AND FOR SALINAS POLICE OFFICERS, THE ADDED SURVEILLANCE COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL WORRY. 43"14: "if you think about some of the things that could go wrong, an officer forgets to turn it off after a traffic stop and he gets in the car and decides to call their spouse and gets into an argument and accidentally records that.
Then your officer will look like a dumbass? See also: automated activation.
I'm confused here.
Is the chief suggesting that cops call their spouses while they're on the clock as police officers, or that the cameras would be recording while they are off the clock?
AND FOR SALINAS POLICE OFFICERS, THE ADDED SURVEILLANCE COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL WORRY. 43"14: "if you think about some of the things that could go wrong, an officer forgets to turn it off after a traffic stop and he gets in the car and decides to call their spouse and gets into an argument and accidentally records that.
Then your officer will look like a dumbass? See also: automated activation.
I'm confused here.
Is the chief suggesting that cops call their spouses while they're on the clock as police officers, or that the cameras would be recording while they are off the clock?
I think the chief is recognizing that most people in any job aren't working for every minute that they're on the clock. Only dicking managers with large amounts of leverage over their employees can get away with telling people not to make personal calls during work hours.
I would download a car.
+22
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
As an employee of a fire department all I have to say to that guy is fuck you. When he works a 24 hour shift driving a million dollar truck that weighs over 10 thousand pounds and carries 12 thousand pounds of water around he can make hay over sleeping on the job.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Its hard for me to wrap my head around the stupid in this statement but I'll do my best to translate. Here's what I think he was trying to get across:
Carvey added that it's harder for police to look like heroes than other emergency responders.
"Police officers respond to negative incidents all day long. We’re not the Fire Department. We don’t take kitties out of the trees. We don’t go to birthday parties. And we don’t sleep on duty. We’re not firefighters," Carvey said.
"Being a police officer is super hard guys, and some of the people you deal with are super mean to us sometimes and it's not all kittens in trees and sleeping at the station like it is over at the Fire Department. Our job is like... hard, you know? Sometimes the way we do our job doesn't make us look very good and we gotta beat somebody or shoot a brown person and we don't want that to be on camera because how much of a super huge drag would that be, am I right? Can I get a high-five over here? This guy knows what I'm talking about."
And... man... You look like as much of a fucking hero at your job as you choose to.
My first three jobs I was on camera and/or on mic constantly. And you know what? After a while you're glad for the stupid things, because if someone claims you did something you didn't oh hi, evidence.
It creates opertunities for bad managers to be even worse, but eh. Doesn't outweigh the upside.
As an employee of a fire department all I have to say to that guy is fuck you. When he works a 24 hour shift driving a million dollar truck that weighs over 10 thousand pounds and carries 12 thousand pounds of water around he can make hay over sleeping on the job.
Just to add to this, but a lot of us work 24 hour shifts, so he can double blow his complaints out of his ass.
Also another difference between police and fire is that the fire department will actually show up when you call.
Edit: things that also suck - my reading comprehension and ability to say something original.
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited August 2014
Fucking cherry pick kittens in trees too. Futher fucker, you come out and say it: "We don't literally bring people back from death or the brink of it. We don't risk our health and safety in the attempt to halt a (literally) flaming calamity that destroys all your hopes and dreams. We're not firefighters. They do that stuff."
Gah, mad now.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Comparing police response time to the fire department is silly.
Aside from being slammed, which happens to both services from time to time in most cities, why?
Sheer number of calls plus the fact that police calls have a higher chance of tying up an officer (or officers) for a longer period of time.
Edit - and I'm not knocking fire or ems. Not in the slightest. Trust me. that dudes interview is idiotic and I for one would love if all my guys had cameras.
Our response time averages* between 5 and seven minutes.
*For the entire service area, measured from time of tones, standard is less than 90 seconds to get out of the station.
Were in the four minute range for fire calls (structure fires are 6 companies initial response) for the first due company arriving, similar time in house but right now manpower is way down so we have been closing companies more and more often.
Before this gets too stupid......I'd like to say that comparing the two services is not only impossible but also stupid. It's not even close to the same thing. A dumb cop said something stupid...lets not debate the stupid.
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
He acknowledges that there are bad cops, and thinks every cop should have a camera on them when interacting with the public. I can get behind most of what he's saying pretty easily.
I just don't know how much relevance it has to the shooting of Mike Brown, seeing as most of what we know points to him being anything but a threat at the moment he was shot.
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
He acknowledges that there are bad cops, and thinks every cop should have a camera on them when interacting with the public. I can get behind most of what he's saying pretty easily.
