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

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:11:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Tai Meijer on 15/08/2011 08:12:23
Originally by: VKhaun Vex
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...


You failed to answer, or 'get my post' about why would filth have to worry about having a camera, or even provide evidence to show a coppers jobs being lost for 'just doing his jawb' Now you are choosing the cowardly way out...but hold on, what's this??


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


/Thread. Fantastic, i'm keeping that!

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Now it's your turn to finish that challenge of yours and say it has never happened..


Nope, you said that filth lose their jobs for just doing their job, you needed to provide proof, you failed to do so, and so you finish with this...

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


I know. I think that's game, set, and match. But if you can show me where the filth have just done their job and gotten the sack for it because the public was 'stupid' as you call it, then feel free to come back to this thread, untill then, i would advise you not to post anymore.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:17:00 - [32]
 

So lets be clear. Are you saying it NEVER happens, or that it happens LESS than police are caught on cam doing something wrong?

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:19:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
So lets be clear. Are you saying it NEVER happens, or that it happens LESS than police are caught on cam doing something wrong?


You said, police get sacked by the idiot public for just doing their job.

Prove it. Come on now, prove it.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:22:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Tai Meijer
Originally by: VKhaun Vex
So lets be clear. Are you saying it NEVER happens, or that it happens LESS than police are caught on cam doing something wrong?


You said, police get sacked by the idiot public for just doing their job.

Prove it. Come on now, prove it.


You already said that you were keeping my other quote where I said I made that up. Did you lose it already? I'm a liar and a fool. You are the one who's done the research and knows the topic.

So lets be clear. Are you saying it NEVER happens, or that it happens LESS than police are caught on cam doing something wrong?

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:25:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Tai Meijer on 15/08/2011 08:25:29
Originally by: VKhaun Vex

You already said that you were keeping my other quote where I said I made that up. Did you lose it already? I'm a liar and a fool. You are the one who's done the research and knows the topic.


It's in my signiture.

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
So lets be clear. Are you saying it NEVER happens, or that it happens LESS than police are caught on cam doing something wrong?


Stop trying to get out of this, your original comment...

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.



Prove it.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:30:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 08:30:25
How do I prove something I made up, you little weasel? The moon is made of cheese, but I can't seem to prove that either.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:33:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Tai Meijer on 15/08/2011 08:34:18

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 08:30:25
How do I prove something I made up, you little weasel? The moon is made of cheese, but I can't seem to prove that either.



You can't, You were talking rubbish then, why even post? You just admited trolling.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:38:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Tai Meijer
Edited by: Tai Meijer on 15/08/2011 08:34:18

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 08:30:25
How do I prove something I made up, you little weasel? The moon is made of cheese, but I can't seem to prove that either.



You can't, You were talking rubbish then, why even post? You just admited trolling.


Okay, I went back and forth with you five times so you could get a concept again. Congratulations on your second piece of progress this year.

Now.

Catch up with the rest of the thread and answer the concept.

Camera footage of an officer doing their job properly, leading to their losing their job due to public outcry that doesn't understand the officer's actions.

Possible? Impossible?
Happened? Never? Sometimes, Often?

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:46:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex

Catch up with the rest of the thread and answer the concept.




Answer the concept? Is was you who came out with this gem...

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.



Now prove it. You admitted you can't, so what else is there to discuss? You told a blatent lie, and i called you out on it. Why would you even come out with something like that?

Oh ya right, we already know..

Now, to bring this back ontopic, You tried to muddy the water by saying about cameras on the filth...

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


Oh? It's because of cameras that the filth were not able to lie their way out of Tomlinson. How does that make the people stupid?

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.15 08:52:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 08:55:36
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 08:52:46

lol... I've tried everything but you can't take your own arguement or mine, one step in any direction. I digress and you can have the last word.

If a mod sees this, please don't lock this guy's thread because of me. If you have to do something you could just clean it. Just go back to post 20 something before I started this exchange with him. Please don't lock this guy's good thread because of me.

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 09:02:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 08:55:36
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 15/08/2011 08:52:46

lol... I've tried everything but you can't take your own arguement or mine, one step in any direction...




YOU can't take your arguement any further because you admited you 'made it all up' I asked you to provide proof of the public getting filth fired for just doing his job, you failed to do so, i asked why cops fear cameras so much they consficate them, or refuse to have them on them, you failed to give an answer

If you want to run off, that's fine by me, i'll accept the fact that you don't know what you are talking about, and am prepared to leave it there.

Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:25:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Jago Kain on 15/08/2011 11:25:58
I understand there are a few coppers out there who may not like the idea of being held accountable for anti-social and illegal actions, but as there shouldn't be any by police anyway, particularly those issued with firearms, it's not much of an argument against is it? I also can't see how any policeman could put this forward without looking like a complete tool anyway.

Incidentally Tai, there is no UK law against filming police officers in public areas. I am also aware that not all police officers seem to understand this which is a failure of the training of police that has to be addressed.

There are laws against possessing information that might be of use to terrorists; for example, actually knowing the location of an Army or RAF base/police station/local government office/branch of Barclays/etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, is possessing information that may be of use to terrorists.... so technically they could lock us all up if they so desired.

There are also laws about perverting the course of justice and interfering with a police officer in the execution of their duty.

The problem is in the design and application of these laws, again a training issue but also a legislative one, and surely there can be no reasonable objection to a measure that would help shed light on otherwise contentious happenings?

With enough public support it wouldn't matter what the rozzers said about guncams. There is no argument I've heard of against the idea that makes any sense.

I did try and explain the financial implications, as I see them, in my first post but some folk seem to have missed this. I firmly believe that this would save way more money than it would cost and also has benefits that you can't directly apply a numerical figure to, but would nonetheless be desireable.

Oh and guys... please don't turn this into a police bashing thread or drag politics into it; I'm trying to find flaws in the idea, not foment revolution.



Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 11:41:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Jago Kain
Edited by: Jago Kain on 15/08/2011 11:25:58

Incidentally Tai, there is no UK law against filming police officers in public areas. I am also aware that not all police officers seem to understand this which is a failure of the training of police that has to be addressed.




Amnesty

Thing is, things like this leaves it up to the filth to decide what constitutes terrorism, this law should never have come to pass, and should NEVER have been given to the filth. The filth tried to get round this by removing their badges and covering THEIR faces! After they make it illegal to cover ours!

If they don't understand the laws the try to enforce, and they try to arrest someone when they have no right too, that makes it an unlawful arrest, and you can resist unlawful arrest using reasonable force. If the public was to ever realise how badly they are getting F**ked over, there would be blood.

Originally by: Jago Kain
There are laws against possessing information that might be of use to terrorists; for example, actually knowing the location of an Army or RAF base/police station/local government office/branch of Barclays/etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, is possessing information that may be of use to terrorists.... so technically they could lock us all up if they so desired.


This is the problem, i can go on google map and get details of the local pigsty, are they going to nick all of google? Stupid law written by stupid people.

Originally by: Jago Kain
I did try and explain the financial implications, as I see them, in my first post but some folk seem to have missed this. I firmly believe that this would save way more money than it would cost and also has benefits that you can't directly apply a numerical figure to, but would nonetheless be desireable.



It's not the finance that's the problem, you can solve that by destroying ACPO, like cameron wanted too, but failed with the police commisionars idea. It would also save money, because of cases either not going to court, or going to court, and managing to convict a repeat offender with the camera evidence, thus saving taxpayers money overall.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.15 13:31:00 - [44]
 

Quote:
It's not the finance that's the problem, you can solve that by destroying ACPO, like cameron wanted too, but failed with the police commisionars idea. It would also save money, because of cases either not going to court, or going to court, and managing to convict a repeat offender with the camera evidence, thus saving taxpayers money overall.

I am sure you have hard numbers that show this would actually save money? (Just kidding, I dont think you do).

Is that something brittish btw that you cant call them just the police but only filth?



Anyway the idea isnt bad, although I am afraid expensive. However you are completely wrong if you think this would have done anything to prevent those riots, those are just idiots who want to riot and found an excuse to do it, they sure as hell dont care about someone being shot by the police.

Look at the Paris riots a few years back, which started when some criminal who was running for the cops decided to hide inside a electricity/transformer building, and was electrocuted. Police didnt shoot him or anything, they were just after a criminal (dont think even the riot'ers denied he was a criminal), didnt stop them from rioting.
Or more recently, Vancouver. Do you think if there would have been video evidence that there icehockey team actually did lose there wouldnt have been riots? (Yeah that was sarcastic for those who missed it).

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:05:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer

I am sure you have hard numbers that show this would actually save money? (Just kidding, I dont think you do).

Is that something brittish btw that you cant call them just the police but only filth?


You don't think reducing ACPO numbers, and making the court efficent in the processing of nominals would save money? Do you even know what ACPO stands for? Of course it would.

They get called filth because that's what they are.



