dash cam saves careers

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
Go ahead and explain why good cops don't want cameras. All the research indicates cameras are very helpful.

It is helpful, and I'd have no problem with it. Obviously, however, some people don't like their entire working day videotaped and/or audiotaped. That doesn't mean they're not good at their job or they're not doing their job with integrity and to the best of their abilities.

Let's extrapolate this to me owning a company that employs a dozen desk jockeys of various sorts. I'd be perfectly within my rights to aim a camera over their shoulder, or use whatever other means I like, to monitor every keystroke they make and every site they visit. Does it mean they would all agree to it? Would anyone who disagrees with it automatically be a bad employee?


Thats a poor comparison. Cops have the ability to shoot someone dead every time they encounter someone. You're comparing that to someone working behind the desk on a computer. They can turn the thing off when they're not on a stop. Its not that intrusive for them.

Please ..,....
you have a massive chip on your shoulder when it comes to law enforcement.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
Go ahead and explain why good cops don't want cameras. All the research indicates cameras are very helpful.

It is helpful, and I'd have no problem with it. Obviously, however, some people don't like their entire working day videotaped and/or audiotaped. That doesn't mean they're not good at their job or they're not doing their job with integrity and to the best of their abilities.

Let's extrapolate this to me owning a company that employs a dozen desk jockeys of various sorts. I'd be perfectly within my rights to aim a camera over their shoulder, or use whatever other means I like, to monitor every keystroke they make and every site they visit. Does it mean they would all agree to it? Would anyone who disagrees with it automatically be a bad employee?

If you don't like it get a job somewhere else. This is no different than convenience stores and banks having cameras everywhere. It's for the workers protection. Police that have cameras are involved in fewer altercations. And if this is an issue the video usually clears it up quickly. The only clerk, teller, cop that doesn't want cams around is one that's up to no good. This is elementary.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Thats a poor comparison. Cops have the ability to shoot someone dead every time they encounter someone.

I wasn't saying there should be no video, or even that video shouldn't be mandatory. I'm just saying that it shouldn't be surprising that there would be objections, and that those objections aren't automatically malevolent.

Ask Astro what the average pilot thinks about cameras in the cockpits. That's not malevolence, either.

And how do I have a chip on my shoulders when it comes to law enforcement, and even assuming you were correct, how would it have anything to do with the fact that people don't have a homogeneous opinion on the matter of cameras.

Note that the first people to raise objections are defence attorneys when it paints their clients in a less than flattering light.

 

[stockrex]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: hatt
Go ahead and explain why good cops don't want cameras. All the research indicates cameras are very helpful.

It is helpful, and I'd have no problem with it. Obviously, however, some people don't like their entire working day videotaped and/or audiotaped. That doesn't mean they're not good at their job or they're not doing their job with integrity and to the best of their abilities.

Let's extrapolate this to me owning a company that employs a dozen desk jockeys of various sorts. I'd be perfectly within my rights to aim a camera over their shoulder, or use whatever other means I like, to monitor every keystroke they make and every site they visit. Does it mean they would all agree to it? Would anyone who disagrees with it automatically be a bad employee?

If you don't like it get a job somewhere else. This is no different than convenience stores and banks having cameras everywhere. It's for the workers protection. Police that have cameras are involved in fewer altercations. And if this is an issue the video usually clears it up quickly. The only clerk, teller, cop that doesn't want cams around is one that's up to no good. This is elementary.


If one was working at the bunny ranch in Vegas then it is understandable that those hard working citizens would be camera shy.

But if your job was to Serve and protect and the public was footing the bill for all claims, one would think that having cameras would be written into law by the state legislature.

Remember the case near Milwaukee Mitchell Airport. An innocent person life would have been destroyed and the entire institution was trying their best to protect a criminal.

Here is the problem, there will always be criminals, and some criminals wear a uniform and carry a badge, but everyone associated with said criminal is expected to give false testimony, manufacture evidence, do whatever it takes to protect the criminal.

