all the time without your permission. And the only reason not to be video taped is so they cant get in trouble... WHICH IS ****ING BULL****!

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.08.15 05:16:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 15/08/2011 05:15:58
Originally by: Ayieka
this is a smart idea, but no police force would ever allow this.


There are plenty of places where this is done.

Fact is, police forces are a massive %age of the population. We can not automatically defer to their judgements, interpretations of events and expect no further evidence to justify their often violent actions.

They are there to protect society, they are the servants, not the other way around. They should be held to a higher standard and all official police activity should be recorded for record and protection of citizen rights.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 05:25:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel
3. In many instances it actually showed the cops were in the right. Thus no need to a long investigation or some BS lawsuit.

Will it happen? Give the current budgetary problems probably not.


Even though it shows an officer is in the right, the public doesn't want to hear and can't handle how much force is 'right' for the situation. Any time you hit a guy he's Rodney King.

I had also not thought about the budget side. Any time you make the department buy cameras, that's a vest off someone's chest or some other piece of equipment you could have bought.

I would think anyone who wanted helmet/gun cams would at least acknowledge they should be used for departments that some other agency deems to be having trouble with discipline. Not just charged to the tax payer and strapped on to every gun and forehead because the public is scared by one or two incidents every few years.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:17:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex


Does that have anything to do with people being wrong about correct police behavior?

No?

Then I guess I'm not okay with it.


You said...

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand. They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head.


My bold, not only 'sensationalist' but generalising aswell? My my, what a tard you are. The public bay for filth heads because they do not trust them, see incidents i mentioned.


Originally by: Tai Meijer

Yes, there is a major flaw, the filth would say no, that's the flaw. The filth hate, HATE CCTV when it shows them misbehaving, hence why it is illigal in the uk to now film a copper, & why they can take your camera for 'evidence' and you may (read:will not) get it back (otherwise known as theft) This has been proposed before, but it's always the filth that reject it, funny though, when CCTV supports them, they swear by it, can't have it both ways i'm afraid..


Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Pure sensationalism.
Cops don't make laws.


In the UK you are not allowed to film the filth, in the UK they CAN consficate your property if you film them making an arrest or doing something they shouldn't do, they do this often. If you don't know what you are talking about, please be silent.

and as for making up laws, Yes they do! On the spot in fact, and that's why they don't like to be filmed, stop spouting rubbish.

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
You're either advocating Anarchy because the majority of the government's law making body is conspiring to help police steal your camera,


Wow, stupidity is strong in this one. So if i don't want the filth to steal property and 'stretch' the laws and abuse them, i'm an anarchist? Who again is the sensationalist? Idiot. The filth abuse the laws given to them.

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
or your perception of the human race is so completely misanthropic that you'll never be happy under any authority at all.


What..? Because i think most filth abuse the laws that are given to them? I actually think the camera is a good idea, so why are the filth against it? Use whatever braincells you have, and ask yourself that.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:20:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Blacksquirrel
Also in Chicago theres a law stateing that it's illegal to video tape the cops doing anything! Evil or Very MadShocked It's getting fought as the cops in their cars video tape you all the time without your permission. And the only reason not to be video taped is so they cant get in trouble... WHICH IS ****ING BULL****!


HAHA! Yeah that's what they do in the UK too, glad to see i'm not the only one who noticed.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:22:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 07:28:01


You're quoting me but the things you type afterward have nothing to do with what I said... Even with you cutting up the post in strange ways, they STILL don't make sense compared to the out of context quotes. That's just bad. I don't know what you could want from that kind of blather other than to vent your hysteria.

I encourage people to read my posts directly, and not through Tai's. He's too busy fighting the invasion of the aliens from planet Filth to be posting. I don't know why he bothers.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:39:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Doesn't work, because people are stupid.

Just like you see police officers getting themselves in trouble because they think they have a law degree and say a bunch of stupid **** then end up on youtube... anyone in the system that would get to watch the cameras would potentially make the same mistake and think they know everything about what an officer can or can't shoot. There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand. They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head.



