it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
Vine should have like an emergency button so that it will upload before they can break it. I mean, that's basically the only thing people use vine for at this point right?
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
Vine should have like an emergency button so that it will upload before they can break it. I mean, that's basically the only thing people use vine for at this point right?
I saw an app at one point that streamed video immediately up, but I couldn't find it a month or two ago when I went looking.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
Vine should have like an emergency button so that it will upload before they can break it. I mean, that's basically the only thing people use vine for at this point right?
I saw an app at one point that streamed video immediately up, but I couldn't find it a month or two ago when I went looking.
Sometimes, I think about setting up an automated voicemail box that I can put on my speeddial for if I ever get pulled over. I can just hit the button, put the phone in my pocket, and have the audio all recorded somewhere safe.
Shit, it really seems like it's been a pretty short time for me to go from, "Man, you people are nuts," to, "Shit, how do I protect myself from the police?" :-/
Missouri has 27 multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, each covering a different geographic area of the state. These task forces wield enormous authority and discretion, and are not subject to the traditional oversight mechanisms typically governing law enforcement activities.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) published a map and listing of the different drug task forces on their website. One of them is listed as the ‘St. Louis Metro DTF’ (law enforcement uses ‘DTF’ regularly in emails and official documents; they seem universally unaware of other uses for the acronym).
I was interested in the activities of this task force, so I filed a Sunshine Law Request with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD). The response from their records custodian/attorney was, to say the least, surprising.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
you do have a lock screen yeah?
Refuse to unlock it. Make them ask a judge for a warrant. You're going to jail at that point, right?
Also, twitch feed instead of recording. Cloud storage yo. We have solved this problem.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
you do have a lock screen yeah?
Refuse to unlock it. Make them ask a judge for a warrant. You're going to jail at that point, right?
Also, twitch feed instead of recording. Cloud storage yo. We have solved this problem.
That's funny, the police can't find the evidence for the judge. Oh well.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
Vine should have like an emergency button so that it will upload before they can break it. I mean, that's basically the only thing people use vine for at this point right?
I saw an app at one point that streamed video immediately up, but I couldn't find it a month or two ago when I went looking.
Sometimes, I think about setting up an automated voicemail box that I can put on my speeddial for if I ever get pulled over. I can just hit the button, put the phone in my pocket, and have the audio all recorded somewhere safe.
Shit, it really seems like it's been a pretty short time for me to go from, "Man, you people are nuts," to, "Shit, how do I protect myself from the police?" :-/
Make sure you're not in an all-party consent state for recording laws.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
you do have a lock screen yeah?
Refuse to unlock it. Make them ask a judge for a warrant. You're going to jail at that point, right?
Also, twitch feed instead of recording. Cloud storage yo. We have solved this problem.
That doesn't stop them from like, throwing it on the ground, stomping it, or throwing it in water or something.
You have to keep in mind that they'd rather the recording be destroyed and be on the hook for destroying a phone that be recorded beating a man or shooting someone for no reason.
+4
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
you do have a lock screen yeah?
Refuse to unlock it. Make them ask a judge for a warrant. You're going to jail at that point, right?
Also, twitch feed instead of recording. Cloud storage yo. We have solved this problem.
That doesn't stop them from like, throwing it on the ground, stomping it, or throwing it in water or something.
You have to keep in mind that they'd rather the recording be destroyed and be on the hook for destroying a phone that be recorded beating a man or shooting someone for no reason.
Agreed. That's why you stream to twitch and store it there, or auto-sync videos to google drive. We've solved this!
Here, this is an anonymous one that lets you stream videos directly to a repository. https://vid.me/
There's apps that will keep recording and uploading to the cloud even when locked. I'd love for some cop to destroy my phone with that running.
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Yeah, all you have to do is turn the phone off. Don't need to unlock a phone to do that. Now if it is legal for you to have a second camera concealed on your person things might get interesting.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Missouri has 27 multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, each covering a different geographic area of the state. These task forces wield enormous authority and discretion, and are not subject to the traditional oversight mechanisms typically governing law enforcement activities.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) published a map and listing of the different drug task forces on their website. One of them is listed as the ‘St. Louis Metro DTF’ (law enforcement uses ‘DTF’ regularly in emails and official documents; they seem universally unaware of other uses for the acronym).
I was interested in the activities of this task force, so I filed a Sunshine Law Request with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD). The response from their records custodian/attorney was, to say the least, surprising.
At this point I'd say the guy go to a court and get a judge's order. What a fucking piece of work.
Missouri has 27 multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, each covering a different geographic area of the state. These task forces wield enormous authority and discretion, and are not subject to the traditional oversight mechanisms typically governing law enforcement activities.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) published a map and listing of the different drug task forces on their website. One of them is listed as the ‘St. Louis Metro DTF’ (law enforcement uses ‘DTF’ regularly in emails and official documents; they seem universally unaware of other uses for the acronym).
