In Maryland, any person may request, via an Emergency Evaluation form, that another individual be evaluated against their will by an emergency room physician for involuntary admission. If the judge concurs, he will direct the police to escort the individual to the hospital. A licensed physician, psychologist, social worker, or nurse practitioner who has examined the patient or a police officer may bring a potential patient to the emergency room for forced evaluation without approval from a judge. The patient may be kept in the hospital for up to thirty hours. If by then two physicians, or one physician and one psychologist then decide that the patient meets the Maryland criteria for an involuntary psychiatric admission, then he or she may be kept inpatient involuntarily for up to ten days. During this time, an administrative law judge determines if the following criteria for longer civil commitment are met:
a person has a mental illness;
a person needs inpatient care or treatment;
a person presents a danger to themselves or to others;
a person is unable or unwilling to be admitted voluntarily;
there is no available, less restrictive form of care or treatment to meet the person's needs.
Involuntary commitment is pretty wild, since refusal to follow the treatments prescribed can be used as evidence against you, and you can basically be held incommunicado for some time with no recourse.
This isn't really a policing thing though...the police are just following the direction of the doctor and judge.
It's not criminal, it's civil. This is kind of like complaining that police are present during the eviction / foreclosure process.
Besides, when it comes down to it, doctors are pretty reluctant to use involuntary admission, and it takes two concurring doctors to keep the patient more than thirty hours. Doctors tend to face a pretty high standard of review as well, are civilly liable for malpractice, and are held to a higher standard overall.
That's exactly what policing is. Observing, investigating, serving warrants, and occasionally arresting or entering without a warrant when reasonable suspicion or evidence of a crime is abundant or in order to prevent injury to oneself or another (just like any other member of the public).
"The police are the public and the public are the police"
Having worked in an ER and having been around people doing insane and crazy shit like this and worse, it does look like she kicked off the wall to me in some angles. Were I the officer I would not be inclined to stand under her and let her injure me. I have seen people in restraints do insane and stupid shit, it doesn't look like what she did was especially aggressive, but it was stupid and she was hurt.
That all being said, if a couple of ER techs and a sheriff can restrain someone who is drunk and trying to fight who weighs over 200lbs and is 6ft+, I don't see how they allowed the situation to escalate and showed amazingly poor performance and control of the situation allowing this to happen. There's no way she should have ever been in a position to leverage her bodyweight and free-fall off a bench if anyone there knew what they were doing.
Oh, and as a bonus they pointed a taser at her face. Where it would either A. Be totally worthless, B. destroy an eye, or C. if they managed to land the probes, prossibly give her a seizure.
I'm not sure they threw her though. It's hard to tell from the video, but it doesn't look like they're positioned in a way that would let them throw her.
Having worked in an ER and having been around people doing insane and crazy shit like this and worse, it does look like she kicked off the wall to me in some angles. Were I the officer I would not be inclined to stand under her and let her injure me. I have seen people in restraints do insane and stupid shit, it doesn't look like what she did was especially aggressive, but it was stupid and she was hurt.
That all being said, if a couple of ER techs and a sheriff can restrain someone who is drunk and trying to fight who weighs over 200lbs and is 6ft+, I don't see how they allowed the situation to escalate and showed amazingly poor performance and control of the situation allowing this to happen. There's no way she should have ever been in a position to leverage her bodyweight and free-fall off a bench if anyone there knew what they were doing.
To me it looks like she jumps up and is then forcefully pulled down. Which might be normal police behavior, placing a suspect on the ground to more easily handle. But when a light woman is off her feet, up in the air with her hands handcuffed behind her then, well..
Having worked in an ER and having been around people doing insane and crazy shit like this and worse, it does look like she kicked off the wall to me in some angles. Were I the officer I would not be inclined to stand under her and let her injure me. I have seen people in restraints do insane and stupid shit, it doesn't look like what she did was especially aggressive, but it was stupid and she was hurt.
That all being said, if a couple of ER techs and a sheriff can restrain someone who is drunk and trying to fight who weighs over 200lbs and is 6ft+, I don't see how they allowed the situation to escalate and showed amazingly poor performance and control of the situation allowing this to happen. There's no way she should have ever been in a position to leverage her bodyweight and free-fall off a bench if anyone there knew what they were doing.
To me it looks like she jumps up and is then forcefully pulled down. Which might be normal police behavior, placing a suspect on the ground to more easily handle. But when a light woman is off her feet, up in the air with her hands handcuffed behind her then, well..
I agree, but if you've ever tried to hold someone still who is a full sized adult who didn't want to be held, they can make it very difficult in a 1v1 situation. Not that they can overpower you, but they can make movements that work against your body mechanics or pass beyond your center of gravity and kind of end out in a free fall. It's not normally peoples intention to faceplant, but it happens quite often when they do something stupid and their feet aren't under them.
It should have never been a 1v1. The dudes all standing around doing nothing should have been preventing her movement and it shouldn't have ever been an issue. That's where I believe the fault lies. With everything leading up to an escalation being done so poorly that the outcome was serious injury.
If it were a huge white dude who had done this, say some frat bro who was drunk, I don't think anyone would be sorry about it. That it's a reasonably small woman suddenly does not make it more or less a mistake, but for whatever reason she'll get a lot more sympathy. I guess it's just the difference between, "Those meanie cops beating up a small woman!" and "Those cops sure are bad at controlling someone who's under arrest."
Didn't we have this same discussion 5 pages ago and then somebody said, "Hey guys, the cameras only record starting from 30 seconds before the officer decides to hit the switch"? Is there a reason we're still talking about the assumption that the cops have no ability to control when something will or will not be recorded?
Considering the officer waited 11 days just to file a report that was basically a blank page, I don't really trust him to press that button.
You could try to have a system where the camera records as soon as the dispatcher sends them out, but that doesn't really help if the cop just pulls people over for being black without probable cause.
They could set up technology to start recording as soon as the officer leaves his vehicle, and stops recording when he gets back in.
Sure, and then the question to the cop is "Why didn't you start recording before this happened, because a lot of shady shit just went down without anything to back your word up against all these eyewitnesses"
"Still, never mind, since you're a cop, your word is what counts. Take a couple of weeks paid leave until this dies down eh?"