My bold, yet again...i'll ask why do the filth not want cameras?? If the camera shows perfectly acceptable behavior then the filth will have nothing to worry about, the fact you come out with this rubbish and not understand...christ on a crutch.

MrGoodbytes Tzasch
Amarr
Nox Industry and Security
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:42:00 - [25]
 

Ok so this is a huge topic, and subject to much debate as it requires left/right wing views to come out. I'm a security guard in Jane and Finch area of Toronto (the roughest part of town) and I have to deal with cops a lot.

Now as cops being "servants" as one person said, yes and no. Obviously they 'serve' the public as a force that protects them. But the fry lord at your local McDonalds 'serves' you, as does the cashier at the local supermarket, hell I'm sure even YOU 'serve' someone at some point in your life, does this make us all servants? A matter of semantics for another day. But cops are more than 'servants'. We (collectively) put them in charge to uphold our laws and make sure that all is right within their division, we even provide them with powerful tools (guns, batons, mace, tasers), as well as all sorts of training and other assorted gear to assist them in keeping the peace. So should we not trust them to do their jobs properly, maybe give them a little bit of leeway when they deal with something thats not so black and white? If we didn't trust them to do their and we put them in said position, then who is the fool?

Cops have to deal with situations that require very different responses each time, and a situation that may seem the same may require vastly different responses each time, this is up to the cop to make on a near split second basis in most cases, here in Toronto they have a framework for deciding responses called the Use of Force Wheel, it outlines basic situation types and appropriate responses. I have seen this wheel, and it is used more as a guideline than a rigid rule. Shouldn't we have a little trust in our officers to make the right decisions? After all we gave them all sorts of training to deal with these kinds of situations, hell practically every situation is covered.

Ok enough of the hippy mumbo jumbo, I was just playing devils advocate for a bit because the board took a severe turn to the Right. I'm all for hooking up cops to video cams. Technology issues notwithstanding, it would be an excellent tool not only for legal disputes, but also for training the next generation of officers.

I think by default all SWAT forces or similarly heavily armed forces should be equipped with helmet cams (or whatever is determined to work best), it would allow for enhanced real time coordination of multiple forces that do not have line of sight to each other. Officers with disciplinary issues should be required to wear them as well for set lengths of time, depending on the issue. I'm sure you could justify spending the money equipping this gear to other officers but simple fact of the matter is money. There will never be enough to outfit whole departments so you need to prioritize and see who 'needs it most'.

Hell I use helmet cams when i paintball, so do most of my buds. Lets face it is handy. But there are cost issues. Sure you can buy the cheapest ones but courts of law tend to have a minimal audio video quality that can be submitted as evidence. And the expensive ones cost a lot.

So recap, we need to trust our cops more. And video logs help clear stuff up and may reveal what really happened, and cops need to be more violent, I'm sick of the criminals I see roaming the streets sometimes, especially the blatant ones, displaying their gang colors, hit tattoos and the like. Nobody will miss those people. ;)

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:44:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 07:45:01
Originally by: Tai Meijer
Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Doesn't work, because people are stupid.

Just like you see police officers getting themselves in trouble because they think they have a law degree and say a bunch of stupid **** then end up on youtube... anyone in the system that would get to watch the cameras would potentially make the same mistake and think they know everything about what an officer can or can't shoot. There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand. They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head.



My bold, yet again...i'll ask why do the filth not want cameras?? If the camera shows perfectly acceptable behavior then the filth will have nothing to worry about, the fact you come out with this rubbish and not understand...christ on a crutch.


Are you ******ed?

Read what you're quoting, the answer to your question is right there, some not bolded. It's called a complete thought.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:46:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Tai Meijer on 15/08/2011 07:48:41
Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 07:45:01
Originally by: Tai Meijer
Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Doesn't work, because people are stupid.