Valerie Valate
Amarr
Church of The Crimson Saviour
Posted - 2011.08.15 18:30:00 - [46]
 

I'm a bit concerned about how such video evidence would be used in the courtroom, in that:

In some cases, the footage will be of the last few moments of someone's life.
If the prosecution say "when you watch the footage here..." and play the video, then the defence say "but at this point here..." and play it again, then you could have a situation whereby relatives of the shot person, and also any jury members, see the person die again and again and again.
This would be very hard on the relatives wanting answers, and unpleasant for the jury members. Especially if a distraught relative cries out "No!" at the wrong point, and the judge says "play the video again, the audio was obscured by a person in the courtroom".

Pr1ncess Alia
Posted - 2011.08.16 00:40:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Valerie Valate
I'm a bit concerned about how such video evidence would be used in the courtroom, in that:

In some cases, the footage will be of the last few moments of someone's life.
If the prosecution say "when you watch the footage here..." and play the video, then the defence say "but at this point here..." and play it again, then you could have a situation whereby relatives of the shot person, and also any jury members, see the person die again and again and again.
This would be very hard on the relatives wanting answers, and unpleasant for the jury members. Especially if a distraught relative cries out "No!" at the wrong point, and the judge says "play the video again, the audio was obscured by a person in the courtroom".


That has to be one of the stupidest rationalizations I've ever heard.

Jury members are meant to endure difficult testimony and facts, it's their duty.

As for family and friends, it's common for a judge to invite those that may have difficulty hearing testimony to leave the room.

Is that honestly the best you could come up with?


Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente
Sigma Special Tactics Group
Posted - 2011.08.16 01:46:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer on 16/08/2011 01:50:43
Originally by: Jago Kain
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.






The fundamental difference between the German police state (then)and the American police state (now) is that the Germans were polite. In America, we don't have guys in leather trench coats telling you nicely that they have vays of making you talk.

Here we have overweight roid-raging shaved head thugs screaming at you at a volume even the worst nationalist can't ignore.


Meanwhile, check out youtube for "gun cam" videos posted by USPSA/IPSC shooters. They use head-mounted cameras that are of pretty good quality. Last I checked such a camera with audio can be purchased for around $100 US. Some of those videos are pretty amazing.


HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:21:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer
Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer on 16/08/2011 01:50:43
Originally by: Jago Kain
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.


The fundamental difference between the German police state (then)and the American police state (now) is that the Germans were polite. In America, we don't have guys in leather trench coats telling you nicely that they have vays of making you talk.
Here we have overweight roid-raging shaved head thugs screaming at you at a volume even the worst nationalist can't ignore.
Meanwhile, check out youtube for "gun cam" videos posted by USPSA/IPSC shooters. They use head-mounted cameras that are of pretty good quality. Last I checked such a camera with audio can be purchased for around $100 US. Some of those videos are pretty amazing.



I read an interesting set of 3 papers discussing the importance of treating terrorism and a criminal justice issue to be completely separate and without from any war or revenge action. You can find it hear: 'LAW VS. WAR: COMPETING APPROACHES TO FIGHTING TERRORISM'

ANYWAYS... In one of the papers it was discussed that Germany not only approaches terrorism as a crime and affords suspects all the civil liberties of any other suspected criminal, but enlightened me as to Germany's a portion of the contents of the Grundgesetz (German constitution or bill of rights to make an American comparison).

Namely the dedication to an unequivocal commitment to the inviolability and inalienability of human rights. (drafted in 1949, you can see the root reasoning)

So where am I going with all this?

You'll find many countries, America especially, we've started transforming our Police forces into para-military forces. The number one career option for returning war veterans is law enforcement. Instead of outright violation of Posse Comitatus, they have blurred the lines so that there is no difference between Military and Police.

While some countries such as Germany have evolved a mindset of absolute adherence to civil rights, we in American seem to be drifting away from it.

Everything in our society is viewed as a war. War on drugs, Class warfare... given our past 10 years this is predicted to only get worse. With gang bangers and police alike having more and more war veterans in their ranks, a natural consequence of spending so many years at war, violent confrontation is inevitable.

So where does it leave the common citizen, engaged by a police force that also regularly is subject to military level engagements?

The end result is a system that tempts and welcomes an overly and inappropriately aggressive enforcement of the law (ie: swat teams serving warrants). It's an invitation for civil rights abuses, as the police are less viewed as public servants and more of an 'us vs them' attitude (ala combat) with any possible law breaker. This is a viewpoint that becomes not just prevalent amongst the public, but among law enforcement themselves.

I'm not here to discuss how we fix this. Only how we deal with it.

As citizens it's our job to see the government be as responsible in the execution of it's duties as possible.

Given the technology of today, there is absolutely no reason we should not be monitoring all police action. We have dash cams on squad cars. Every cop should be required to carry a camera as well.