Every place that has implemented the cameras has seen a drop in violence and complaints. So the idea that it won't accomplish anything if the police can turn them off is simply untrue.
Which has been pointed out. Repeatedly. So I don't know why you've decided to bring it up again.
Cops have a hugely disproportionate amount of power compared to virtually any non-politics job. So I don't think the argument that they should have privacy while working in public and can potentially murder people without consequences holds any water whatsoever.
So i know you guys know about the man that was shot at Wal-Mart here in Ohio. Well locally there is a huge debate on whether or not they had a right because of the conceal carry laws in the store. And many people are like "let's wait for footage before making judgment!"
I don't think it matters. The guy was murdered holding a bb gun that the store was selling while on his phone. I don't see how that isn't excessive force.
Didn't we have this same discussion 5 pages ago and then somebody said, "Hey guys, the cameras only record starting from 30 seconds before the officer decides to hit the switch"? Is there a reason we're still talking about the assumption that the cops have no ability to control when something will or will not be recorded?
Cuz people keep saying things like, "There's no reason anybody should object to being recorded at work ever!" and I keep disagreeing with them? I mean like....
My work IMs are recorded. Everyone's are. However, people use it for stupid personal conversations or even to talk shit about their bosses. They don't get fired, that's not what the system is designed to catch. Similarly, police wouldn't generally be getting busted for saying insensitive stuff in the police car or whatever. However, whenever violence was employed, you bet it'd be nice to have video coverage to have some more evidence besides what the police officer says happened.
Your sysadmin totally knows all your shit. And then, say, someone files a harassment complaint against you. Now your sysadmin gets instructed to dig through all your shit to find corroborating evidence. Or you look at your sysadmin the wrong way. Or your sysadmin is a little short on cash. Or you get a new boss who really wants to know what you're saying about him.
That doesn't mean I don't use my work email (analogy: police cameras should be used). But I do implement some safeguards to protect my own privacy and my own rights, and I would expect some police officers to also want those things, and I think reasonable people can solve conflicts like that, such as limiting when the cameras film and how the footage is accessed etc, rather than painting those concerns as trying to hide something dastardly.
So I guess what I'm confused about is that you apparently think it's bad that hundreds of police officers were caught illegally accessing criminal records because police should have complete privacy at work and we must simply take their word at face value that they are doing everything by the book?
Police are the last people who we want "getting away with stuff" while on the job, because of what their job is.
I see no social benefit to giving them a cloak of privacy while on the job.
And the ones who dislike that the most are the ones who need to not be police the most.
And I see great social benefit in them quitting and finding some other job that isn't police work.
-edit-
I should have read the article. It was in the UK. And here I thought for a second that police officers were actually being held accountable for abusing their spying powers here in the US. As if.
So I guess what I'm confused about is that you apparently think it's bad that hundreds of police officers were caught illegally accessing criminal records because police should have complete privacy at work and we must simply take their word at face value that they are doing everything by the book?
Police are the last people who we want "getting away with stuff" while on the job, because of what their job is.
I see no social benefit to giving them a cloak of privacy while on the job.
And the ones who dislike that the most are the ones who need to not be police the most.
And I see great social benefit in them quitting and finding some other job that isn't police work.
-edit-
I should have read the article. It was in the UK. And here I thought for a second that police officers were actually being held accountable for abusing their spying powers here in the US. As if.
I don't think you read my posts. I haven't been talking about just the "police". I've been talking about in general, why I - and you - shouldn't just trust that electronic surveillance systems at the workplace are a-OK. People have been saying that the police have nothing to fear and any resistance from them is just to hide their evil moustache-twirling, and I'm saying it's not necessarily, and that some of the concerns are really legitimate and resonate with me in my workplace too. They're not, in my mind, sufficient to torpedo the necessity of police cameras, but I'm rather disturbed by what is either people's complacency towards surveillance and worker-employer relations or people's complete belligerency towards any and all police officers. And I say this as someone who's been super-critical of police officers, on record in these forums.
"I don't want my shit recorded and made available to whoever whenever they want," is a damned reasonable concern. I linked those articles because there were people saying, "Well I get all my shit recorded and nothing's happened to me," because those are terrible anecdotal arguments that might not even be true - because things may have happened to them without their even knowing - and I wanted to say, "Hey look, I can pull up a bunch of anecdotes too where people abused their access to other people's information and surveillance at institutions where employees are probably supposed to have more integrity than Wal-Mart or a gas station."
I'm pretty sure you, and others, are just dropping into the thread, reading the last couple posts, skipping over a few key sentences, and just assuming that anybody who's saying anything at all supportive of something police officers have said at some point must be rabid police bunnies, and so I keep retreading this same rhetorical ground. (Tell me if I'm wrong.) But here, in one sentence: Police cameras are a good idea, but everybody, including police, should have concerns about being placed under an arbitrary workplace surveillance scheme, so there should be safeguards in place to protect against abuse of these systems, particularly against the workers themselves, whether they be institutional or lone-wolf abuses, because they can and do happen.
Also, exposing all police officers to these sorts of abuses will just make it harder, in the long run, to attract and retain good, intelligent, socially aware police officers, instead leaving us with (warning: hyperbole) nuts with authority and surveillance state fetishes, who might say things like, "Well, hey, we're recorded all the time and nothing bad's happened to us, so we should be allowed to record everyone, and if you have nothing to be afraid of, you won't mind if we attach this drone to follow you around everywhere." Cuz responding to other people's black-and-white, it's us or them mentality with more of the same just makes that thin blue line thicker. Or thinner. Or bluer. Something.
Police cameras are a good idea, but everybody, including police, should have concerns about being placed under an arbitrary workplace surveillance scheme, so there should be safeguards in place to protect against abuse of these systems, particularly against the workers themselves, whether they be institutional or lone-wolf abuses, because they can and do happen.
The key word there is "arbitrary". Surveillance on police officers is not arbitrary, and in this case it is not only the public served by it, but also the officers themselves.
Police cameras are a good idea, but everybody, including police, should have concerns about being placed under an arbitrary workplace surveillance scheme, so there should be safeguards in place to protect against abuse of these systems, particularly against the workers themselves, whether they be institutional or lone-wolf abuses, because they can and do happen.
The key word there is "arbitrary". Surveillance on police officers is not arbitrary, and in this case it is not only the public served by it, but also the officers themselves.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that discussion.
Union: Having cameras on our cops is unfair
City: Why is that?
Union: Because if we're on camera we can actually be held accountable for our actions.
City: ...
(It's admittedly skimpy, but I think its implications are clear.)
And I would say that this is a wilful mischaracterization of the position of police unions, and that the police union has a role to play in an un-arbitrary surveillance scheme of police officers, because the implementation of such a scheme, institutionally, shifts power quite significantly towards the employer, and, individually, can expose officers to abuse unless someone ensures that their privacy is also protected, even if it is, admittedly, a secondary objective.
Police cameras, as have been implemented, may not be arbitrary and invasive, but those implementations have almost assuredly had the input and approval of the police unions involved in the first place, while some posters have seem to support a police camera scheme that has as a catchphrase a rap song by N.W.A..
So I guess what I'm confused about is that you apparently think it's bad that hundreds of police officers were caught illegally accessing criminal records because police should have complete privacy at work and we must simply take their word at face value that they are doing everything by the book?
Police are the last people who we want "getting away with stuff" while on the job, because of what their job is.
I see no social benefit to giving them a cloak of privacy while on the job.
And the ones who dislike that the most are the ones who need to not be police the most.
And I see great social benefit in them quitting and finding some other job that isn't police work.
-edit-
I should have read the article. It was in the UK. And here I thought for a second that police officers were actually being held accountable for abusing their spying powers here in the US. As if.
I don't think you read my posts. I haven't been talking about just the "police". I've been talking about in general, why I - and you - shouldn't just trust that electronic surveillance systems at the workplace are a-OK. People have been saying that the police have nothing to fear and any resistance from them is just to hide their evil moustache-twirling, and I'm saying it's not necessarily, and that some of the concerns are really legitimate and resonate with me in my workplace too. They're not, in my mind, sufficient to torpedo the necessity of police cameras, but I'm rather disturbed by what is either people's complacency towards surveillance and worker-employer relations or people's complete belligerency towards any and all police officers. And I say this as someone who's been super-critical of police officers, on record in these forums.
"I don't want my shit recorded and made available to whoever whenever they want," is a damned reasonable concern. I linked those articles because there were people saying, "Well I get all my shit recorded and nothing's happened to me," because those are terrible anecdotal arguments that might not even be true - because things may have happened to them without their even knowing - and I wanted to say, "Hey look, I can pull up a bunch of anecdotes too where people abused their access to other people's information and surveillance at institutions where employees are probably supposed to have more integrity than Wal-Mart or a gas station."
I'm pretty sure you, and others, are just dropping into the thread, reading the last couple posts, skipping over a few key sentences, and just assuming that anybody who's saying anything at all supportive of something police officers have said at some point must be rabid police bunnies, and so I keep retreading this same rhetorical ground. (Tell me if I'm wrong.) But here, in one sentence: Police cameras are a good idea, but everybody, including police, should have concerns about being placed under an arbitrary workplace surveillance scheme, so there should be safeguards in place to protect against abuse of these systems, particularly against the workers themselves, whether they be institutional or lone-wolf abuses, because they can and do happen.
Also, exposing all police officers to these sorts of abuses will just make it harder, in the long run, to attract and retain good, intelligent, socially aware police officers, instead leaving us with (warning: hyperbole) nuts with authority and surveillance state fetishes, who might say things like, "Well, hey, we're recorded all the time and nothing bad's happened to us, so we should be allowed to record everyone, and if you have nothing to be afraid of, you won't mind if we attach this drone to follow you around everywhere." Cuz responding to other people's black-and-white, it's us or them mentality with more of the same just makes that thin blue line thicker. Or thinner. Or bluer. Something.
The issue here is that we, the public, are already having our shit recorded. Given that that's not going to change, why shield this last group, law enforcement, when they have the most power to abuse their secrecy? And this ability to abuse operating under a cloak of secrecy, where it's just their word against whoever they are arresting and their word is always taken, is exactly why they aren't being recorded the way the masses are. The reason they illegally confiscate cameras, harass and abuse reporters and non-reporters who try to film them, and their lobbyists try to pass laws making it illegal to film them (just them, not you. Never you). The police are very clearly allergic to transparency, which is why they need an enema full of it.
Also, obviously, opposing police cameras will do fuck all to alleviate non-police from being monitored and recorded at work.
-edit-
Also, why on earth would we be in favor of police officers having more personal power?
Anything that shifts power and authority up the chain of command (in the direction of appointed and then elected officials) is beneficial to society, and police having more personal power and authority is detrimental to society.
Also, obviously, opposing police cameras will do fuck all to alleviate non-police from being monitored and recorded at work.
There's a difference between opposing something and supporting something, with conditions.
Also, I'm generally pro-fairness, regardless of whether there exists unfairness elsewhere in the universe.
Double also, I sure as hell don't have my shit recorded, at least not like this. And even if I were, that doesn't mean I want to have more of my shit recorded by more people.
Triple also, I'm not sure it is that obvious or even true. Public opinions swing in strange ways. I might be at a strange intersection of being an SJW and computer specialist, but I hold out hope that people will re-focus on their privacy rights, maybe once the social media, big data craze gets old.
Quadruple also, what makes you think that it's any better higher up the chain of command? If we're talking about Ferguson, evidence suggests that the corruption started at the top and worked its way down. They may only have 3 black police officers (IIRC), but that's better than the number of black police chiefs or black mayors of black city council members ever in Ferguson's history combined. (Seriously, have you seen some of the interviews with their mayor/ex-mayor? Yeesh, it's worse than "I have a black friend so I can't be racist!")
Also, obviously, opposing police cameras will do fuck all to alleviate non-police from being monitored and recorded at work.
There's a difference between opposing something and supporting something, with conditions.
Also, I'm generally pro-fairness, regardless of whether there exists unfairness elsewhere in the universe.
Double also, I sure as hell don't have my shit recorded, at least not like this. And even if I were, that doesn't mean I want to have more of my shit recorded by more people.
Triple also, I'm not sure it is that obvious or even true. Public opinions swing in strange ways. I might be at a strange intersection of being an SJW and computer specialist, but I hold out hope that people will re-focus on their privacy rights, maybe once the social media, big data craze gets old.
Your job isn't anything like police work then? I mean, if you "abused your power" at work this would have absolutely no chance of resulting in someone being found dead folded up in the corner of a cell with you crossing your arms saying "Oh, he fell. A lot."
Because of what police work is and because of what happens when a cop decides to fuck around at work or play fast and loose with the rules is why they need to be monitored.
Your job isn't anything like police work then? I mean, if you "abused your power" at work this would have absolutely no chance of resulting in someone being found dead folded up in the corner of a cell with you crossing your arms saying "Oh, he fell. A lot."
Because of what police work is and because of what happens when a cop decides to fuck around at work or play fast and loose with the rules is why they need to be monitored.
All right, I gotta get some shit done, and I still don't think you're reading my posts, so I dunno why I'm spending so much time on them.
Police cameras are a good idea, but everybody, including police, should have concerns about being placed under an arbitrary workplace surveillance scheme, so there should be safeguards in place to protect against abuse of these systems, particularly against the workers themselves, whether they be institutional or lone-wolf abuses, because they can and do happen.
It's not that I'm not reading your posts, it's that I find your concerns to be very unpersuasive. The passage you just re-quoted to me I find rather ridiculous.
Given the actual abuses that are occurring I'm not in the least worried about some hypothetical cop somewhere who might get dinged for taking three coffee breaks because his supervisor has it out for him.
"Everyone should be concerned with this"
OK.
Should everyone not be way more concerned about dead suspects and a thin blue line telling us these people were always "resisting" or "charging" or even "shot themselves in the back while handcuffed in the back of the police car with the concealed weapon which eluded our search that turned up marijuana but didn't turn up this pistol for some strange reason please believe us our words are beyond reproach."
Because that concerns me much more.
-edit-
Also (I thought I made this clear) the reason why it is better for police power and authority to be pushed up the chain of command is:
The high up the chain of command you go the closer you get to, until you actually reach, officials who are elected by the people and are therefore accountable to the people.
It should be really, really obvious why the most police power should rest with people who are accountable to the public and not with people who are insulated by 10+ layers of bureaucracy .
It's not that I'm not reading your posts, it's that I find your concerns to be very unpersuasive. The passage you just re-quoted to me I find rather ridiculous.
Given the actual abuses that are occurring I'm not in the least worried about some hypothetical cop somewhere who might get dinged for taking three coffee breaks because his supervisor has it out for him.
"Everyone should be concerned with this"
OK.
Should everyone not be way more concerned about dead suspects and a thin blue line telling us these people were always "resisting" or "charging" or even "shot themselves in the back while handcuffed in the back of the police car with the concealed weapon which eluded our search that turned up marijuana but didn't turn up this pistol for some strange reason please believe us our words are beyond reproach."
Because that concerns me much more.
And in some places, like Ferguson, the thin blue line is quite a bit thicker.
I am capable of being concerned with more than one thing at a time, even if they're of different sizes.
Me too, but in this case these concerns are opposed and you seem to place more emphasis on these surveillance state fears and less on the police problems we are having which are resulting in dead innocent people.
So...
I think it's safe to say we are in fundamental disagreement about which of these things matters more. Which hopefully can at least put to rest your concerns that I'm not hearing your concerns.
Your job isn't anything like police work then? I mean, if you "abused your power" at work this would have absolutely no chance of resulting in someone being found dead folded up in the corner of a cell with you crossing your arms saying "Oh, he fell. A lot."
Because of what police work is and because of what happens when a cop decides to fuck around at work or play fast and loose with the rules is why they need to be monitored.
All right, I gotta get some shit done, and I still don't think you're reading my posts, so I dunno why I'm spending so much time on them.
Police cameras are a good idea, but everybody, including police, should have concerns about being placed under an arbitrary workplace surveillance scheme, so there should be safeguards in place to protect against abuse of these systems, particularly against the workers themselves, whether they be institutional or lone-wolf abuses, because they can and do happen.
There are: Independent review and evaluation boards that investigate charges against and towards cops.
Good luck in getting that however. Most cops oppose such a thing even more then they oppose cameras.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
As already mentioned, the "slippery slope" argument is severely weakened by the presence of cameras all over the place for public employees.
I work as a bureaucrat at a local community college--I assume I'm on camera at all times I'm at my desk or in the hallways. Mostly because both areas are covered by one or more 'opaque dome' cameras that I have no way of knowing are operating or not.
As a technical college bureaucrat this is just an assumed part of my job. No one has even remotely suggested that maybe there shouldn't be a camera on the ceiling above me. The police can learn how to deal. I've long since accepted that, for good or bad, the ubiquity of street cameras in the city I was born in has assured that, at least, no one on the sidewalk will be "accidentally" killed by a police officer with a taser or strong arms without it being captured for the record.
I am capable of being concerned with more than one thing at a time, even if they're of different sizes.
Me too, but in this case these concerns are opposed and you seem to place more emphasis on these surveillance state fears and less on the police problems we are having which are resulting in dead innocent people.
So...
I think it's safe to say we are in fundamental disagreement about which of these things matters more. Which hopefully can at least put to rest your concerns that I'm not hearing your concerns.
I am.
I'm just rejecting them.
That would be because you haven't read my OTHER posts chastising the police for their actions and unaccountability and supporting police cameras. I can talk about one thing without talking about all things. I can respond to individuals with poor arguments without responding to all individuals with similar beliefs. I can disagree with part of something without disagreeing with all of it. The fact that I'm not expounding the entirety of my belief system and world view doesn't (necessarily) render any specific opinion of mine incorrect. I'm not talking about... ebola or poverty or the alienation of women and minorities from STEM fields right now either, but that doesn't mean I think those things don't matter.
I really do feel like you're arguing with a straw man you've glued my face on. And it's emotionally frustrating and... more than a little sad, because it feels to me like you're just looking for an enemy to demonize. You want me to believe a thing that you can then disagree with me with and ... okay? And then dragging the posts over here without the context, and rather liberally mis-contextualizing my posts for others too is just... Blech.