Just like you see police officers getting themselves in trouble because they think they have a law degree and say a bunch of stupid **** then end up on youtube... anyone in the system that would get to watch the cameras would potentially make the same mistake and think they know everything about what an officer can or can't shoot. There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand. They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head.



My bold, yet again...i'll ask why do the filth not want cameras?? If the camera shows perfectly acceptable behavior then the filth will have nothing to worry about, the fact you come out with this rubbish and not understand...christ on a crutch.


Are you ******ed?

Read what you're quoting, the answer to your question is right there, some not bolded. It's called a complete thought.


Try to read what i'm saying you dolt.

"There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand.They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head."

This, is rubbish. Show me a case where filth was just doing his job, got film 'just doing his job' and then got sacked. Utter rubbish.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:49:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 07:55:13
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 07:51:11


Originally by: Tai Meijer
Edited by: Tai Meijer on 15/08/2011 07:48:41
Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 07:45:01
Originally by: Tai Meijer
Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Doesn't work, because people are stupid.

Just like you see police officers getting themselves in trouble because they think they have a law degree and say a bunch of stupid **** then end up on youtube... anyone in the system that would get to watch the cameras would potentially make the same mistake and think they know everything about what an officer can or can't shoot. There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand. They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head.



My bold, yet again...i'll ask why do the filth not want cameras?? If the camera shows perfectly acceptable behavior then the filth will have nothing to worry about, the fact you come out with this rubbish and not understand...christ on a crutch.


Are you ******ed?

Read what you're quoting, the answer to your question is right there, some not bolded. It's called a complete thought.


Try to read what i'm saying you dolt.

"There are plenty of police vids out there already showing perfectly normal and acceptable police behavior that ended up costing a cop his job because the public is stupid and doesn't want to understand.They just see a guy shot, hear he had two kids or didn't 'really' have a gun and that's it. They want the cop's head."

This, is rubbish. Show me a case where filth was just doing his job, got film 'just doing his job' and then got sacked. Utter rubbish.


It took going back and forth about five times to get you to understand my first post that everyone else kept up with just fine. I'm not going back and forth another five to explain to you again you're not worth arguing with since you didn't read it the first time, and I'm not going back and forth another five to nitpick every point of an example I post.

You have Google if your mind is really that open, but it obviously isn't or you'd have those examples on the top of your head with the negative ones you posted about and the giant point. You're a fanatic sensationalist and you're spamming the thread. I won't fuel you.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 07:56:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex

It took going back and forth about five times to get you to understand my first post. I'm not going back and forth another five to explain to you again you're not worth arguing with since you didn't read it the first time, and I'm not going back and forth another five to nitpick every point of an example I post.

You have Google if your mind is really that open, but it obviously isn't or you'd have those examples on the top of your head with the negative ones you posted about and the giant point. You're a fanatic sensationalist and you're spamming the thread. I won't fuel you.


Took me a while to understand YOUR posts? Took you ages to cotten on to mine.

"Show me a case where filth was just doing his job, got film 'just doing his job' and then got sacked. Utter rubbish."

Show me. Come on, back up what you said, about filth losing their jobs for 'just doing their job' Come on, show me. Hurry up now.

"and I'm not going back and forth another five to nitpick every point of an example I post."

Aye, going to 'walk away' rather then try and back up what you say? Figures, if i came out with that rubbish i would beat a hasty retreat too.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:03:00 - [30]
 

Ignoring the obvious bait about who understood who, since you only just now answered your own question about my post you asked over and over with the answer in front of you...


I'm going to go ahead and say I have no answer.
No example at all. I was just making it up.

Now it's your turn to finish that challenge of yours and say it has never happened, or to make the statement that it happens LESS than we catch them on camera doing something wrong. Since if the camera footage matters it must be one or the other. If it's complete rubbish that would mean never, if you're exaggerating it would at least mean less often.

Since you haven't done the research or you'd know that which you obviously don't, I will then win our little exchange when you make a fool of yourself, without me having to post an example anyone could google or argue with you. Or you can be the one to run away.

Checkmate.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only