I just don't know how much relevance it has to the shooting of Mike Brown, seeing as most of what we know points to him being anything but a threat at the moment he was shot.
We did our research: In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified. There was one shooting we found, in 2005, that was ruled justified by the department and an inquest, but additional evidence provided by citizens caused the DA to charge the officer. The city of Milwaukee settled with a confidentiality agreement and the facts of that sealed. The officer involved committed suicide.
Suppose I comply with the officer entirely, not resisting or questioning, and go to file a complaint after the fact. There are multiple videos of people being arrested for trying to file a complaint, or simply told they can't do so.
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
This is absurd. It's the COP who's determining whether force gets used. (S)he's arbitrarily constructed a dilemma wherein (s)he can blame you for her/his responses, but they're HER/HIS responses. Exact same thing: "If you don't want us to stone you to death, you will marry the man we want you to marry. It's your behaviour that determines whether you get stoned or not."
It's bullshit is what it is. Everything he says, the same could be said of an elementary school teacher. People don't appreciate how hard it is maintaining a classroom with 30 elementary-age kids in it from all different environments teaching arithmetic in a rundown school when they're always challenging your authority. But you know kids, if you don't want your teacher to taser you, just do as they ask you for a few hours a day. How hard is that?
I'm always thrown for a loop when I see cops in digis, all the pouches and other bullcrap, then with M4's with all the bullshit on their weapon.
It reminds me of the military, in as much as you run across the same types of people, the ones whom we call 'motto'. The ones whom want to look as "badass" as possible, so they can be photographed in it and post it on their facebook on how awesome and important they are. Because look how highspeed they look!
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
This is absurd. It's the COP who's determining whether force gets used. (S)he's arbitrarily constructed a dilemma wherein (s)he can blame you for her/his responses, but they're HER/HIS responses. Exact same thing: "If you don't want us to stone you to death, you will marry the man we want you to marry. It's your behaviour that determines whether you get stoned or not."
It's bullshit is what it is. Everything he says, the same could be said of an elementary school teacher. People don't appreciate how hard it is maintaining a classroom with 30 elementary-age kids in it from all different environments teaching arithmetic in a rundown school when they're always challenging your authority. But you know kids, if you don't want your teacher to taser you, just do as they ask you for a few hours a day. How hard is that?
I hadn't considered the line of reasoning, but I like TNC's take on it better. It is the reasoning of a despot, and we're basically relying on the despot to be good. Video cameras can conceivably help with this, but only if we actually take steps to punish cops who turn them off or make them impossible to turn off.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
This is absurd. It's the COP who's determining whether force gets used. (S)he's arbitrarily constructed a dilemma wherein (s)he can blame you for her/his responses, but they're HER/HIS responses. Exact same thing: "If you don't want us to stone you to death, you will marry the man we want you to marry. It's your behaviour that determines whether you get stoned or not."
It's bullshit is what it is. Everything he says, the same could be said of an elementary school teacher. People don't appreciate how hard it is maintaining a classroom with 30 elementary-age kids in it from all different environments teaching arithmetic in a rundown school when they're always challenging your authority. But you know kids, if you don't want your teacher to taser you, just do as they ask you for a few hours a day. How hard is that?
I hadn't considered the line of reasoning, but I like TNC's take on it better. It is the reasoning of a despot, and we're basically relying on the despot to be good. Video cameras can conceivably help with this, but only if we actually take steps to punish cops who turn them off or make them impossible to turn off.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
But at the same time, a teacher who abuses that power isn't going to be protected like a police officer is.
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
This is absurd. It's the COP who's determining whether force gets used. (S)he's arbitrarily constructed a dilemma wherein (s)he can blame you for her/his responses, but they're HER/HIS responses. Exact same thing: "If you don't want us to stone you to death, you will marry the man we want you to marry. It's your behaviour that determines whether you get stoned or not."
It's bullshit is what it is. Everything he says, the same could be said of an elementary school teacher. People don't appreciate how hard it is maintaining a classroom with 30 elementary-age kids in it from all different environments teaching arithmetic in a rundown school when they're always challenging your authority. But you know kids, if you don't want your teacher to taser you, just do as they ask you for a few hours a day. How hard is that?
I hadn't considered the line of reasoning, but I like TNC's take on it better. It is the reasoning of a despot, and we're basically relying on the despot to be good. Video cameras can conceivably help with this, but only if we actually take steps to punish cops who turn them off or make them impossible to turn off.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
But at the same time, a teacher who abuses that power isn't going to be protected like a police officer is.
