I don't remember, but I met one of the engineers that built the toy he was using.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
So what happens when a police department wears body cameras? Citizens are protected from assault and police are protected from bullshit complaints.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-20150318-story.html
In San Diego, complaints have fallen 40.5% and use of "personal body" force by officers has been reduced by 46.5% and use of pepper spray by 30.5%, according to the report developed by the Police Department for the City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-body-cameras-20150318-story.html
In San Diego, complaints have fallen 40.5% and use of "personal body" force by officers has been reduced by 46.5% and use of pepper spray by 30.5%, according to the report developed by the Police Department for the City Council's Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee.
Gee, it's almost like, if they know there'll be evidence of what they're doing, and they'll be accountable for it, they behave better.
You're assuming a concerned citizen doesn't confiscate that camera and delete the footage.
--Patrick
Dave
Staff member
And complaints are down in part because of the bullshit like the "hands up don't shoot" fiasco.
I've always wondered about that phrase, "wildly illegal.
It flies in the face the law sir!
Which laws!?
ALL OF THEM! ALL THE LAWS!
Plenty of stuff is technically illegal but accepted or condoned. This wouldn't be. Is what I was getting at.
Also, it's against the Law of the Wild. Lions won't accept cameras, dammit.
GasBandit
Staff member
By law, there's no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space, and anyone has the right to film anything (and anyone) for any (or no) reason.
In fact, there's been quite a dust up over the opposite of this situation - cops trying to confiscate cameras/prevent filming of what they're doing in public to cover their asses. But because they're cops, it's hard to get traction against them for illegally confiscating the cameras, especially since it seems like so minor a thing.
Oh, I know - it's a European-vs-American thing. I'm not surprised it isn't being criticized there, really, I'm just saying it would meet a lot of opposition here. Because "Big Brother". Normal people filming each other is one thing, the government is quite another. The UK is closer to America in this regard. In a large part of Belgium it's still illegal for the government to put up cameras that cover public places.
Though since a lot of people now use their phones as cameras, and most people have one, it's kind of hard to confiscate everyone's recording device. On a normal day I have at least two devices with me capable of taking photos and video, three if I actually bring my camera with me. Stuff can upload to Youtube pretty fast, too. On a practical level, it's impossible to entirely stop this stuff, something police departments around the country need to get an understanding of.
GasBandit
Staff member
Indeed. That's why we know about it. There are videos galore of cops trying to stop people from taking videos, in futility.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...se-cops-couldnt-believe-shes-a-businesswoman/
Seriously, fuck everything.
I hope she wins, and wins so enormous that someone actual decides that they should fire those assholes and actually have oversight for the NYPD for once.
Seriously, fuck everything.
I hope she wins, and wins so enormous that someone actual decides that they should fire those assholes and actually have oversight for the NYPD for once.
A
Anonymous
Anonymous
This is what will happen. She wins her case. She wins millions. She buys a Rolls Royce. She visits her friend in Harlem. She's pulled over. She's put back in Arkham. She plots a dastardly plan. She escapes. She kills Batman.
I've been calling Wikipedia the Ministry of Truth ever since its inception.[DOUBLEPOST=1427390917,1427390651][/DOUBLEPOST]
You mean like the CCTV camera network that covers the majority of British cities?
He did cite the UK as the exception.
My post was not meant to be sarcastic.
I hope she ends up telling her story on
Yeah, I dunno.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Necronic
Staff member
Yeah I don't think I would put Belgium in the same category as the US. Anywhere in Europe frankly. We're a whole separate beast. We have some of the best and some of the worst aspects of both sides of the pond.
-We have a strong respect for privacy laws so we wouldn't do the whole CCTV thing.
-We have the worlds largest inmate population/prison industrial complex. We'll lock up anyone and bleed ourselves dry giving money to "competitive" private industries to jail them.
-We have arguably the best freedom of speech/freedom of religion laws in the world. The anti-hate speech stuff that's been going on in Europe since Charlie Hebdo would never have been seriously considered here, even after 9/11. To be clear, our supreme court defended Westboro Babtist church....EIGHT TO ONE.