However this thread isn't about any of those things. This thread has suggested having police use cameras while on the job. For which there is no especially good argument against. No one has suggested we also record Wal-Mart employees going to the bathroom. Your concerns about the latter are irrelevant in regards to the topic at hand.
I am capable of being concerned with more than one thing at a time, even if they're of different sizes.
What is your fear? That instituting a surveillance system in the police force will equal more surveillance in the private sector?
I fail to see how that can happen. 24/7 workplace surveillance is already the norm in many places and most major streets are covered in cameras.
Right, but even if they weren't I don't really see the connection in asking for accountability from people we give a crapload of power to and pretty much any other occupation.
I'm pretty sure hippofant is just really leery of any rhetoric that includes, "If they have nothing to hide then surveillance shouldn't be a problem," since he's (she's?) already said yes, put cameras on police. The thing is, people are using that turn of phrase here because the cops are the ones doing it to civilians right now. I don't think anyone here honestly believes the "If you have nothing to hide" adage, it's more just pointing out the hypocrisy of police feeding us that line for so long and then being unwilling to expose themselves to investigation in turn.
But still, this is something they should be for. Erroneous complaints against officers would evaporate overnight when all you have to do is pull up the footage and see that the complainant is a lying sack of crap.
Law enforcement as it exists now attracts bullies and criminals because of the lack of oversight. There are so few civilian jobs I can say that about that I don't think being a cop is analogous to any other job in America with regard to the power:oversight ratio. A lot of people (myself included) here think that taking away their tanks is just a band aid on the problem with American cops. If you want to improve the situation in the long term, here's what you need to do:
1) End the Drug War. Seriously, this has to be step one because who do you think bullies join the police to fuck with? If you said minorities, here's a cookie. The Drug War is a huge public endorsement on racist jackbooted thuggery.
2) Implement oversight. And I mean, real, effective and non-police oversight. Cops need authority to do their jobs, but that doesn't mean they get unchecked authority. If the risk of getting caught, arrested and imprisoned for being a bully on the job is too high, the job no longer looks as appealing to that type.
However this thread isn't about any of those things. This thread has suggested having police use cameras while on the job. For which there is no especially good argument against. No one has suggested we also record Wal-Mart employees going to the bathroom. Your concerns about the latter are irrelevant in regards to the topic at hand.
"Hey, if we install police cameras, we shouldn't just do it nilly-willy and record everyone all the time," isn't an argument against police cameras.
Again, you're ascribing intent to my words that doesn't exist and has never existed, but appears to exist because I wasn't replying to you, who are reasonable and solomonic, but rather some other posters (t)here who also support police cameras, but do so in a way that's extreme and unilateral, like this:
Every employee who works in a Walmart or Target is under constant surveillance.
But putting cops, who literally have life or death authority over every day average citizens under a camera is somehow a crushing restriction on their freedoms?
Get out.
You see, on the one hand, I think cops should have cameras on them, because they have life or death authority over everyday average citizens.
On the other hand, I don't think Walmart or Target's treatment of its employees should be the societal standard we aspire to. I don't think that pointing to the lowest common denominator is a good argument for how (badly) we should treat people, including police officers. I would rather lift the rights of Walmart employees up, rather than reduce those of police officers down, partially because I don't want to work at Walmart.
So I think this sort of argumentation is a sophistic straw man since it conflates two unrelated ideas into a single contrast of absurdities, mostly via implication. So why aren't you agreeing with me that what happens to Walmart employees is irrelevant to the topic at hand instead of arguing with me on ... that thing we agree on?
(Also, I have no clue if Walmart employees are actually recorded when going to the bathroom.)
hippofant on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
I'm pretty sure there aren't cameras in the bathrooms in Walmart.
+1
Options
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Walmart employees are on camera all the time because they shoplift all the time. The company loses WAY more in shrink to employees than to customers. Now, notably Walmart is crappy in a lot of ways and reducing that crappiness might very well lower employee related shrink, but still that's why the cameras are in there.
(Note: I worked night stocking at Walmart for several months, so don't get all holier than thou about their employees to me, please.)
This also is irrelevant to the police argument though. The worst thing I ever saw a Walmart employee do was not be nice enough to a lady who cut her leg on a broken glass bottle. They didn't murder someone and then cover it up. Apples and oranges.
However this thread isn't about any of those things. This thread has suggested having police use cameras while on the job. For which there is no especially good argument against. No one has suggested we also record Wal-Mart employees going to the bathroom. Your concerns about the latter are irrelevant in regards to the topic at hand.
"Hey, if we install police cameras, we shouldn't just do it nilly-willy and record everyone all the time," isn't an argument against police cameras.
Again, you're ascribing intent to my words that doesn't exist and has never existed, but appears to exist because I wasn't replying to you, who are reasonable and solomonic, but rather some other posters (t)here who also support police cameras, but do so in a way that's extreme and unilateral, like this:
Every employee who works in a Walmart or Target is under constant surveillance.
But putting cops, who literally have life or death authority over every day average citizens under a camera is somehow a crushing restriction on their freedoms?
Get out.
You see, on the one hand, I think cops should have cameras on them, because they have life or death authority over everyday average citizens.
On the other hand, I don't think Walmart or Target's treatment of its employees should be the societal standard we aspire to. I don't think that pointing to the lowest common denominator is a good argument for how (badly) we should treat people, including police officers. I would rather lift the rights of Walmart employees up, rather than reduce those of police officers down, partially because I don't want to work at Walmart.
So I think this sort of argumentation is a sophistic straw man since it conflates two unrelated ideas into a single contrast of absurdities, mostly via implication. So why aren't you agreeing with me that what happens to Walmart employees is irrelevant to the topic at hand instead of arguing with me on ... that thing we agree on?
(Also, I have no clue if Walmart employees are actually recorded when going to the bathroom.)
Argh, not trying to strawman you, but also I am not the one saying that videotaping retail employees and having cops wear cameras are unrelated "apples and oranges" ideas. I find them... similar ideas.
I also don't find businesses monitoring their employees to be that wrong, given that it's legal. It might not be something that I as an employee would prefer, but if I were running a business I'd be within my rights to do it, and I might therefore consider doing it if I deemed it needed. Retailers like Walmart lose a lot of money to internal theft, so they have deemed it needed.