Probably not, assuming you can actually convince someone that they were in the wrong in the first place. Leaving aside allegations of sexual misconduct, which seem to be taken pretty seriously most of the time, a teacher's word on the situation is going to trump the student's word 99% of the time unless the student has some evidence to back it up.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
He acknowledges that there are bad cops, and thinks every cop should have a camera on them when interacting with the public. I can get behind most of what he's saying pretty easily.
I just don't know how much relevance it has to the shooting of Mike Brown, seeing as most of what we know points to him being anything but a threat at the moment he was shot.
the article is pretty much the clearest example of police looking out for their own. here is, albeit by his own accounts, a very good cop. he seems to be able to handle potentially hostile/violent/volatile situations with out having to resort to force. he knows it can be done, he possess the training and skills to do so. and yet here he is excusing those that don't even come close to that standard, some of which i imagine don't even try.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
And don't you remember that being bullshit?
Not really? Anyone with authority can potentially abuse that authority, but teachers pretty clearly should have authority over minor students that are in their care just like police officers pretty clearly need authority over citizens in order to do their job. I suppose we could also start outfitting teachers with cameras as well, but their power is pretty limited when all is said and done, so it's probably not worth it in this particular instance.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
And don't you remember that being bullshit?
Not really? Anyone with authority can potentially abuse that authority, but teachers pretty clearly should have authority over minor students that are in their care just like police officers pretty clearly need authority over citizens in order to do their job. I suppose we could also start outfitting teachers with cameras as well, but their power is pretty limited when all is said and done, so it's probably not worth it in this particular instance.
A lot of teachers I know would prefer to have cameras on them at all times during work. The number of precautions they have to take to avoid being alone with students for any length of time is pretty insane, but even a disproven allegation of misconduct is enough to ruin a teacher's life.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
And don't you remember that being bullshit?
Not really? Anyone with authority can potentially abuse that authority, but teachers pretty clearly should have authority over minor students that are in their care just like police officers pretty clearly need authority over citizens in order to do their job. I suppose we could also start outfitting teachers with cameras as well, but their power is pretty limited when all is said and done, so it's probably not worth it in this particular instance.
A lot of teachers I know would prefer to have cameras on them at all times during work. The number of precautions they have to take to avoid being alone with students for any length of time is pretty insane, but even a disproven allegation of misconduct is enough to ruin a teacher's life.
One of my teachers had a story about this where she was at a camp trip the school had organised and one of the children was crying from being home sick. Yet the teacher still couldn't really try to comfort them for fear of getting dodgy allegations thrown at them.
Which you know, is the opposite situation with the Police who shrug off such allegations.
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
He acknowledges that there are bad cops, and thinks every cop should have a camera on them when interacting with the public. I can get behind most of what he's saying pretty easily.
I just don't know how much relevance it has to the shooting of Mike Brown, seeing as most of what we know points to him being anything but a threat at the moment he was shot.
I agree with @hippofant , especially regarding this part:
Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
Exactly one of those things actually merits physical force for the officer's own protection, and that's only if their interpretation of "aggressively walking towards [them]" is accurate. It should be safer to call a cop a "pig" than to call a Blood the same thing. The fact that is not always the case is a major problem in policing. Don't get me wrong, the public shouldn't be shitty to police (usually), but hurting their feelings doesn't justify thuggish violence.
And honestly, "Why are you stopping me?" is a pretty reasonable question to ask. I'm willing to give cops a little leeway when they are responding to serious violence and believe they might have a gun wielding murderer in their sites, but if I'm suspected of jaywalking, yeah, the police should explain why they are stopping me and how to avoid issues in the future, and do so in a polite and professional tone.
The only people who should be unhappy to see a police officer should be truly dire pieces of shit (domestic abusers, rapists, OUI drivers, etc), and that's self-evidently not the case, and it is absolutely and completely the police's fault.
Law enforcement personnel should be required to go through the same riot training, escalation of force training, as well as yearly reviews on rules of engagement that the military must do. You want to dress the part, then you're going to meet some minimum requirement for it; otherwise we're taking all your toys away. Because if you have a firearm, either as a citizen, or in law enforcement, or in the military, you should know that you never point your weapon at something unless you're willing to shoot it and destroy it and whatever is behind it. You're taught that your mere presence escalates the situation, the presence of a weapon escalates the situation, your demeanor, your tone of voice, your posture.
If someone is walking aggressively towards you, that's not grounds for either a taze or shooting: they're just walking! How is that putting anyone in danger, including yourself? It's walking! And maybe, if someone were to take that extra few seconds to assess the situation, rather than reach for something immediately to fire it at another human being, we'd have less people getting shot or tazed; which by the way, if you want to reach for a weapon, the tazer should be the first go (obviously, situation dictate response).
