thoughts on police and black men dying - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15167622
wat0n wrote:Go on.


No problem. Just quote the relevant text. Thanks.

And yet that implies increasing funding for the police, which has to come from somewhere. Total population is also very relevant to assess just how much would this cost.


It can come from the already giant existing budget.

Inform people about their rights and give them the tools to make cops respect them, although there are several organizations that do both.


So we should hand out guns to civilians that can compete with the guns that cops have. I like that idea.

Did that work for the Black Panthers? Were they able to assert their rights without police brutality?
#15167627
Pants-of-dog wrote:No problem. Just quote the relevant text. Thanks.


Since you made the claim, you can do that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It can come from the already giant existing budget.


That's not what some small localities are claiming. It's almost as if there were some economies of scale involved in such a system.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So we should hand out guns to civilians that can compete with the guns that cops have. I like that idea.

Did that work for the Black Panthers? Were they able to assert their rights without police brutality?


I was actually referring to using the court system. I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of rulings that have reaffirmed the right to film police.

Now, in countries that don't have that right (like Cuba), following the Black Panthers' route is probably the only alternative. Best of luck doing that, though.
#15167637
wat0n wrote:Since you made the claim, you can do that.


The claim that you never read it? That will not be supported by providing evidence. Though your refusal or inability to wuote the relevant text supports my claim.

That's not what some small localities are claiming. It's almost as if there were some economies of scale involved in such a system.


There has been no evidence presented that this is the case, so I will not address it.

I was actually referring to using the court system. I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of rulings that have reaffirmed the right to film police.


Since courts are not available at the time when a cop is threatening someone for filming them, this is an unrealistic idea.

Now, in countries that don't have that right (like Cuba), following the Black Panthers' route is probably the only alternative. Best of luck doing that, though.


So your idea did not work in the US.
#15167646
Pants-of-dog wrote:The claim that you never read it? That will not be supported by providing evidence. Though your refusal or inability to wuote the relevant text supports my claim.


I don't have to refute your claims twice or thrice over. You can read the article yourself if the paywall doesn't show up. I did at the time (earlier this week) but it seems WaPo is even more stingy in these things than NYT is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There has been no evidence presented that this is the case, so I will not address it.


See the WaPo article.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since courts are not available at the time when a cop is threatening someone for filming them, this is an unrealistic idea.


Really? And I would think PDs would not want to face First Amendment lawsuits.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So your idea did not work in the US.


Yes it has. It's as easy as seeing that cops don't try to stop people from filming them anymore.
#15167667
wat0n wrote:I don't have to refute your claims twice or thrice over. You can read the article yourself if the paywall doesn't show up. I did at the time (earlier this week) but it seems WaPo is even more stingy in these things than NYT is.

See the WaPo article.


No thanks. Considering the sheer quantity of resources the US public is already willing to devote to policing, and its ready acceptance of sending free military stuff to police departments, the DoD can easily supply the four small towns that cannot afford bodycams.

Really? And I would think PDs would not want to face First Amendment lawsuits.


You are assuming that all people have an easy way to sue the police. This is not true for poor people. And without a recording, it is a case of the word of the police against someone else, and courts almost always side with the police in that case.

Yes it has. It's as easy as seeing that cops don't try to stop people from filming them anymore.


This does not seem to be the case. Why do you believe that cops do not try to stop people from filming them?
#15167670
Pants-of-dog wrote:No thanks. Considering the sheer quantity of resources the US public is already willing to devote to policing, and its ready acceptance of sending free military stuff to police departments, the DoD can easily supply the four small towns that cannot afford bodycams.

THere's no excuse for every jurisdiction not having body cams.

This does not seem to be the case. Why do you believe that cops do not try to stop people from filming them?

I watch a ton of police interaction videos on Youtube. Most cops these days know they can be filmed so they don't try to stop you, but some cops still will ask you not to film. They obviously have no authority to stop anyone from filming and can't touch your camera or confiscate it for any reason, unless formerly charged you're charged with a crime or something and they have a warrant.
#15167674
Pants-of-dog wrote:No thanks. Considering the sheer quantity of resources the US public is already willing to devote to policing, and its ready acceptance of sending free military stuff to police departments, the DoD can easily supply the four small towns that cannot afford bodycams.


It would seem to be more than just four small towns. But yes, another option is for the Federal government to foot the bill - yet it can't really force PDs to adopt them since it doesn't have police powers under the Constitution. State governments can.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are assuming that all people have an easy way to sue the police. This is not true for poor people. And without a recording, it is a case of the word of the police against someone else, and courts almost always side with the police in that case.


No, I'm not assuming that. But even in those cases, there are NGOs like ACLU that would be willing to participate.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not seem to be the case. Why do you believe that cops do not try to stop people from filming them?


Because we've seen plenty of incidents where people filmed the cops and weren't charged for it.
#15167677
wat0n wrote:It would seem to be more than just four small towns. But yes, another option is for the Federal government to foot the bill - yet it can't really force PDs to adopt them since it doesn't have police powers under the Constitution. State governments can.