Obviously, video taping bathrooms and lockerrooms and the like is certainly not legal.
So this line of reasoning that if I don't want Walmart employees subjected to it then why do I want cops subjected to it really doesn't apply to me.
I want cops subjected to it (I use the term "subjected" loosely since I don't think them wearing cameras when they go to interface with the public is a violation of *anything* for the cop since they have no expectation of privacy when dealing with the public. None at all.) because I deem it necessary. I'm not in charge of Walmart, so it's not my call whether they do it.
The police work for us. So I do have a right to weigh in on how we monitor them.
Walmart employees are on camera all the time because they shoplift all the time. The company loses WAY more in shrink to employees than to customers. Now, notably Walmart is crappy in a lot of ways and reducing that crappiness might very well lower employee related shrink, but still that's why the cameras are in there.
(Note: I worked night stocking at Walmart for several months, so don't get all holier than thou about their employees to me, please.)
This also is irrelevant to the police argument though. The worst thing I ever saw a Walmart employee do was not be nice enough to a lady who cut her leg on a broken glass bottle. They didn't murder someone and then cover it up. Apples and oranges.
Walmart could probably fix that problem by paying their employees a decent living wage!
Police officers in Ferguson, Mo. began wearing cameras attached to their uniforms on Saturday in response to the controversy about police tactics following the police shooting of an unarmed black teen, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.
About 50 cameras were donated by two private companies, Safety Visions and Digital Ally, after the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told the Post-Dispatch.
The devices were worn by officers who were watching marchers protest the Brown shooting, Saturday.
Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that officers, "are really enjoying using them."
Other police departments in the St. Louis area are planning to start using wearable cameras, the Post-Dispatch says.
Police officers in Ferguson, Mo. began wearing cameras attached to their uniforms on Saturday in response to the controversy about police tactics following the police shooting of an unarmed black teen, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.
About 50 cameras were donated by two private companies, Safety Visions and Digital Ally, after the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown by a Ferguson police officer, Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson told the Post-Dispatch.
The devices were worn by officers who were watching marchers protest the Brown shooting, Saturday.
Jackson told the Post-Dispatch that officers, "are really enjoying using them."
Other police departments in the St. Louis area are planning to start using wearable cameras, the Post-Dispatch says.
Posts
Anyone who wasn't a cop would have been charged with several crimes.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That's exactly what policing is. Observing, investigating, serving warrants, and occasionally arresting or entering without a warrant when reasonable suspicion or evidence of a crime is abundant or in order to prevent injury to oneself or another (just like any other member of the public).
"The police are the public and the public are the police"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
http://wdtn.com/2014/08/28/is-this-excessive-force/
Having worked in an ER and having been around people doing insane and crazy shit like this and worse, it does look like she kicked off the wall to me in some angles. Were I the officer I would not be inclined to stand under her and let her injure me. I have seen people in restraints do insane and stupid shit, it doesn't look like what she did was especially aggressive, but it was stupid and she was hurt.
That all being said, if a couple of ER techs and a sheriff can restrain someone who is drunk and trying to fight who weighs over 200lbs and is 6ft+, I don't see how they allowed the situation to escalate and showed amazingly poor performance and control of the situation allowing this to happen. There's no way she should have ever been in a position to leverage her bodyweight and free-fall off a bench if anyone there knew what they were doing.
I'm not sure they threw her though. It's hard to tell from the video, but it doesn't look like they're positioned in a way that would let them throw her.
To me it looks like she jumps up and is then forcefully pulled down. Which might be normal police behavior, placing a suspect on the ground to more easily handle. But when a light woman is off her feet, up in the air with her hands handcuffed behind her then, well..
I agree, but if you've ever tried to hold someone still who is a full sized adult who didn't want to be held, they can make it very difficult in a 1v1 situation. Not that they can overpower you, but they can make movements that work against your body mechanics or pass beyond your center of gravity and kind of end out in a free fall. It's not normally peoples intention to faceplant, but it happens quite often when they do something stupid and their feet aren't under them.
It should have never been a 1v1. The dudes all standing around doing nothing should have been preventing her movement and it shouldn't have ever been an issue. That's where I believe the fault lies. With everything leading up to an escalation being done so poorly that the outcome was serious injury.
If it were a huge white dude who had done this, say some frat bro who was drunk, I don't think anyone would be sorry about it. That it's a reasonably small woman suddenly does not make it more or less a mistake, but for whatever reason she'll get a lot more sympathy. I guess it's just the difference between, "Those meanie cops beating up a small woman!" and "Those cops sure are bad at controlling someone who's under arrest."
@V1m
Every place that has implemented the cameras has seen a drop in violence and complaints. So the idea that it won't accomplish anything if the police can turn them off is simply untrue.
Which has been pointed out. Repeatedly. So I don't know why you've decided to bring it up again.
I don't think it matters. The guy was murdered holding a bb gun that the store was selling while on his phone. I don't see how that isn't excessive force.
So I guess what I'm confused about is that you apparently think it's bad that hundreds of police officers were caught illegally accessing criminal records because police should have complete privacy at work and we must simply take their word at face value that they are doing everything by the book?
Police are the last people who we want "getting away with stuff" while on the job, because of what their job is.
I see no social benefit to giving them a cloak of privacy while on the job.
And the ones who dislike that the most are the ones who need to not be police the most.
And I see great social benefit in them quitting and finding some other job that isn't police work.
-edit-
I should have read the article. It was in the UK. And here I thought for a second that police officers were actually being held accountable for abusing their spying powers here in the US. As if.
I don't think you read my posts. I haven't been talking about just the "police". I've been talking about in general, why I - and you - shouldn't just trust that electronic surveillance systems at the workplace are a-OK. People have been saying that the police have nothing to fear and any resistance from them is just to hide their evil moustache-twirling, and I'm saying it's not necessarily, and that some of the concerns are really legitimate and resonate with me in my workplace too. They're not, in my mind, sufficient to torpedo the necessity of police cameras, but I'm rather disturbed by what is either people's complacency towards surveillance and worker-employer relations or people's complete belligerency towards any and all police officers. And I say this as someone who's been super-critical of police officers, on record in these forums.