But physical force because you walk aggressively or because you don't like some insult I said? What are you, a big baby? A kid in middle school or high school? If you get so wound up that you need to exert non-lethal or lethal force because some shmuck said something rude, maybe you shouldn't be a cop.
I might as well always look at the ground, have my hands always above my head, walk backwards, and get my mouth taped shut if any cops are in the area, because I'm not white. Who knows, maybe the way I walk some cop is going to interpret that I'm a threat and shoot me.
I posted about it in the Ferguson thread, but my local police chief (state capitol, city of 240k) said he does not agree with the tactics the police are using in Ferguson. Later in the evening, the counties NAACP chapter requested a meeting with the chief to go over Madison's "movement toward a paramilitary state", specifically in regards to the cities ownership of a MRAP vehicle. To the best of my knowledge, it has only been used in actual hostage and armed stand-off situations, but I did send a couple emails out to the local news to see if anyone has numbers on its use.
I also hope these talks are also happening around the country, but if not I'd like to encourage everyone here to find a way to get them started in your area.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Does anyone get the sense that there is more public talk about police brutality and/or police militarization based on the events in Ferguson, or is this just bias of being more looped in on this particular event than I would have been in the past?
Should I scrape together some hope that things might change a little because of this? Y/N
Does anyone get the sense that there is more public talk about police brutality and/or police militarization based on the events in Ferguson, or is this just bias of being more looped in on this particular event than I would have been in the past?
Should I scrape together some hope that things might change a little because of this? Y/N
It's more a result of being looped in, but there's a tiny bit more talk about it which is good. See John Oliver's show, for example.
Posts
I'm confused here.
Is the chief suggesting that cops call their spouses while they're on the clock as police officers, or that the cameras would be recording while they are off the clock?
I think the chief is recognizing that most people in any job aren't working for every minute that they're on the clock. Only dicking managers with large amounts of leverage over their employees can get away with telling people not to make personal calls during work hours.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
"Being a police officer is super hard guys, and some of the people you deal with are super mean to us sometimes and it's not all kittens in trees and sleeping at the station like it is over at the Fire Department. Our job is like... hard, you know? Sometimes the way we do our job doesn't make us look very good and we gotta beat somebody or shoot a brown person and we don't want that to be on camera because how much of a super huge drag would that be, am I right? Can I get a high-five over here? This guy knows what I'm talking about."
And... man... You look like as much of a fucking hero at your job as you choose to.
It creates opertunities for bad managers to be even worse, but eh. Doesn't outweigh the upside.
Just to add to this, but a lot of us work 24 hour shifts, so he can double blow his complaints out of his ass.
Also another difference between police and fire is that the fire department will actually show up when you call.
Edit: things that also suck - my reading comprehension and ability to say something original.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Gah, mad now.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Aside from being slammed, which happens to both services from time to time in most cities, why?
*For the entire service area, measured from time of tones, standard is less than 90 seconds to get out of the station.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Sheer number of calls plus the fact that police calls have a higher chance of tying up an officer (or officers) for a longer period of time.
Edit - and I'm not knocking fire or ems. Not in the slightest. Trust me. that dudes interview is idiotic and I for one would love if all my guys had cameras.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
Were in the four minute range for fire calls (structure fires are 6 companies initial response) for the first due company arriving, similar time in house but right now manpower is way down so we have been closing companies more and more often.
yeah, if you are hurt or killed by a cop then i guess its your own damned fault.
and here's the actual article,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/im-a-cop-if-you-dont-want-to-get-hurt-dont-challenge-me/?hpid=z2
I'm not seeing much wrong with the article. I doubt he's wrong that in the vast majority of cases it's the behavior of the person who's been stopped that determines whether force gets used. It certainly seems to be the case on shows like cops after all.
He acknowledges that there are bad cops, and thinks every cop should have a camera on them when interacting with the public. I can get behind most of what he's saying pretty easily.
I just don't know how much relevance it has to the shooting of Mike Brown, seeing as most of what we know points to him being anything but a threat at the moment he was shot.
Like, his entire timeline today.
He's not addressing the actual problem.
When police break the law they are not punished.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/what-i-did-after-police-killed-my-son-110038_Page2.html
Suppose I comply with the officer entirely, not resisting or questioning, and go to file a complaint after the fact. There are multiple videos of people being arrested for trying to file a complaint, or simply told they can't do so.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
This is absurd. It's the COP who's determining whether force gets used. (S)he's arbitrarily constructed a dilemma wherein (s)he can blame you for her/his responses, but they're HER/HIS responses. Exact same thing: "If you don't want us to stone you to death, you will marry the man we want you to marry. It's your behaviour that determines whether you get stoned or not."