It is great that the supreme court agreed that civil servants can be held accountable and the DA in this case needs to be held accountable.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/surveillance-camera-clears-woman-hit-by-police-car/

 

[hatt]

Since a cop's word is godly(even one that has been a proven liar before). A camera is the only thing a citizen has to tell their side.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: hatt
Since a cop's word is godly(even one that has been a proven liar before). A camera is the only thing a citizen has to tell their side.

The case of a man shot dead in Florida while waiting for tow truck at 3:00 AM is exactly like this, he is dead and the only evidence is word of the police officer who shot 6 times.

This case clearly shows that a camera is needed to tell the whole story.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Garak
.... Note that the first people to raise objections are defence attorneys when it paints their clients in a less than flattering light. .....


The police are pretty adept at painting folks accused of crimes in a less than flattering ligbht. They don't need cameras to do that. Cameras might be a hinderance to that.

The folks need cameras to protect them from the cops that lie, exaggerate, embellish, or just plain misperceive events. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Eyewitness testimony of people with a stake in the outcome is horribly unreliable.

Cops need cameras so that they are not subject to bogus claims of discrimination, excessive force, etc., or just plain review by independent eyes to see if there aren't better ways of doing something that can be applied next time.

Cameras seem like a winner for all concerned to me. I don't see a valid objection to them, other than expense.

 

[turtlevette]

I finally looked at the video. That's friggin harassment.

They sure didn't need to check her papers.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: hatt
Only criminal police oppose cameras.
Idiot comment.


No, actually, it is-entirely-accurate! All police officers should be required to wear body cameras while on patrol, and deactivating or obstructing them should be a felony.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: stockrex
But if your job was to Serve and protect and the public was footing the bill for all claims, one would think that having cameras would be written into law by the state legislature.

That personally wouldn't bother me. But, like I said, I can understand others not liking it, without having any evil intentions. People are free to want privacy to do their jobs - end of story. It doesn't mean they'll get their way, but it is a valid opinion. A cop that doesn't want a camera near him isn't automatically beating suspects around the corner.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I finally looked at the video. That's friggin harassment.

They sure didn't need to check her papers.

She was walking on the wrong side of the road, in violation of the law in many jurisdictions. Now, if it was against the law in that jurisdiction, why would this be harassment, and why would they not need to check her papers? Had they decided to simply write her up, she sure as heck would have been asked for some for of identification.

So, what are you saying? If a person breaks a "minor" law, they don't need to identify themselves for investigative purposes? And it's harassment if a person is wandering on the traveled portion of the highway instead of the sidewalk and they get called on it?

Here, they already had carte blanche, as it were, since they observed an offence, assuming that is an offence in that jurisdiction.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I finally looked at the video. That's friggin harassment.

They sure didn't need to check her papers.


I agree, but at least everyone was respectful.

 

[turtlevette]

Yea, she was walking in a subdivision with no traffic around anywhere. Wide streets. Kids play in the middle of the street all the time in residential areas. They play street hockey, baseball and basketball. I never see the cops bother anyone in a residential neighborhood like that. They rolled up on her like stormtroopers. Surely these guys have better things to do. When they go out of their way to enforce some bull law. Well that's pretty much the definition of harassment.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I see no prob with the way the fuzz handled it. Every time I've been stopped by them (whether walking or driving) they always ask for id and pretty much handle me verbatim how they handled her. I had them pull me over one night awhile back as soon as I turned off my street. Didn't give me a reason. They asked where I was going,my address,where I work,etc. They asked for my id and ins. I gave that to them along with my chl. Ran my #'s and asked if I had my weapon on me. I said yes. They asked where it was. I said under my seat. They said thank you sir and have a good night,and be careful.

Same thing happened another time. Was waiting for my friend to get off work (sitting in my car in the parking lot). I got tired of waiting for her and drove off. Bam! Fuzz is suddenly on my back bumper! I pulled over. They ask me to get out,which I do. They ask me for id and ins. I hand it to them along with my chl. They ran my #'s,ask if I have my weapon on me. I said yes,it's in my pocket. They thanked me and told me to have a good night.