Full vid record of all actions should be required and any case of 'broken cameras/lost tapes' should be handled w/ utmost suspicion. To protect not just all parties involved, but the system itself.

HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
Posted - 2011.08.16 02:23:00 - [50]
 

sorry if i hijacked a topic titled UK with a US opinion/case-in-point.

However, I'm sure there are valuable parallels to be drawn

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.16 04:30:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 16/08/2011 04:33:35
Edited by: VKhaun Vex on 16/08/2011 04:30:42
Originally by: HankMurphy
sorry if i hijacked a topic titled UK with a US opinion/case-in-point.

However, I'm sure there are valuable parallels to be drawn


It was a good read from someone who actually looked into it before posting, please do keep going.



I still say people are skipping the middle man of EXPLAINING to the public when the police are in the right.

The same public outcry that calls an officer out for shooting someone, can be the same public outcry that took the taser off his belt in their area by making people classify them as 'torture' devices there. With everyone's boss being elected, they gave in to the torture device issue, and now they can't argue with the public to tell them it's what they get for removing that option.

With systems driven by elections (or appointments by the elected) it's a counter intuitive thing to put in because you end up in situations where you have to tell people what they don't want to hear. Some people need to get shot. Some people need to get taken down. Sometimes kids/young teens have to be touched or restrained. Sometimes women need to be restrained or shot, even beautiful ones.

Sometimes people yell thinking they have a right that they don't and the cop just takes them down. Without someone to explain why the person was wrong, the cop looks like he 'violated someone's rights' and the public now thinks they have that right. I remember some youtubes going around about a guy who would ask police if he was 'being detained' or if he was 'free to go' when they tried to talk to him, and tons of people actually believed this guy that they are 'being detained' any time the police ask them a question or say hello.





If you want to put all police action in the public eye, you need the same thing people get in court. You need a guy who's job it is to tell people police procedure, when exceptions can be made, and how much leeway an officer has, and to be honest about to what degree the officer was right or wrong in what he did, what options he had or didn't have. In the U.S. that role is currently filled by talking heads, talk show hosts, and radio personalities who don't know jack and just want to rile people up.

The end goal of a camera on helmet/gun system would be to improve relations. Keep police in line, and tell the public things are being done properly. If you show the public a ton of footage they don't understand that's not going to improve things. You need an answer to their questions before they ask them and before the sensationalists can start turning people into good guys and bad guys, and you need to have your **** together.

I'm not against the camera thing if done right.
I just don't see anyone talking about how to do it right.


Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:57:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Jago Kain on 16/08/2011 13:05:39
Originally by: VKhaun Vex

If you want to put all police action in the public eye, you need the same thing people get in court. You need a guy who's job it is to tell people police procedure, when exceptions can be made, and how much leeway an officer has, and to be honest about to what degree the officer was right or wrong in what he did, what options he had or didn't have. In the U.S. that role is currently filled by talking heads, talk show hosts, and radio personalities who don't know jack and just want to rile people up.

The end goal of a camera on helmet/gun system would be to improve relations. Keep police in line, and tell the public things are being done properly. If you show the public a ton of footage they don't understand that's not going to improve things. You need an answer to their questions before they ask them and before the sensationalists can start turning people into good guys and bad guys, and you need to have your **** together.

I'm not against the camera thing if done right.
I just don't see anyone talking about how to do it right.




I don't understand how you have reached some of your conclusions from what has been posted.

In my original post, nowhere did I advocate putting all police action in the public eye. I merely suggested that in cases where armed police were likely to actually use their weapons that there be extra evidence of what went on available after the fact in the form of videos. Bit of a difference given that most UK coppers are not issued with firearms.

Most evidence already used in court, including written statements and verbal statements tape recorded in interview rooms at police stations, is not released to the public. This is as it should be. Aside from anything else, there is often sensitive information in court evidence that precludes it's release to the general public.

Incidentally, the USA doesn't have the monopoly on talking heads talking rubbish with little to base it on but their own ill-informed opinion and pre-conceptions. We have career politicians chasing votes, populist media looking to increase sales whatever the cost socially and folk with axes to grind of all political flavours too.

The police in the UK are not short on guidance on what they can and can't do - it's called law. On the occassions where police conduct has been questioned and juries have actually been involved in subsequent court cases, it is the prosecuting and defending solicitors' and barristers' job to explain why the law has or hasn't been broken.

We also have an organisation that is supposedly independant of the police to examine cases where there is suspicion that things weren't done properly... although there is some question as to how independant the IPCC is... again, I don't want to get into a big political debate here so I'll leave it at that.