"I don't want my shit recorded and made available to whoever whenever they want," is a damned reasonable concern. I linked those articles because there were people saying, "Well I get all my shit recorded and nothing's happened to me," because those are terrible anecdotal arguments that might not even be true - because things may have happened to them without their even knowing - and I wanted to say, "Hey look, I can pull up a bunch of anecdotes too where people abused their access to other people's information and surveillance at institutions where employees are probably supposed to have more integrity than Wal-Mart or a gas station."
I'm pretty sure you, and others, are just dropping into the thread, reading the last couple posts, skipping over a few key sentences, and just assuming that anybody who's saying anything at all supportive of something police officers have said at some point must be rabid police bunnies, and so I keep retreading this same rhetorical ground. (Tell me if I'm wrong.) But here, in one sentence: Police cameras are a good idea, but everybody, including police, should have concerns about being placed under an arbitrary workplace surveillance scheme, so there should be safeguards in place to protect against abuse of these systems, particularly against the workers themselves, whether they be institutional or lone-wolf abuses, because they can and do happen.
Also, exposing all police officers to these sorts of abuses will just make it harder, in the long run, to attract and retain good, intelligent, socially aware police officers, instead leaving us with (warning: hyperbole) nuts with authority and surveillance state fetishes, who might say things like, "Well, hey, we're recorded all the time and nothing bad's happened to us, so we should be allowed to record everyone, and if you have nothing to be afraid of, you won't mind if we attach this drone to follow you around everywhere." Cuz responding to other people's black-and-white, it's us or them mentality with more of the same just makes that thin blue line thicker. Or thinner. Or bluer. Something.
The key word there is "arbitrary". Surveillance on police officers is not arbitrary, and in this case it is not only the public served by it, but also the officers themselves.
Right, but to dredge up the original post:
(It's admittedly skimpy, but I think its implications are clear.)
And I would say that this is a wilful mischaracterization of the position of police unions, and that the police union has a role to play in an un-arbitrary surveillance scheme of police officers, because the implementation of such a scheme, institutionally, shifts power quite significantly towards the employer, and, individually, can expose officers to abuse unless someone ensures that their privacy is also protected, even if it is, admittedly, a secondary objective.
Police cameras, as have been implemented, may not be arbitrary and invasive, but those implementations have almost assuredly had the input and approval of the police unions involved in the first place, while some posters have seem to support a police camera scheme that has as a catchphrase a rap song by N.W.A..
The issue here is that we, the public, are already having our shit recorded. Given that that's not going to change, why shield this last group, law enforcement, when they have the most power to abuse their secrecy? And this ability to abuse operating under a cloak of secrecy, where it's just their word against whoever they are arresting and their word is always taken, is exactly why they aren't being recorded the way the masses are. The reason they illegally confiscate cameras, harass and abuse reporters and non-reporters who try to film them, and their lobbyists try to pass laws making it illegal to film them (just them, not you. Never you). The police are very clearly allergic to transparency, which is why they need an enema full of it.
-edit-
Also, why on earth would we be in favor of police officers having more personal power?
Anything that shifts power and authority up the chain of command (in the direction of appointed and then elected officials) is beneficial to society, and police having more personal power and authority is detrimental to society.
There's a difference between opposing something and supporting something, with conditions.
Also, I'm generally pro-fairness, regardless of whether there exists unfairness elsewhere in the universe.
Double also, I sure as hell don't have my shit recorded, at least not like this. And even if I were, that doesn't mean I want to have more of my shit recorded by more people.
Triple also, I'm not sure it is that obvious or even true. Public opinions swing in strange ways. I might be at a strange intersection of being an SJW and computer specialist, but I hold out hope that people will re-focus on their privacy rights, maybe once the social media, big data craze gets old.
Quadruple also, what makes you think that it's any better higher up the chain of command? If we're talking about Ferguson, evidence suggests that the corruption started at the top and worked its way down. They may only have 3 black police officers (IIRC), but that's better than the number of black police chiefs or black mayors of black city council members ever in Ferguson's history combined. (Seriously, have you seen some of the interviews with their mayor/ex-mayor? Yeesh, it's worse than "I have a black friend so I can't be racist!")
Quintuple also, it's Labour Day! Wooooo!
Your job isn't anything like police work then? I mean, if you "abused your power" at work this would have absolutely no chance of resulting in someone being found dead folded up in the corner of a cell with you crossing your arms saying "Oh, he fell. A lot."
Because of what police work is and because of what happens when a cop decides to fuck around at work or play fast and loose with the rules is why they need to be monitored.
All right, I gotta get some shit done, and I still don't think you're reading my posts, so I dunno why I'm spending so much time on them.
Given the actual abuses that are occurring I'm not in the least worried about some hypothetical cop somewhere who might get dinged for taking three coffee breaks because his supervisor has it out for him.
"Everyone should be concerned with this"
OK.
Should everyone not be way more concerned about dead suspects and a thin blue line telling us these people were always "resisting" or "charging" or even "shot themselves in the back while handcuffed in the back of the police car with the concealed weapon which eluded our search that turned up marijuana but didn't turn up this pistol for some strange reason please believe us our words are beyond reproach."
Because that concerns me much more.
-edit-
Also (I thought I made this clear) the reason why it is better for police power and authority to be pushed up the chain of command is:
The high up the chain of command you go the closer you get to, until you actually reach, officials who are elected by the people and are therefore accountable to the people.
It should be really, really obvious why the most police power should rest with people who are accountable to the public and not with people who are insulated by 10+ layers of bureaucracy .
And in some places, like Ferguson, the thin blue line is quite a bit thicker.
The thing we're talking about here, in this thread, is the police.
The addition of cameras to their work lives would not be arbitrary in the slightest.
What is your fear? That instituting a surveillance system in the police force will equal more surveillance in the private sector?
Me too, but in this case these concerns are opposed and you seem to place more emphasis on these surveillance state fears and less on the police problems we are having which are resulting in dead innocent people.
So...
I think it's safe to say we are in fundamental disagreement about which of these things matters more. Which hopefully can at least put to rest your concerns that I'm not hearing your concerns.