It's bullshit is what it is. Everything he says, the same could be said of an elementary school teacher. People don't appreciate how hard it is maintaining a classroom with 30 elementary-age kids in it from all different environments teaching arithmetic in a rundown school when they're always challenging your authority. But you know kids, if you don't want your teacher to taser you, just do as they ask you for a few hours a day. How hard is that?
They're speedholes
they make the car go faster
I hadn't considered the line of reasoning, but I like TNC's take on it better. It is the reasoning of a despot, and we're basically relying on the despot to be good. Video cameras can conceivably help with this, but only if we actually take steps to punish cops who turn them off or make them impossible to turn off.
The problem with your analogy is that teacher's DO exactly what your stating when children get confrontational with them. It's just that we don't give them authority to use physical force anymore. If you challenge them, they will use the tools they have available: detention, suspension, etc. At the elementary level, they also have the overwhelming physical power of being an adult at their disposal if it really came to that.
But at the same time, a teacher who abuses that power isn't going to be protected like a police officer is.
Probably not, assuming you can actually convince someone that they were in the wrong in the first place. Leaving aside allegations of sexual misconduct, which seem to be taken pretty seriously most of the time, a teacher's word on the situation is going to trump the student's word 99% of the time unless the student has some evidence to back it up.
And don't you remember that being bullshit?
the article is pretty much the clearest example of police looking out for their own. here is, albeit by his own accounts, a very good cop. he seems to be able to handle potentially hostile/violent/volatile situations with out having to resort to force. he knows it can be done, he possess the training and skills to do so. and yet here he is excusing those that don't even come close to that standard, some of which i imagine don't even try.
Not really? Anyone with authority can potentially abuse that authority, but teachers pretty clearly should have authority over minor students that are in their care just like police officers pretty clearly need authority over citizens in order to do their job. I suppose we could also start outfitting teachers with cameras as well, but their power is pretty limited when all is said and done, so it's probably not worth it in this particular instance.
A lot of teachers I know would prefer to have cameras on them at all times during work. The number of precautions they have to take to avoid being alone with students for any length of time is pretty insane, but even a disproven allegation of misconduct is enough to ruin a teacher's life.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
One of my teachers had a story about this where she was at a camp trip the school had organised and one of the children was crying from being home sick. Yet the teacher still couldn't really try to comfort them for fear of getting dodgy allegations thrown at them.
Which you know, is the opposite situation with the Police who shrug off such allegations.
I agree with @hippofant , especially regarding this part:
Exactly one of those things actually merits physical force for the officer's own protection, and that's only if their interpretation of "aggressively walking towards [them]" is accurate. It should be safer to call a cop a "pig" than to call a Blood the same thing. The fact that is not always the case is a major problem in policing. Don't get me wrong, the public shouldn't be shitty to police (usually), but hurting their feelings doesn't justify thuggish violence.
And honestly, "Why are you stopping me?" is a pretty reasonable question to ask. I'm willing to give cops a little leeway when they are responding to serious violence and believe they might have a gun wielding murderer in their sites, but if I'm suspected of jaywalking, yeah, the police should explain why they are stopping me and how to avoid issues in the future, and do so in a polite and professional tone.
The only people who should be unhappy to see a police officer should be truly dire pieces of shit (domestic abusers, rapists, OUI drivers, etc), and that's self-evidently not the case, and it is absolutely and completely the police's fault.
If someone is walking aggressively towards you, that's not grounds for either a taze or shooting: they're just walking! How is that putting anyone in danger, including yourself? It's walking! And maybe, if someone were to take that extra few seconds to assess the situation, rather than reach for something immediately to fire it at another human being, we'd have less people getting shot or tazed; which by the way, if you want to reach for a weapon, the tazer should be the first go (obviously, situation dictate response).
But physical force because you walk aggressively or because you don't like some insult I said? What are you, a big baby? A kid in middle school or high school? If you get so wound up that you need to exert non-lethal or lethal force because some shmuck said something rude, maybe you shouldn't be a cop.
I might as well always look at the ground, have my hands always above my head, walk backwards, and get my mouth taped shut if any cops are in the area, because I'm not white. Who knows, maybe the way I walk some cop is going to interpret that I'm a threat and shoot me.
I also hope these talks are also happening around the country, but if not I'd like to encourage everyone here to find a way to get them started in your area.
That article reads like a domestic abuser blaming his victim.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Well you are clearly not respecting his authoritah
Should I scrape together some hope that things might change a little because of this? Y/N
It's more a result of being looped in, but there's a tiny bit more talk about it which is good. See John Oliver's show, for example.
However, it's not going to change.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube