SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Robinson Meyer writes in The Atlantic that in the past year, after the killings of Michael Brown and Tamir Rice, many police departments and police reformists have agreed on the necessity of police-worn body cameras. But the most powerful cameras aren’t those on officer’s bodies but those wielded by bystanders. We don’t yet know who shot videos of officer officer, Michael T. Slager, shooting Walter Scott eight times as he runs away but "unknown cameramen and women lived out high democratic ideals: They watched a cop kill someone, shoot recklessly at someone running away, and they kept the camera trained on the cop," writes Robinson. "They were there, on an ordinary, hazy Saturday morning, and they chose to be courageous. They bore witness, at unknown risk to themselves."
“We have been talking about police brutality for years. And now, because of videos, we are seeing just how systemic and widespread it is,” tweeted Deray McKesson, an activist in Ferguson, after the videos emerged Tuesday night. “The videos over the past seven months have empowered us to ask deeper questions, to push more forcefully in confronting the system.” The process of ascertaining the truth of the world has to start somewhere. A video is one more assertion made about what is real concludes Robinson. "Today, through some unknown hero’s stubborn internal choice to witness instead of flee, to press record and to watch something terrible unfold, we have one more such assertion of reality."
Update: NBC News has identified the cameraman as Feidin Santana.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:21PM
There are approximately 1million sworn officers in the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]).
They interact with many citizens (non, too) every day.
They interact with multiple suspects every day.
They arrest ~12million times a year (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/persons-arrested/persons-arrested [fbi.gov]).
Some small number (yeah, verily, any is too many, f^(& teh pigs)
are shot in the back while running away.
Or have their heads burst open while being too belligerent for their own good.
Or, dozens of other things.
Not systemic and widespread.
Dealt with using normal procedures (with its own error rate).
Expect perfection from God,
expect errors from people.
(I return you now to your regular scheduled presentation of "f^(& teh pigs").
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:25PM
When errors means that people gets killed or injured for life. The scrutiny is going to be way higher.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:36PM
Meanwhile, NYC went 12 days without a murder recently (hopefully more, please).
The problem is the cops.
They should shoot the murderers, not the ones running away.
Lower both the type I errors and the type II errors,
a perfectly square ROC curve is the only acceptable solution.
(perfectly impossible).
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
― Philip K. Dick
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
― Abraham Lincoln
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snow on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:42PM
How can we afford to be paying all those police officers a Judge's salary?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:52PM
Civil forfeiture - convenient, existing, and now that they only shoot murderers, fair.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:01AM
Clearly we need to make all police officers judges [wikipedia.org] too.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by hemocyanin on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:35PM
Presume much?
Cops get to run around and break the law and stop anyone they want to for any made up reason, and we proles are supposed to just be understanding and accepting of that criminal conduct?
You are a total fuckwad dipshit moron. Seriously, this is not ad hominem -- it's a fact -- like the blue sky.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:38PM
Sky is grey here.
You must be biased. Please visit an eye Dr.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:33AM
You're too clever for the rest of us - go to the top of the class.
Just remember that the top of the special class is still below the average class, dipshit: sky is blue, clouds are grey.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:46PM
The sky is whatever's above you. For some, its blue, for some its grey, for some its half blue and half red with orange and pink streaks near the horizon, and for some its black with lots of little lights speckled in it. The since we live on a living planet, and not everyone is consolidated in the same place, the sky is going to be different for different people at different times.
And even if you want to be technical, the cloudless daytime sky isn't blue, its colorless, its just that the nitrogen and such in it diffracts the light such that it appears [sciencemadesimple.com] blue.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:42PM
Sure, police aren't killing every black person they see. So everything is just great.
This is about a pattern of non-white people being searched/arrested/beaten/killed at a much higher rate than for white people.
These are just the most egregious examples of the simply-put, illegal targeting of black people by the police.
It's a fucking problem.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:47PM
Maybe they just target sketchy looking people wearing low hanging pants and wearing sideways hats hanging out on the corner in a sketchy neighborhood. It's just those people tend to be black.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:05AM
You are presuming an awful lot. It is well known that whites' involvement with drugs on a percentage basis is slightly greater than that for Hispanics or African Americans. Yet every stat on arrest, trial, incarceration, and sentence length has shown that those who engage in illegal drug activity actually less than white people (minorities), getting arrested way more often, convicted way more often, convicted of harsher crimes, and doing a lot more time.
Yeah -- do I think the baggy pants sideways hat stuff looks ridiculous? Sure I do. But so did low-riders on women (muffin top) -- thank all the gods of the universe for those going out of fashion. Spring around a college campus is just so much more beautiful these days. But I digress ...
Suppose that for whatever reason the cops suddenly starting giving the loafers/dockers/pressed-shirt gangs a bit of extra scrutiny because you know, .... well I don't but they can make up some reason. Guess what -- all those middle managers would start to be the most represented in prison, not because they are any more likely to be involved in drugs than any other group, but because of the unfair scrutiny for dressing silly.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:48AM
Great post. A white middle manager probably would hire a good lawyer too, which would probably result in a reduced sentence (if any).
Poor people go to jail
Middle class pays fines
Rich people get an apology
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:04AM
Arguably, there is no point fining poor people who have no money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:05AM
In Country Club Hills, Missouri (a community whose residents obviously have no spare cash to blow on cotillions or golf tournaments) There Are 26 Open Warrants Per Citizen. [alternet.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:42PM
And yet, that's exactly what they do. [cbsnews.com]
(Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:49PM
and here i thought debtors prisons [wikipedia.org] were abolished more than a century ago.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:59AM
Maybe government thugs shouldn't be harassing people for the way they chose to dress in the first place.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:34AM
But!...But!...How will we distinguish 'them' from 'us'?!?!?! ;-)
(Score: 1) by RobC207 on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:56PM
Oh! that's an easy one. "They" reached for my weapon.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by t-3 on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:22AM
1. Fashion is no reason to arrest someone, let alone beat or kill them.
2. Baggy clothing is a style that comes from hand-me-downs, ie. people too poor to buy new sets of clothing wear those of their older relatives.
3. If you live in a "sketchy" neighborhood, would you really want to stand out from the crowd by dressing differently? Especially when dressing differently means buying more expensive clothing that is often not available in the area and prohibitively priced.
4. Your definition of sketchy targets black culture and fashion, which is racial profiling ie racism.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gman003 on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:47PM
The thing that is "systematic" is that such people are protected by their fellow cops and ignored by the justice system, unless an overwhelming amount of evidence and public outcry forces them to act the way they should (and even then, they often do not).
This case is exceptional in two ways - first, it is a case of police murder, which you correctly mark as rare, but second it is a case of police not getting away with murder, which is rarer still.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:36AM
You have a curious definition of that word.
American police killed more people in March (111) than the entire UK police have killed since 1900 [dailykos.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by m2o2r2g2 on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:21AM
Police in the US also killed far more US people than terrorists. Yet the public gave the police more powers to hunt the terrorists.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:47AM
Until the cop is actually convicted and put in jail he has "gotten away with it".
I've seen the video.
If it had been anyone other than a cop pulling the trigger the local DA would be all over the news saying he was going to seek the death penalty, if the shooter wasn't already dead in a hail of police gunfire that is.
Until this cop gets at least the same, or more for betraying the "Public Trust", punishment for this that anyone else would he has "gotten away with it".
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by frojack on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:59AM
I'm sure if you were in charge the cop would be swinging from rope already.
He's fired.
He's in Jail on a Murder charge.
There is no Blue line of silence protecting him.
His Dash Cam footage is going to show equally incriminating evidence.
There is no way you can call this "Getting Away With It". You seem to be lobbying for vigilante justice here.
I suggest you Shut your mouth and let the process take its course.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:03AM
>> the local DA would be all over the news saying he was going to seek the death penalty,
>> Until this cop gets at least the same,
>
> You seem to be lobbying for vigilante justice here.
That is one weird definition of vigilante you have there.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gnuman on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:17AM
His Dash Cam footage is going to show equally incriminating evidence.
I'm sorry, but what? A man is dead because police officer shot him without justification. And you are implying that they did not review dashboard camera footage first? How is this possible?
If police action is not to review dash cam footage immediately after such an incident, then I don't know, to me it speak worse of the police body than if that guy tampered with the recording. What you are saying that the police didn't give a damn about the dead civilian enough to even look at the video as it could incriminate the police officer.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:25AM
In Dallas the cops have 72 hours to watch the video themselves and get their stories straight [techdirt.com] before they have to go on the record with their version of events.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:07AM
The fact that this didn't come out on its own due to the dash cam video before the police reports were released is strongly suggestive of an intentional higher up coverup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:20PM
Probably not a deliberate cover-up, just a set of procedures that don't require verifying the officer's word. 10 to 1 when they put the dashcams in they simply didn't bother to update their process to use them as a matter of course. Neglect, extremely convenient neglect, but still just neglect that 'just' happens to favor the police.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:32PM
The footage released so far was from a private citizen that sent it the family's lawyer, the press, and maybe the investigating department.
Note: The shooting was investigated by a DIFFERENT police department which is the standard now in the US.
The Dash cam footage also caught the shooting. But that is in the hands of the different police department and the prosecutor.
Gnuman: Learn to parse english. Nowhere did I say that the dash cam had not been reviewed, seized, put under lock and key. Nowhere. Climb down. And maybe read the news once in a while?
The Different police department has shown that footage to the prosecutor, and perhaps the family's lawyer, and people who have seen it have leaked to the press that it captures the entire event.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:50PM
Oh ye of obvious leaning, verily I say to you that you are living in a bubble. Open your eyes and leave the misconceptions of how the world really works in the past where they originated.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 08 2015, @11:50PM
Where, in this scale [quoteinvestigator.com], you fit your reality:
Or do you prefer this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:52AM
I wonder how the error rate that results in police brutality compares to other countries. Does the US have a higher error rate than other developed countries?
Comparing the police in the US to those in other countries may be a better way to judge how much error we should expect instead of a hyperbole.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:56AM
Nonsense. Not all abuses result in people being severely injured or killed. The abuses less talked about are drug enforcement, stop-and-frisk (which is less talked about on the individual level), and warrantless surveillance. There is also the fact that while the thugs who commit the most heinous acts might be small in number, most of their fellow thugs in blue will step up to defend them, making them almost as bad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:57PM
No matter how you look at it, the "blue wall" is a criminal conspiracy. The entire justice system should be taken down under the RICO Act and rebuilt from the ground-up.