The federal government seems to have some powers. After all, it forced all police to return escaped slaves back in the day.

No, I'm not assuming that. But even in those cases, there are NGOs like ACLU that would be willing to participate.


Yes, you seem to be assuming that, unless you agree that economic factors and other factors make it difficult for a person to sue the police.

Because we've seen plenty of incidents where people filmed the cops and weren't charged for it.


Reality is complex enough that we can imagine situations where cops try to stop people filming them, try to charge them for it, see there is no law against it, and then charge them with something else or just intimidate the person with the camera.

The fact that people do not get charged for it does not mean that it never happens.
#15167681
Pants-of-dog wrote:The federal government seems to have some powers. After all, it forced all police to return escaped slaves back in the day.


...And led to a civil war, along with a repudiation of those laws. What it can do, is to provide funding and then condition funding for other things (e.g. infrastructure projects) on adoption by localities. But it's not that simple, in all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you seem to be assuming that, unless you agree that economic factors and other factors make it difficult for a person to sue the police.


No, because as I said those factors can be ameliorated by involving NGOs into the mix. ACLU in particular would be keen on participating in First Amendment cases.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Reality is complex enough that we can imagine situations where cops try to stop people filming them, try to charge them for it, see there is no law against it, and then charge them with something else or just intimidate the person with the camera.

The fact that people do not get charged for it does not mean that it never happens.


It's possible indeed, but it then becomes a game of cat and mouse - and the cat has everything against it on this one.
#15167692
wat0n wrote:...And led to a civil war, along with a repudiation of those laws. What it can do, is to provide funding and then condition funding for other things (e.g. infrastructure projects) on adoption by localities. But it's not that simple, in all.


So we agree that funding is not an obstacle, and that furthermore, it can be used to ensure compliance by cops.

No, because as I said those factors can be ameliorated by involving NGOs into the mix. ACLU in particular would be keen on participating in First Amendment cases.


How would all these factors be ameliorated by the ACLU? Or are you just looking at the economic one?

It's possible indeed, but it then becomes a game of cat and mouse - and the cat has everything against it on this one.


If you mean that the cops have the system on their side and abuse this advantage, then yes, I agree.
#15167694
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that funding is not an obstacle, and that furthermore, it can be used to ensure compliance by cops.


Then you get into the issue of agreeing to it at the Federal level, and if necessary compensating it with reassignment or tax increases.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How would all these factors be ameliorated by the ACLU? Or are you just looking at the economic one?


The economic one, mainly.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you mean that the cops have the system on their side and abuse this advantage, then yes, I agree.


How do they have the system on their side when there is jurisprudence that affirms the general right to film them?
#15167697
wat0n wrote:Then you get into the issue of agreeing to it at the Federal level, and if necessary compensating it with reassignment or tax increases.


I already addressed this.

The economic one, mainly.


So, the economic factor is partly helped by groups like the ACLU, but not other factors.

This is decidedly not a good way for universal compliance to rules by cops.

How do they have the system on their side when there is jurisprudence that affirms the general right to film them?


I explained that, Would you like me to provide a link to that post?
#15167701
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already addressed this.


How so? Remind me.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, the economic factor is partly helped by groups like the ACLU, but not other factors.

This is decidedly not a good way for universal compliance to rules by cops.


The others can be addressed through the civilian oversight bodies and the court system.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I explained that, Would you like me to provide a link to that post?


When it comes to filming cops? Go on.
#15167712
wat0n wrote:How so? Remind me.


The current relationship between the Department of Defence and local PDs is now causing the ongoing militarisation of police forces.

This same dynamic can be used to fund bodycams and surveilling of police.

The others can be addressed through the civilian oversight bodies and the court system.


Or we can render them obsolete by simply forcing cops to be surveilled whenever on duty.

When it comes to filming cops? Go on.


What exactly is the claim you need me to support or clarify?
#15167715
Pants-of-dog wrote:The current relationship between the Department of Defence and local PDs is now causing the ongoing militarisation of police forces.

This same dynamic can be used to fund bodycams and surveilling of police.


Is it really the same, though? They are giving the PDs spare arms, the kind of which would only sold to other countries (with the diplomatic implications this has). They aren't procuring new stuff like bodycams and furthermore they don't have to contract the whole storage and operation systems that go along with them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Or we can render them obsolete by simply forcing cops to be surveilled whenever on duty.


Right, but a bystander may get a different view from that of bodycams.

Pants-of-dog wrote:What exactly is the claim you need me to support or clarify?


That the system is designed so the public can't film cops.
#15167717
wat0n wrote:Is it really the same, though? They are giving the PDs spare arms, the kind of which would only sold to other countries (with the diplomatic implications this has). They aren't procuring new stuff like bodycams and furthermore they don't have to contract the whole storage and operation systems that go along with them.


The military can pay for brand new bodycams and send them to police. They can afford it.

And cops would only be responsible for wearing them and making sure the feed is sent to a remote server. The actual storage and review of this would not be under the sole control of the police, for obvious reasons.

Right, but a bystander may get a different view from that of bodycams.


And a bodycam would film a cop saying that cops cannot be filmed.

So, only the stupidest cops would still go around and claim that people cannot film them.

That the system is designed so the public can't film cops.


I would not say that the system was intentionally designed to keep the public from filming cops. Instead, the system was set up to give cops benefit of the doubt and cops abused this to censor any evidence against them by stopping people from filming them, and that this is true even if it is technically illegal.
#15167719
Pants-of-dog wrote:The military can pay for brand new bodycams and send them to police. They can afford it.


Ah, so now you want to reassign spending. Sure, that can be done - but then one needs to figure out the associated opportunity cost.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And cops would only be responsible for wearing them and making sure the feed is sent to a remote server. The actual storage and review of this would not be under the sole control of the police, for obvious reasons.


Right, but operating those has its own costs. It doesn't just end with buying the bodycams and the computers.

Not that I believe it isn't worth it, it is. But that explains why PDs have been slow to adopt it, particularly in small localities where the fixed costs may actually be high. The sort of fix isn't automatic either, as it requires a Federal policy on the matter.

I think though that the current administration will probably go for it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And a bodycam would film a cop saying that cops cannot be filmed.

So, only the stupidest cops would still go around and claim that people cannot film them.


Indeed.

Pants-of-dog wrote: I would not say that the system was intentionally designed to keep the public from filming cops. Instead, the system was set up to give cops benefit of the doubt and cops abused this to censor any evidence against them by stopping people from filming them, and that this is true even if it is technically illegal.


Right, but you can say the same about presumption of innocence in general. But now that technology actually allows us to give the benefit of doubt less often, because stuff can be filmed, we can actually rely less on presumptions than in the past. At last as long as deep fakes do not become common.
#15167723
wat0n wrote:Ah, so now you want to reassign spending. Sure, that can be done - but then one needs to figure out the associated opportunity cost.


Feel free.

Right, but operating those has its own costs. It doesn't just end with buying the bodycams and the computers.

Not that I believe it isn't worth it, it is. But that explains why PDs have been slow to adopt it, particularly in small localities where the fixed costs may actually be high. The sort of fix isn't automatic either, as it requires a Federal policy on the matter.

I think though that the current administration will probably go for it.


I think the whole thing where they are more likely to be found shooting unarmed kids is more of a factor than not having money, since most have huge amounts of money compared to any other municipal service.

And this is why the recordings need to be under the control of a separate civilian oversight group. The operating costs of this group also need to be taken into account.

Indeed.

Right, but you can say the same about presumption of innocence in general. But now that technology actually allows us to give the benefit of doubt less often, because stuff can be filmed, we can actually rely less on presumptions than in the past. At last as long as deep fakes do not become common.


Yes, presumption of innocence is usually ignored when it is the word of the cops against the public. In that case, it is often assumed that the cop is telling the truth and the other person is not only guilty of whatever crime the cop is accusing the other person of doing, but also guilty of lying if there is any contradiction with the cop’s account.

So yes, this is why cops do not like being filmed.
#15167727
Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free.


I'd say that's Congress' job.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I think the whole thing where they are more likely to be found shooting unarmed kids is more of a factor than not having money, since most have huge amounts of money compared to any other municipal service.

And this is why the recordings need to be under the control of a separate civilian oversight group. The operating costs of this group also need to be taken into account.


The fact that cops may have more money than any municipal service (I wouldn't be so sure about this part, by the way, I can imagine more money being devoted to healthcare given how insanely expensive it is in the US) doesn't really negate the expensive nature of bodycams and the associated infrastructure. It's still a nontrivial issue that makes adoption slow, all in all. I do agree with having storage being managed by a different institution.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, presumption of innocence is usually ignored when it is the word of the cops against the public. In that case, it is often assumed that the cop is telling the truth and the other person is not only guilty of whatever crime the cop is accusing the other person of doing, but also guilty of lying if there is any contradiction with the cop’s account.

So yes, this is why cops do not like being filmed.


Is it though? I would think cops need probable cause and the like to arrest someone.
#15167734
wat0n wrote:I'd say that's Congress' job.

The fact that cops may have more money than any municipal service (I wouldn't be so sure about this part, by the way, I can imagine more money being devoted to healthcare given how insanely expensive it is in the US) doesn't really negate the expensive nature of bodycams and the associated infrastructure. It's still a nontrivial issue that makes adoption slow, all in all. I do agree with having storage being managed by a different institution.


How much does it cost?

Also: Minneapolis spends about 35% of its budget on police. No other service costs nearly this much.

Is it though? I would think cops need probable cause and the like to arrest someone.


I was not discussing arresting people.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we[…]

You should put the full quote I am of the o[…]

Muscovite’s Slaughter of Indigenous People in Alas[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's prom[…]