The Police Brutality Thread

[imanihonjin]

Sincere question: Is there ever a point at which it is okay for the police to shoot an unarmed man running away? Known serial killer happens to be unarmed, is running from the cops, they feel he will get away...can they shoot?

Obviously Brown isn't near that scale of dangerous, but the bigger question is whether or not the cops are ever justified in shooting a known dangerous person who happens to be fleeing whether armed or unarmed. Are they doing all they can to protect and serve if they let dangerous people get away when they could stop them with a bullet?

It is pretty clear that Brown wasn't "running away". The autopsy done by the family stated that he was shot in the front of his body, not the back. I am not certain that you were claiming that Brown was running away, but thought that I would clarify that, just in case.

[smokymountainrain]

It is pretty clear that Brown wasn't "running away". The autopsy done by the family stated that he was shot in the front of his body, not the back. I am not certain that you were claiming that Brown was running away, but thought that I would clarify that, just in case.

No, I wasn't claiming that, but others have claimed it, hence the questions. But thanks for the info. I didn't know about the autopsy results.

[ERCougar]

As I understand you, you believe that the greater point has to with representation on the Ferguson police department (this for another day as the Chief of the highway patrol, who was black, was called every Uncle Tom type pejorative you can think of for playing his responsible part) is some greater point. Based on the facts that we know at this point in time, what does representation on the Ferguson police have anything to do with this particular issue? Are you saying that if a white officer had shot Mr. Brown and that their had been more black police officers in Ferguson that this story would have received as much attention as the shooting in SLC?

My point is simply that I find it interesting that based on what we know, people in the media and on the Facebook want to draw upon every stereotype they can to make this shooting a case of a white man unjustifiably gunning down an unarmed black young man. I find it interesting that they want to fight white privilege and the stereotyping of black young men and the way that they have done so has been to rely upon stereotypes of white people.

You're still leaving out the history (and to a lesser extent, present) of race in America, which is a pretty powerful force. I have no idea what you're saying in your second paragraph, but I guess the real question is, do news agencies intentionally suppress stories with public interest. Seems like a poor strategy to me. So while you're saying about Ferguson, "there's nothing to see here", or at least, "look at this case in SLC! It's just as interesting! ", apparently America disagrees with you. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks there are important issues at play here.

[imanihonjin]

You're still leaving out the history (and to a lesser extent, present) of race in America, which is a pretty powerful force. I have no idea what you're saying in your second paragraph, but I guess the real question is, do news agencies intentionally suppress stories with public interest. Seems like a poor strategy to me. So while you're saying about Ferguson, "there's nothing to see here", or at least, "look at this case in SLC! It's just as interesting! ", apparently America disagrees with you. I guess I'm not the only one who thinks there are important issues at play here.

I get that you think that there are important issues at play here and the media has been pushing a certain narrative. However, what facts support the inferences being drawn about these "important issues at play"? You seems to suggest that race has played some part in the Ferguson story. It may have (most in the media have pushed this story), but all I am asking is what facts support this theory and why aren't the same conclusions about race being drawn in the SLC case?

[wuapinmon]

I've been saying this since I read the ACLU's policy paper in the Spring. Cops should have to wear these. This news story gives me hope that we can take back our rights.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...video-cameras/

[imanihonjin]

I've been saying this since I read the ACLU's policy paper in the Spring. Cops should have to wear these. This news story gives me hope that we can take back our rights.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...video-cameras/

Agreed. I am not sure what argument can be made for not requiring these.

[The_Tick]

I am all for this. It will be nice to see law enforcement exonerated most of the time.

There is a family suing a Bakersfield Police Officer and the Department for the shooting of their family member.

You see....he took a gas pump hose out of a ladies hand and started dousing her with gasoline. Police responded within 1 minute. When they arrived the man was trying to light this gal on fire. (She was a complete stranger to him).

He started coming at police and they dropped him with one shot.

Family is using for use of excessive force and brutality.

Their main complaint?...police should have used a taser instead. You know....use a taser on a man covered in gasoline standing next to a woman that he covered with gasoline....standing next to a car filled with her children.

And who is taking on the case? Jonnie Cochran himself.

[Bo Diddley]

I am all for this. It will be nice to see law enforcement exonerated most of the time.

There is a family suing a Bakersfield Police Officer and the Department for the shooting of their family member.

You see....he took a gas pump hose out of a ladies hand and started dousing her with gasoline. Police responded within 1 minute. When they arrived the man was trying to light this gal on fire. (She was a complete stranger to him).

He started coming at police and they dropped him with one shot.

Family is using for use of excessive force and brutality.

Their main complaint?...police should have used a taser instead. You know....use a taser on a man covered in gasoline standing next to a woman that he covered with gasoline....standing next to a car filled with her children.

And who is taking on the case? Jonnie Cochran himself.

Ha! That reminds me of the days police used to carry flammable pepper spray...followed up by tasers...

[old_gregg]

Agreed. I am not sure what argument can be made for not requiring these.

i think the main argument is that we generally trust living, breathing officers to use judgment and discretion in the amount of force used. first, having all their actions recorded would hamstring their confidence in their training and judgment. even half a second of hesitation caused by an officer wondering what his actions will look like on camera could lead to the officer or other people dying. second, a camera will never be able to capture the situational factors that officers use to determine whether force is appropriate. cameras are a really poor proxy for determining whether an officer, given the totality of contextual factors, was justified in using force. it's easy to say what should have been done when one doesn't subjectively feel that they're in danger of imminent harm. third, what happens when an officer bends rules in a way that's good or helpful? what happens when the department randomly audits footage of a traffic stop (which you better believe will happen) where an officer lets someone off with a warning in a way that's contrary to policy but aligns with common sense? some cops abuse their power, no doubt about it. but these are all bad outcomes that are net worse than what could be achieved by more/better training and actually punishing guilty cops rather than caving to union demands and suspending them with pay for a few weeks.

[byu71]

The conversation has got me thinking. How much more productive could we be in America if everyone had to wear a camera? I would love to see journalists wearing one to see if they are really doing when the camera isn't on. Who are they talking to. We could then discover for sure their bias.

Of course politicians with camera's on them would provide a great deal more transparency into our government.

There would probably be a lot less posting on chat boards.

[Bo Diddley]

i think the main argument is that we generally trust living, breathing officers to use judgment and discretion in the amount of force used. first, having all their actions recorded would hamstring their confidence in their training and judgment. even half a second of hesitation caused by an officer wondering what his actions will look like on camera could lead to the officer or other people dying. second, a camera will never be able to capture the situational factors that officers use to determine whether force is appropriate. cameras are a really poor proxy for determining whether an officer, given the totality of contextual factors, was justified in using force. it's easy to say what should have been done when one doesn't subjectively feel that they're in danger of imminent harm. third, what happens when an officer bends rules in a way that's good or helpful? what happens when the department randomly audits footage of a traffic stop (which you better believe will happen) where an officer lets someone off with a warning in a way that's contrary to policy but aligns with common sense? some cops abuse their power, no doubt about it. but these are all bad outcomes that are net worse than what could be achieved by more/better training and actually punishing guilty cops rather than caving to union demands and suspending them with pay for a few weeks.

Officers are trained to act as if the camera were rolling at all times. I remember being told to always act as though I were being video taped. I believe people wearing cameras will acclimate to them, and will give little thought to them once they have. In the heat of the moment, your focus will be where it needs to be.

While a camera will never take in all the factors, it picks up a lot of them. Over time, as technology advances, more and more information will be captured. The more information is captured, the more helpful it will be.

As to your last point, there's a thing called officer discretion. This allows for common sense.

I'm a big believer in the body cameras. It both protects the officers and holds them accountable. While we like to place faith in them, there are some bad apples out there.

[imanihonjin]

i think the main argument is that we generally trust living, breathing officers to use judgment and discretion in the amount of force used. first, having all their actions recorded would hamstring their confidence in their training and judgment. even half a second of hesitation caused by an officer wondering what his actions will look like on camera could lead to the officer or other people dying. second, a camera will never be able to capture the situational factors that officers use to determine whether force is appropriate. cameras are a really poor proxy for determining whether an officer, given the totality of contextual factors, was justified in using force. it's easy to say what should have been done when one doesn't subjectively feel that they're in danger of imminent harm. third, what happens when an officer bends rules in a way that's good or helpful? what happens when the department randomly audits footage of a traffic stop (which you better believe will happen) where an officer lets someone off with a warning in a way that's contrary to policy but aligns with common sense? some cops abuse their power, no doubt about it. but these are all bad outcomes that are net worse than what could be achieved by more/better training and actually punishing guilty cops rather than caving to union demands and suspending them with pay for a few weeks.

Interesting perspective. If a situation arises we are using eyewitness testimony to understand the judgment and discretion that officers use. Everyday regular people are describing what they believe the contextual factors and these individuals will be able to continue to do so. I guess I just don't understand how having a clear picture of how the events went down in terms of the actual actions of all parties could be worse than having people describe what they say and heard in isolation rather than having these same people describe what they saw and heard in conjunction with actual video evidence. The police really should be operating under the assumption that they are being video taped anyway because in reality there is a substantial chance that they are. Having a camera on every interaction would cause both parties to behave differently and I would have to think that this change would overwhelmingly be a positive behavioral change.

I saw a study, I can't remember where, but a study was done that the incidents that lead to complaints of police abuse decreased as much as 80% when body cameras were worn.

[wuapinmon]

One thing that I would insist upon (I got this from the ACLU) if we require this of officers: the camera should only be on when they interact with the public. Recording everything they do at all times can take a huge psychological toll on them from the panopticon phenomena. However, in return for respecting their psychological well-being while sitting somewhere doing policework that doesn't involve the public, if they do interact with the public, and don't switch on the camera, there should be an automatic consequence with some teeth, and if an allegation of abuse happens when the camera isn't on, the onus should be on the officer to prove that the abuse didn't happen.

[old_gregg]

I guess I just don't understand how having a clear picture of how the events went down in terms of the actual actions of all parties could be worse than having people describe what they say and heard in isolation rather than having these same people describe what they saw and heard in conjunction with actual video evidence.

i think this is the biggest problem: the idea that video footage is somehow a clear picture of how the events went down. you just can't capture all the factors that inform an officer's judgment, and a jury's overreliance on a post facto dissection of a video divorced from other important decisionmaking inputs is dangerous.

One thing that I would insist upon (I got this from the ACLU) if we require this of officers: the camera should only be on when they interact with the public. Recording everything they do at all times can take a huge psychological toll on them from the panopticon phenomena. However, in return for respecting their psychological well-being while sitting somewhere doing policework that doesn't involve the public, if they do interact with the public, and don't switch on the camera, there should be an automatic consequence with some teeth, and if an allegation of abuse happens when the camera isn't on, the onus should be on the officer to prove that the abuse didn't happen.

i imagine foucault would have had some interesting things to say about this issue, surveillance of the surveillance state.

[Uncle Ted]

Of course politicians with camera's on them would provide a great deal more transparency into our government.

Yes, it did wonders for Rmoney's campaign...

Of course, he was just stating the obvious.