-We have the most aggressive military foreign policy in the first world (of the countries that can actually back it up). And we will seriously go into a fugue state and burn the world if someone looks at us cross.
Not sure what we are really. We hold onto certain liberties that no one else in the world seems to realize how important they are. And then we imprison large chunks of our own country and start wars everywhere.
Some kind of Hippie Swartzenagger Kindergarden Cop thing where he occasionally shoots and imprisons children
-We have a strong respect for privacy laws so we wouldn't do the whole CCTV thing.
-We have the worlds largest inmate population/prison industrial complex. We'll lock up anyone and bleed ourselves dry giving money to "competitive" private industries to jail them.
-We have arguably the best freedom of speech/freedom of religion laws in the world. The anti-hate speech stuff that's been going on in Europe since Charlie Hebdo would never have been seriously considered here, even after 9/11. To be clear, our supreme court defended Westboro Babtist church....EIGHT TO ONE.
-We have the most aggressive military foreign policy in the first world (of the countries that can actually back it up). And we will seriously go into a fugue state and burn the world if someone looks at us cross.
Not sure what we are really. We hold onto certain liberties that no one else in the world seems to realize how important they are. And then we imprison large chunks of our own country and start wars everywhere.
Some kind of Hippie Swartzenagger Kindergarden Cop thing where he occasionally shoots and imprisons children
... is this one sarcastic? The internet... it's left me unable to tell anymore.
Ain't seen none of that in Canada. Don't think they do that in the USA either. And I think Barcelona is in Spain ( where the rain, so my 3rd grade education tells me, falls mostly in the gutters), so I'd have to disagree with @Bubble181 that Europe is more enlightened on this matter.
Barcelona is big on irony, though!
You think they don't monitor specific squares and places through CCTV 24/7, or you don't think they have to advertise the fact? Because I assure you some places are under constant camera surveillance
Not only does the head of Scotland Yard want CCTVs in every business and home, he wants it done at their expense. 
"at their expense"....Err, yeah? I mean, I don't think everyone needs camera surveillance, but if a business wants to add cameras to their arsenal of security measures, who else would pay it? You want all those cameras to be paid for and controlled by the government? Now there's some Big Brother shit right there.
Not only does the head of Scotland Yard want CCTVs in every business and home, he wants it done at their expense.
Many businesses and homes already have security cameras. I don't see where the facepalm comes in... the article doesn't say anyone is making it mandatory. Just that the police chief thinks it would help solve crimes if more people had them.
More a reaction to the reputation of UK survelliance, I guess. The implication being police would press to have access to the video feed just like the cameras right outside. IIRC, a while back there was a proposal to install exactly that type of CCTV in homes of people under ASBOs.
http://mic.com/articles/114900/20-tweets-show-america-s-response-to-the-murder-of-walter-scott
White officer stops unarmed black man. Black man runs, gets shot 8 times in back and drops. Officer then walks over to him, yells for the dead man to put his arms behind his back twice, handcuffs the corpse, drops his stun gun (which he reported was taken from him in a scuffle) - you can see him pick it up from next to the body at 2 minutes, and waits for other officers to show up.
However, since someone got video of it, and released it, the officer is actually facing charges. If not for that, it is incredibly unlikely it would have even been considered a 'bad shooting'.
White officer stops unarmed black man. Black man runs, gets shot 8 times in back and drops. Officer then walks over to him, yells for the dead man to put his arms behind his back twice, handcuffs the corpse, drops his stun gun (which he reported was taken from him in a scuffle) - you can see him pick it up from next to the body at 2 minutes, and waits for other officers to show up.
However, since someone got video of it, and released it, the officer is actually facing charges. If not for that, it is incredibly unlikely it would have even been considered a 'bad shooting'.
At least it's being called murder.
Dave
Staff member
It'll get downgraded to manslaughter and then plead even lower. In civilian cases they would have also charged him with several other crimes like assault with a deadly weapon, etc just in case the original charge got reduced. But in this case it's curiously only the one charge. If that charge gets lowered then nothing else would matter.