I was interested in the activities of this task force, so I filed a Sunshine Law Request with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD). The response from their records custodian/attorney was, to say the least, surprising.
Read the article in it's entirety.
Man, is that depressing stuff.
Even as a government employee, I still believe in transparency.
Every so often, we are informed to comply with certain records requests.
It is my impression that people who do not want to comply with public records requests are typically people who are trying to hide something.
For the record, here's the vote from June on the last time an end to militarization of police came up. Looks to me like the only good predictor might have been membership in the CBC, but even that I'm not sure.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.
Lots of things make me want to do that.
I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.
I think many police unions are against it.
It's not just the police unions (unions are supposed to be assholes, that's why they work, don't want obstruction then you don't want unions), it's also minorities. Several minority areas are already covered in cameras and frankly don't want more (guy was just ranting about this on MSNBC and how bad it was for his community and that's why they don't want it).
If you want to stop anybody from doing anything bad everyone has to be on camera 24/7, and that means everyone around them is on camera 24/7. That's probably what is coming with Google Glass, Smart Watch, and better Smart Phones (connectivity destroys privacy pick one you can't have both), but people are leery of it now.
I'd really like to see numbers on cops who are former military, since any number I produced would be straight from the behind-ular region
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Pretty sure it is the drug war plus the US spending too much on military equipment. If it were because the service selects from the military, they would almost have to be selecting almost exclusively from the veteran pool of those with extreme PTSD cases.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
I'm really always amazed in these situations how little violence gets directed at the police. The police tend to stand out in the open in nice rows... For as militarized as they are a couple of angry guys with deer rifles could reap some real carnage.
It's basically the big lie of this style of policing. The police claim they need all the gear and violent tactics for crowd control because the crowd is stuffed full with trouble makers and anarchists who could descend the whole thing into bedlam at a moments notice.
But if the the crowd was actually stuffed full of organised, armed, trouble makers then the police would be overrun in seconds as there's X amount of crowd and only Y amount of police and Y is much less than X. The policing style only 'works' because the majority of the crowd is peaceful and doesn't want violence.
EDIT: With the irony being the aggressive strategy adopted by the police makes it more likely that a crowd will turn violent, it's a self-fulfilling system.
A bunch of protestors, even if they're reasonably armed and angry don't win against the police in a first world country.
That's because a group of protesters in a first world country are almost always fundamentally peaceful. It is the policing method that exacerbates crowd violence.
We had a fantastic controlled experiment on that in Britian a few years ago with the student protests
First march) Aggressively controlled and marshaled by the police - lots of violence
Second march) Marchers abandoned agree march route, ran around London with police completely unable to control them - no violence
Third march) Very aggressively controlled and marshaled by policing including mounted charges - lots and lots of violence.
In the third march you saw scenes of very small groups of police (3 or 4) surrounded by protesters. If those protesters had actually wanted to cause harm, had really gone out loaded for bear, how much chance do you think the police would have stood isolated from their colleagues completely swamped by a mob? The answer is zero as the Broadwater Farm riot shows.
That's not an experiment brah. Anymore then the anecdote of you seeing increased violence during the 2011 riots in low and non-policed areas means that police every single time don't englame the situation. You'd also look at the evidence that heavier more robust modern policing of football events directly reduces the chances of confrontations and harm generated by them.
And for the second point, you're referencing an event that occured what, comfortably before half of this forum was born? PPE has evolved signifcantly since then (Keith Blakelock didn't have his own personal use teargas equivalent), and tactics - especially re snatch squads have improved.
But even if we grant that, your point of 'if people are violent the police would lose, ergo no protest is anything but peaceful check mate pro-policers', is clearly wrong.
Perhaps the militarization of law enforcement is due to law enforcement being comprised of people from the military.
That'd be apart of it. Another is that the military is ok with passing their equipment to the police.
Is that a real problem?
Police can't be militarized when the military tell them to fuck off.
Are you in the US?
The Military doesn't do things like this independently of Congress. The only way they're going to affect Congressional policy is by expressing their opinions to Congress, who will decide, and if they tell the military to sell shit to police forces that is exactly what will happen regardless of the military leadership's opinions.
There is no conversation between a local or state police force and an armed services procurement office such that the armed service could refuse to sell based on their commander's desire not to do it.
This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.
Lots of things make me want to do that.
I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.
I think many police unions are against it.
It's not just the police unions (unions are supposed to be assholes, that's why they work, don't want obstruction then you don't want unions), it's also minorities. Several minority areas are already covered in cameras and frankly don't want more (guy was just ranting about this on MSNBC and how bad it was for his community and that's why they don't want it).