Again; I'm not advocating showing the public a ton of footage they won't understand... although I think your lack of faith in the public at large is worrying when both USA and UK courts rely so heavily on juries.

Video evidence should be hedged around with the same restrictions as other evidence. I just can't help thinking that if video evidence of the Mark Duggan shooting had been available, realeasing the relevant parts of it to the public soon afterwards (in the interests of public safety... in much the same way CCTV footage and photo stills of rioters are now being broadcast) might have helped to allay fears of police misconduct by showing him leaving the police no option but to shoot him... assuming that's what it would have shown. Again, not looking for a big political debate here.

Obviously if this is going to be done it needs to be done correctly. My bad for not stating the glaringly obvious. I would have thought that was understood from the outset and I do whole-heartedly apologise for not having included subtitles for the hard of thinking.



Jago Kain
Amarr
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
Posted - 2011.08.16 12:59:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Jago Kain on 16/08/2011 13:06:14
Originally by: HankMurphy
sorry if i hijacked a topic titled UK with a US opinion/case-in-point.

However, I'm sure there are valuable parallels to be drawn


No apology neccessary.

There are indeed parallels to be drawn, particularly as our legal systems share a common base and the issues surrounding policing and the policing of policing are relevant both sides of the pond... and just about everywhere else I'd have thought.



Valerie Valate
Amarr
Church of The Crimson Saviour
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:24:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia
Originally by: Valerie Valate
blah

blah



eh, what?

Jago Kain was asking for peoples thoughts about the idea of the cameras.
That was the only thought I had, that had not been mentioned already (technical and management details already mentioned).

with proper procedures, all the difficulties mentioned so far seem like they'd be minimised, so I don't see any reason why such cameras wouldn't be beneficial.

vOv

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.16 23:25:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Valerie Valate

with proper procedures, all the difficulties mentioned so far seem like they'd be minimised, so I don't see any reason why such cameras wouldn't be beneficial.

vOv


Exactly, only tards think this is a bad idea, and would not save money.

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.17 03:39:00 - [56]
 


Originally by: Jago Kain

The police in the UK are not short on guidance on what they can and can't do - it's called law. On the occassions where police conduct has been questioned and juries have actually been involved in subsequent court cases, it is the prosecuting and defending solicitors' and barristers' job to explain why the law has or hasn't been broken.

...


Again; I'm not advocating showing the public a ton of footage they won't understand... although I think your lack of faith in the public at large is worrying when both USA and UK courts rely so heavily on juries.




Okay, I'm not talking to Tai anymore, and I shouldn't take you to hyperbole.
Sorry.



But just as you said, this doesn't go past the courtroom.

the public doesn't get to the point or riots when they are on the officer's side. You don't see mass parades and giving people things when officers kill a top gangster or bring down a human trafficing ring even if it's on the front page of every newspaper, you only see mass riots and people looting when they kill a thug and it's not black and white. There is no innocent until proven guilty, it's guilty until proven innocent and who's going to argue with the people who elect them or their boss?

Before you can talk about what footage to release, when, why, how... you have to acknowledge the problems we have releasing information now. Video footage of a person being killed is VERY powerful and needs to be understood. You need to acknowledge that there are people who will TRY to spin it against police regardless of what it shows. Cutting out sound and adding their own propaganda as commentary.

You need a courtroom equivalent doing active PR and arguing with the public just like those in court would with the prosecutor, not some medium rank officer making a token politically safe statement like they did just before the Mark Duggan stuff hit the fan. Do you agree?

Tai Meijer
Caldari
Malkutha
Posted - 2011.08.17 07:51:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: VKhaun Vex



Okay, I'm not talking to Tai anymore, and I shouldn't take you to hyperbole.
Sorry.


So you still here? I would of thought you learnt your lesson? Still waiting on that proof by the way. Laughing

Andre II
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.17 11:52:00 - [58]
 

YEAH, it sounds very expensive. But in the future when manufacturing technology becomes cheap and inexpensive. i think this will work

VKhaun Vex
Posted - 2011.08.17 15:45:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Andre II
YEAH, it sounds very expensive. But in the future when manufacturing technology becomes cheap and inexpensive. i think this will work


Absolutely.

Don't the governments of the U.K. and U.S.A. both contract -on some level- companies to give them guns, ammo, and equipment in quantity? The first step is the legislation. Once it's law that they have the camera anyway. Then the bean counters will just add this to a contract requirement. Make us guns with cameras in them that meet the court's requirement for video quality. Camera turns on just like lasers, with light pressure on the trigger or contact on the handle. Anyone who wants the gov. contract will do it, and the competition will see prices sink like stones.


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