Both times they never gave me a reason as to why I we being pulled over.

Same scenario happened to my friend,BUT,he was on a bicycle. He had a backpack on his back and they pulled him over so they could look through it. He did nothing wrong get pulled over.

I'm white,blonde haired,and blue eyed. My friend is very pale white,black hair,well dressed.

I think sometimes they're either bored,someone called and wants the questioned person "checked out",etc. Who knows. But I always cooperate,am respectful,and never give them a chip on the shoulder attitude,and I've encountered some TOTAL douche bag cops in my day. But if I've done nothing wrong,I never see any reason to be a douche back to them.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Yea, she was walking in a subdivision with no traffic around anywhere. Wide streets. Kids play in the middle of the street all the time in residential areas.

It doesn't matter. Kids wander streets and play in streets; that's expected. Grownup women don't walk in the middle of the street with their arms flapping. I'd have checked her for being drunk, on top of not being on the clearly visible sidewalks.

The officers did indicate that someone had to avoid her, and she was clearly walking in an unsafe fashion without paying much attention to what was going on around her.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Yea, she was walking in a subdivision with no traffic around anywhere. Wide streets. Kids play in the middle of the street all the time in residential areas.

It doesn't matter. Kids wander streets and play in streets; that's expected.


I don't know what your educational background is because you won't tell us. You need to study the law a bit. Or at least a class in logical thinking.

Just read back what you wrote and think about it some.

 

[Garak]

I'm aware of what I wrote, and I am aware of the law. We've been through this before. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they don't understand the topic at hand.

My point is this, again. Children are known to play on residential streets all the time. They're not supposed to, but police will ignore it or tell them to get off the street. You can't ticket a nine year old. And, the nine year old is very unlikely to be drunk. He won't be carrying any contraband, either. They're also won't be a warrant for his arrest. So, cop tells him get off the street and keeps going, or ignores him, and keeps going - assuming it's a quiet street, like we're talking about.

A grown woman is walking down the travelled portion of the street, on the wrong side, flapping her arms, in broad daylight, ignoring the perfectly serviceable sidewalks on both sides of the street. I see something that isn't terribly safe, and suspect it's even less safe, since someone flapping their arms walking down the street could very, very well be intoxicated. And, in this province, the majority of pedestrian deaths are intoxicated people walking on the wrong side of the street. So, there are plenty of reasons to speak to her and find out what's going on. And, part of that is checking her identification, since she clearly was in violation of the law, had it been in this province or municipality.

Had she been on the sidewalk and not flapping her arms, no one would have paid her an instant's notice.

 

[turtlevette]

The "flapping of arms" is an upper body workout. You've never seen that? They're afraid for her safety but cops pass by kids playing in the street all the time.

Your arguments wouldn't hold up in court.

 

[Garak]

I'm not denying what it is, but it looks bizarre, and I'd be checking. In any case, what does court have to do with it? The police don't have to justify every interaction with the public before the courts. Buying lunch doesn't have to hold up in court. Nor does talking to someone walking down the street instead of the sidewalk. No one was charged. No one was arrested. So, why would it have to stand up in court?

As for standing up in court, an upper body workout isn't a valid excuse for walking in the middle of the street. If they wanted to write her a ticket for that, and it were against municipal codes, that would most definitely stand up in court. Violation observed. Violation on video. Suspect charged. Paperwork processed. End of story.

 

[The_Eric]

Garak- save your finger tips... turtlevette only has the ability to see things one way and if you don't agree, you're WRONG!


I think it was a great stop and as such, the video provided an excellent rebuttal to her claims. Those guys were great. The one comment about his dog not liking the rain could have been left out, but didn't really detract from the situation.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Yea, she was walking in a subdivision with no traffic around anywhere. Wide streets. Kids play in the middle of the street all the time in residential areas.

It doesn't matter. Kids wander streets and play in streets; that's expected.