If you want to stop anybody from doing anything bad everyone has to be on camera 24/7, and that means everyone around them is on camera 24/7. That's probably what is coming with Google Glass, Smart Watch, and better Smart Phones (connectivity destroys privacy pick one you can't have both), but people are leery of it now.
I can understand minorities being suspicious of it. Any security/accountable measures could be disproportionally targeted at them or rigged to favor non-minorities.
I still think its a good idea, but many a good idea turned into an opportunity to fuck minorities in US history.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Perhaps the militarization of law enforcement is due to law enforcement being comprised of people from the military.
That'd be apart of it. Another is that the military is ok with passing their equipment to the police.
Is that a real problem?
Police can't be militarized when the military tell them to fuck off.
Are you in the US?
The Military doesn't do things like this independently of Congress. The only way they're going to affect Congressional policy is by expressing their opinions to Congress, who will decide, and if they tell the military to sell shit to police forces that is exactly what will happen regardless of the military leadership's opinions.
There is no conversation between a local or state police force and an armed services procurement office such that the armed service could refuse to sell based on their commander's desire not to do it.
You know what I mean. Without the authority from the government the police couldn't be militarized. This isn't a problem solved from the police angle, it goes higher up the government food chain.
Perhaps the militarization of law enforcement is due to law enforcement being comprised of people from the military.
That'd be apart of it. Another is that the military is ok with passing their equipment to the police.
Is that a real problem?
Police can't be militarized when the military tell them to fuck off.
Are you in the US?
The Military doesn't do things like this independently of Congress. The only way they're going to affect Congressional policy is by expressing their opinions to Congress, who will decide, and if they tell the military to sell shit to police forces that is exactly what will happen regardless of the military leadership's opinions.
There is no conversation between a local or state police force and an armed services procurement office such that the armed service could refuse to sell based on their commander's desire not to do it.
You know what I mean. Without the authority from the government the police couldn't be militarized. This isn't a problem solved from the police angle, it goes higher up the government food chain.
That's correct, but we should direct this at Congress. The military's opinion is mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant.
This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.
Lots of things make me want to do that.
I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.
I think many police unions are against it.
It's not just the police unions (unions are supposed to be assholes, that's why they work, don't want obstruction then you don't want unions), it's also minorities. Several minority areas are already covered in cameras and frankly don't want more (guy was just ranting about this on MSNBC and how bad it was for his community and that's why they don't want it).
If you want to stop anybody from doing anything bad everyone has to be on camera 24/7, and that means everyone around them is on camera 24/7. That's probably what is coming with Google Glass, Smart Watch, and better Smart Phones (connectivity destroys privacy pick one you can't have both), but people are leery of it now.
I can understand minorities being suspicious of it. Any security/accountable measures could be disproportionally targeted at them or rigged to favor non-minorities.
I still think its a good idea, but many a good idea turned into an opportunity to fuck minorities in US history.
Distributed cameras held by individuals are far, far, far, far
....
far, far, far better than a surveillance infrastructure controlled by the government.
This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.
Lots of things make me want to do that.
I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.
I think many police unions are against it.
It's not just the police unions (unions are supposed to be assholes, that's why they work, don't want obstruction then you don't want unions), it's also minorities. Several minority areas are already covered in cameras and frankly don't want more (guy was just ranting about this on MSNBC and how bad it was for his community and that's why they don't want it).
If you want to stop anybody from doing anything bad everyone has to be on camera 24/7, and that means everyone around them is on camera 24/7. That's probably what is coming with Google Glass, Smart Watch, and better Smart Phones (connectivity destroys privacy pick one you can't have both), but people are leery of it now.
I can understand minorities being suspicious of it. Any security/accountable measures could be disproportionally targeted at them or rigged to favor non-minorities.
I still think its a good idea, but many a good idea turned into an opportunity to fuck minorities in US history.
Distributed cameras held by individuals are far, far, far, far
....
far, far, far better than a surveillance infrastructure controlled by the government.
Basically if we just use the ubiquity of smart phones and a public initiative to encourage you to record all interactions with the police, that would go a looong way, I think.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Perhaps the militarization of law enforcement is due to law enforcement being comprised of people from the military.
I doubt it, or at least they were the fuckups there. A very large number of vets are saying both privately and publicly, "Ferguson isn't Fallujah, so why are you acting like it is?"
I'm pretty sure this is more "general police thread" than "Ferguson thread"; please forgive me if it isn't.
I just wanted to point out that when I saw the news about Hank Johnson introducing the "Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act", I felt compelled to fire off a quick email to my representative to ask him to support it and try to get the other representatives on board with it as well. If you care about this, take the five to ten minutes to do likewise. Voter voices do still have some sway over Congress.
My favorite musical instrument is the air-raid siren.
+1
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Posts
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
Vine should have like an emergency button so that it will upload before they can break it. I mean, that's basically the only thing people use vine for at this point right?
I saw an app at one point that streamed video immediately up, but I couldn't find it a month or two ago when I went looking.
Sometimes, I think about setting up an automated voicemail box that I can put on my speeddial for if I ever get pulled over. I can just hit the button, put the phone in my pocket, and have the audio all recorded somewhere safe.
Shit, it really seems like it's been a pretty short time for me to go from, "Man, you people are nuts," to, "Shit, how do I protect myself from the police?" :-/
you do have a lock screen yeah?
Refuse to unlock it. Make them ask a judge for a warrant. You're going to jail at that point, right?
Also, twitch feed instead of recording. Cloud storage yo. We have solved this problem.
That's funny, the police can't find the evidence for the judge. Oh well.
Make sure you're not in an all-party consent state for recording laws.
That doesn't stop them from like, throwing it on the ground, stomping it, or throwing it in water or something.
You have to keep in mind that they'd rather the recording be destroyed and be on the hook for destroying a phone that be recorded beating a man or shooting someone for no reason.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Agreed. That's why you stream to twitch and store it there, or auto-sync videos to google drive. We've solved this!
Here, this is an anonymous one that lets you stream videos directly to a repository. https://vid.me/
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
At this point I'd say the guy go to a court and get a judge's order. What a fucking piece of work.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Read the article in it's entirety.
Man, is that depressing stuff.
Even as a government employee, I still believe in transparency.
Every so often, we are informed to comply with certain records requests.
It is my impression that people who do not want to comply with public records requests are typically people who are trying to hide something.
It's not just the police unions (unions are supposed to be assholes, that's why they work, don't want obstruction then you don't want unions), it's also minorities. Several minority areas are already covered in cameras and frankly don't want more (guy was just ranting about this on MSNBC and how bad it was for his community and that's why they don't want it).
If you want to stop anybody from doing anything bad everyone has to be on camera 24/7, and that means everyone around them is on camera 24/7. That's probably what is coming with Google Glass, Smart Watch, and better Smart Phones (connectivity destroys privacy pick one you can't have both), but people are leery of it now.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/08/14/the-right-gets-no-credit-for-consistency-on-law-enforcement-issues/
That'd be apart of it. Another is that the military is ok with passing their equipment to the police.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Is that a real problem?
Military would be waaaaaaay better trained in how to not fuck this up.
Arguably, yes.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
How about when it comes to an actual vote?
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2014/h/329
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's not an experiment brah. Anymore then the anecdote of you seeing increased violence during the 2011 riots in low and non-policed areas means that police every single time don't englame the situation. You'd also look at the evidence that heavier more robust modern policing of football events directly reduces the chances of confrontations and harm generated by them.
And for the second point, you're referencing an event that occured what, comfortably before half of this forum was born? PPE has evolved signifcantly since then (Keith Blakelock didn't have his own personal use teargas equivalent), and tactics - especially re snatch squads have improved.
But even if we grant that, your point of 'if people are violent the police would lose, ergo no protest is anything but peaceful check mate pro-policers', is clearly wrong.
Police can't be militarized when the military tell them to fuck off.
Are you in the US?
The Military doesn't do things like this independently of Congress. The only way they're going to affect Congressional policy is by expressing their opinions to Congress, who will decide, and if they tell the military to sell shit to police forces that is exactly what will happen regardless of the military leadership's opinions.
There is no conversation between a local or state police force and an armed services procurement office such that the armed service could refuse to sell based on their commander's desire not to do it.
I can understand minorities being suspicious of it. Any security/accountable measures could be disproportionally targeted at them or rigged to favor non-minorities.
I still think its a good idea, but many a good idea turned into an opportunity to fuck minorities in US history.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You know what I mean. Without the authority from the government the police couldn't be militarized. This isn't a problem solved from the police angle, it goes higher up the government food chain.
That's correct, but we should direct this at Congress. The military's opinion is mostly, if not entirely, irrelevant.
Distributed cameras held by individuals are far, far, far, far
....
far, far, far better than a surveillance infrastructure controlled by the government.
Basically if we just use the ubiquity of smart phones and a public initiative to encourage you to record all interactions with the police, that would go a looong way, I think.
Kinda sad we basically need to do the same thing with our cops.
I doubt it, or at least they were the fuckups there. A very large number of vets are saying both privately and publicly, "Ferguson isn't Fallujah, so why are you acting like it is?"
I just wanted to point out that when I saw the news about Hank Johnson introducing the "Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act", I felt compelled to fire off a quick email to my representative to ask him to support it and try to get the other representatives on board with it as well. If you care about this, take the five to ten minutes to do likewise. Voter voices do still have some sway over Congress.