I am.
I'm just rejecting them.
There are: Independent review and evaluation boards that investigate charges against and towards cops.
Good luck in getting that however. Most cops oppose such a thing even more then they oppose cameras.
I fail to see how that can happen. 24/7 workplace surveillance is already the norm in many places and most major streets are covered in cameras.
I work as a bureaucrat at a local community college--I assume I'm on camera at all times I'm at my desk or in the hallways. Mostly because both areas are covered by one or more 'opaque dome' cameras that I have no way of knowing are operating or not.
As a technical college bureaucrat this is just an assumed part of my job. No one has even remotely suggested that maybe there shouldn't be a camera on the ceiling above me. The police can learn how to deal. I've long since accepted that, for good or bad, the ubiquity of street cameras in the city I was born in has assured that, at least, no one on the sidewalk will be "accidentally" killed by a police officer with a taser or strong arms without it being captured for the record.
That would be because you haven't read my OTHER posts chastising the police for their actions and unaccountability and supporting police cameras. I can talk about one thing without talking about all things. I can respond to individuals with poor arguments without responding to all individuals with similar beliefs. I can disagree with part of something without disagreeing with all of it. The fact that I'm not expounding the entirety of my belief system and world view doesn't (necessarily) render any specific opinion of mine incorrect. I'm not talking about... ebola or poverty or the alienation of women and minorities from STEM fields right now either, but that doesn't mean I think those things don't matter.
I really do feel like you're arguing with a straw man you've glued my face on. And it's emotionally frustrating and... more than a little sad, because it feels to me like you're just looking for an enemy to demonize. You want me to believe a thing that you can then disagree with me with and ... okay? And then dragging the posts over here without the context, and rather liberally mis-contextualizing my posts for others too is just... Blech.
Right, but even if they weren't I don't really see the connection in asking for accountability from people we give a crapload of power to and pretty much any other occupation.
I'm pretty sure hippofant is just really leery of any rhetoric that includes, "If they have nothing to hide then surveillance shouldn't be a problem," since he's (she's?) already said yes, put cameras on police. The thing is, people are using that turn of phrase here because the cops are the ones doing it to civilians right now. I don't think anyone here honestly believes the "If you have nothing to hide" adage, it's more just pointing out the hypocrisy of police feeding us that line for so long and then being unwilling to expose themselves to investigation in turn.
But still, this is something they should be for. Erroneous complaints against officers would evaporate overnight when all you have to do is pull up the footage and see that the complainant is a lying sack of crap.
Law enforcement as it exists now attracts bullies and criminals because of the lack of oversight. There are so few civilian jobs I can say that about that I don't think being a cop is analogous to any other job in America with regard to the power:oversight ratio. A lot of people (myself included) here think that taking away their tanks is just a band aid on the problem with American cops. If you want to improve the situation in the long term, here's what you need to do:
1) End the Drug War. Seriously, this has to be step one because who do you think bullies join the police to fuck with? If you said minorities, here's a cookie. The Drug War is a huge public endorsement on racist jackbooted thuggery.
2) Implement oversight. And I mean, real, effective and non-police oversight. Cops need authority to do their jobs, but that doesn't mean they get unchecked authority. If the risk of getting caught, arrested and imprisoned for being a bully on the job is too high, the job no longer looks as appealing to that type.
3) More stringent educational requirements for being a police officer and take away the idiotic ability for departments to turn prospective officers down for being too intelligent. Seriously, what the fuck. High turnover isn't the fucking problem with the cops.
"Hey, if we install police cameras, we shouldn't just do it nilly-willy and record everyone all the time," isn't an argument against police cameras.
Again, you're ascribing intent to my words that doesn't exist and has never existed, but appears to exist because I wasn't replying to you, who are reasonable and solomonic, but rather some other posters (t)here who also support police cameras, but do so in a way that's extreme and unilateral, like this:
You see, on the one hand, I think cops should have cameras on them, because they have life or death authority over everyday average citizens.
On the other hand, I don't think Walmart or Target's treatment of its employees should be the societal standard we aspire to. I don't think that pointing to the lowest common denominator is a good argument for how (badly) we should treat people, including police officers. I would rather lift the rights of Walmart employees up, rather than reduce those of police officers down, partially because I don't want to work at Walmart.
So I think this sort of argumentation is a sophistic straw man since it conflates two unrelated ideas into a single contrast of absurdities, mostly via implication. So why aren't you agreeing with me that what happens to Walmart employees is irrelevant to the topic at hand instead of arguing with me on ... that thing we agree on?
(Also, I have no clue if Walmart employees are actually recorded when going to the bathroom.)
There aren't. And I'm reasonably certain that it would be against the law to place them there.
(Note: I worked night stocking at Walmart for several months, so don't get all holier than thou about their employees to me, please.)
This also is irrelevant to the police argument though. The worst thing I ever saw a Walmart employee do was not be nice enough to a lady who cut her leg on a broken glass bottle. They didn't murder someone and then cover it up. Apples and oranges.
Argh, not trying to strawman you, but also I am not the one saying that videotaping retail employees and having cops wear cameras are unrelated "apples and oranges" ideas. I find them... similar ideas.
I also don't find businesses monitoring their employees to be that wrong, given that it's legal. It might not be something that I as an employee would prefer, but if I were running a business I'd be within my rights to do it, and I might therefore consider doing it if I deemed it needed. Retailers like Walmart lose a lot of money to internal theft, so they have deemed it needed.
Obviously, video taping bathrooms and lockerrooms and the like is certainly not legal.
So this line of reasoning that if I don't want Walmart employees subjected to it then why do I want cops subjected to it really doesn't apply to me.
I want cops subjected to it (I use the term "subjected" loosely since I don't think them wearing cameras when they go to interface with the public is a violation of *anything* for the cop since they have no expectation of privacy when dealing with the public. None at all.) because I deem it necessary. I'm not in charge of Walmart, so it's not my call whether they do it.
The police work for us. So I do have a right to weigh in on how we monitor them.
Walmart could probably fix that problem by paying their employees a decent living wage!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/01/ferguson-police-cameras/14920587/
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
so how long before that cop gets branded "not a team player" and deemed psychologically unfit by his fellow cops