I don't know what your educational background is because you won't tell us. You need to study the law a bit. Or at least a class in logical thinking.

Just read back what you wrote and think about it some.




turtlevette -

it is clear to me that you didn't do ALL the research necessary to understand this entire topic as it applies to this particular story line.

You specifically state in the embedded quote that she was "walking in a subdivision with no traffic around anywhere." That is completely untrue.
First of all, if you had read the full account response by the Chief in resposne to the woman's editorial, you would have realized that the cops were actually in the vicinity and witnessed a truck have to alter its course of travel due to her behavior in the street. Somewhere in there it specifically mentions that the truck driver threw up his hands and motioned to the cops that the pedestrian was a problem; they (cops) then turned around to follow her. And she was not only oblivious to the truck she had hindered, but she was also unaware of the squad car behind her for some portion of time. Hence, your statement that there was no traffic around is completely and utterly wrong. She did, in fact, hinder traffic on two occasions.

And why was it necessary for her to be in the street? There is a sidewalk clearly visible on both sides of the street.


As much as you don't know some people's awareness of the law, I, too, don't know yours. But I have had a full compliment of LEO academy training, as well as 20 years in the field. And I make efforts to stay up on the SCOTUS and State SC decisions in my blessed IN. I cannot speak for all States, but I suspect most of the state laws are similar, and the federal laws and case decisions cover our entire country. To that end, there are common concepts that indicate walking down a street has certain obligations. You generally should walk against traffic (not with your back to it). You should use the sidewalks rather than the street, if they are present (actually in code in many states). Pedestrians only have the "right of way" where specifically designated; the road is for VEHICULAR TRAFFIC first and foremost; pedestians only have right of way in cross-walks, etc.

Additionally, there are multiple SCOTUS decisions that clearly delineate the ability of LEOs to ask for identification once they establish "reasonable suspicion" (not same as probable cause) to have contact with an individual. Those of you whom believe they had no legal ability to ask for her ID are completely ignorant of SCOTUS case law. Cops most certainly have the legal ability to ask for ID, and ask general questions to establish the credibility of someone's identity, state of mind and understand why something was wrong (i.e. - some violation; in this case, you could call it jaywalking, but there is apparently a statue in TX that actually makes this a misdemeanor, or for you whom don't understand, a crime.) Like it or not, in TX, she committed a crime; I state this because of the info in the news story reponse. Certainly and admittedly not the crime of the century; and that is why a warning was the prudent response, and that is EXACTLY what they did.

She caused a hindrance to traffic flow twice, by committing a crime as defined by TX law.
The cops responded to a civilian complaint, as well as utilized their own observations to validate the complaint.
The cops contacted her in a professional manner, and questioned her as allowed by SCOTUS law.
She was polite and curteous to the cops.
The gave her a warning and it was over. Or so they thought ...
She then preceded to tell outright lies, and make inappropriate/inaccurate connections to that event and others such as the Gray and Martin tragedies, in a very public format, giving reasonable cause to question her years of journalistic activity and wonder about her credibility.

It is likely a combination of her ignorance of the law(s), as well as arrogance in her attitude, (with a large dollop of fear regarding recent race issues) that made her grossly exaggerate the conditions of the event, as well as potentially jeopardize the careers of the officers, and had it not been for this video evidence, they would have been in a very difficult position. I personally find it repugnant that a person with her credentials (a dean of journalism and former newspaper editor for goodness sake) would exaggerate, lie and use veiled belittling context to somehow make her violation of state law and general contempt for common pedestrian conduct seem innocuous whereas the legal and professional actions of the cops are somehow akin to racist harassment.


Originally Posted By: turtlevette
You need to study the law a bit. Or at least a class in logical thinking.

Perhaps turn that caustic mirror unto yourself, because clearly you didn't read the entire factual basis and clearly don't understand the Statutory and Case laws here in the States.


Here is a good start for many of you to understand the role of citizen and cop in regard to RS, PC and ID.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html?_s=PM:LAW