SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Lily Hay Newman reports that the LAPD has ordered 3,000 Tasers that, when discharged, will automatically activate cameras on officers' uniforms, which will create visual records of incidents at a time of mounting concern about excessive force by U.S. law enforcement officers. The new digital Taser X26P weapons record the date, time and duration of firing, and whether Taser wires actually strike suspects and how long the thousands of volts of electricity pulse through them. “This technology gives a much better picture of what happens in the field,” says Steve Tuttle. The idea of using a Taser discharge as a criterion for activating body cams is promising, especially as more and more police departments adopt body cams and struggle to establish guidelines for when they should be on or off. Police leadership—i.e., chiefs and upper management—is far more supportive of the technology and tends to view body-worn cameras as a tool for increasing accountability and reducing civil liability. On the other hand, the patrol officer culture is concerned that the technology will be an unfair intrusion into their routine activities—for instance, it might invite over-managing minor policy violations. "In addition to these new Taser deployments, we plan to issue a body-worn camera and a Taser device to every officer," says Police Chief Charlie Beck. "It is our goal to make these important tools available to every front line officer over the next few years."
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Sunday January 11 2015, @12:12PM
This Just in: law enforcement serve (and protect) the state, not the people. This (and everything similar) is all just a palliative distraction.
You can call me bitter, but please prove me wrong.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 11 2015, @02:50PM
People like being tyrannised. History bears this out time and time again.
Even so called countercultural movements eventually slide into it.
Exhibit A: system D. Not trolling. How did a body of futurists, rebels and outcasts willingly turn into the next evil empire? One can point out all the political and corporate filthiness it contains, yet most people would rather metaphorically, board the train quietly and ride off to the red hat gulag.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday January 11 2015, @05:58PM
In a republic, the state is the people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mtrycz on Sunday January 11 2015, @07:22PM
Yeah, right. That's your state propaganda right there. Let them think that they're part of it.
If you think of it, it's the greatest coverup: don't formally oppress people, let them *participate* in the state's life. Genius.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Sunday January 11 2015, @07:27PM
If you live in a democracy, you can participate in how the state is administered. It doesn't work very well, but it's better than the alternatives.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday January 11 2015, @08:27PM
You've more or less stated you do not accept any law enforcement at any time ever.
So noted. But don't expect the rest of us to buy into your anarchy rule mentality.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 11 2015, @08:35PM
Have you ever been called to serve on a jury of your peers? Have you ever run for elected office, even at a local level? Have you voted? Have you ever spoken publicly on a political matter? Heck, do you even know who's on your local school board or city council? Have you ever petitioned your elected officials for a policy change?
Or, since these mechanisms aren't good enough for you, what means do you propose for ensuring that: (A) government does not oppress its people either formally or informally, and (B) individuals within the territory that the government controls are not able to form smaller-but-powerful-enough tyrannies of their own?
Libertarian types are generally well aware of the risks of (A), which are definitely present and should be guarded against, and I've just listed several tools available to you right now to guard against that. They also tend to be remarkably blind to the risks of (B): if the government doesn't have armed police forces sufficient to defeat a significantly-sized organization militarily, then any organization that gets significantly-sized can commit crimes without fear of repercussions. This isn't a theoretical problem either: When, in 1865, the US government had insufficient forces available to enforce its laws on the newly reconquered areas of the Southeast, a terrorist organization with none of the protections available to US citizens formed and through force of arms took control of that area of the country, committing assaults, burglaries, arsons, and murders with impunity, and remained in power for decades.
Yes, government kills people, sometimes unjustly. Yes, government can be expensive. Yes, government is frequently corrupt. I'll take those problems over answering to a self-styled Grand Wizard.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday January 11 2015, @08:44PM
Well said.
Too often the ranters have never even once take any infinitive to get involved or make a positive change, they just spew hate.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday January 11 2015, @09:15PM
And why would they want to try that when they can just complain?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12 2015, @12:21AM
They're not blind to it, they're counting on it, because their plan is to be part of the non-governmental body ruling the local area tyrannically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 12 2015, @08:56AM
Have you ever been called to serve on a jury of your peers? Have you ever run for elected office, even at a local level? Have you voted? Have you ever spoken publicly on a political matter? Heck, do you even know who's on your local school board or city council? Have you ever petitioned your elected officials for a policy change?
Yes to most of those. The issue is that the US has an awful two party system that encourages gullible fools to vote for the 'lesser of two evils,' ensuring that only popular issues get paid attention to (gay marriage, abortion, immigration, the economy) while other very important issues get ignored by the ignorant majority (the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, and other unconstitutional activities). The popular issues may be important in their own right, but they're not all that is important; far from it.
We could do a lot better by having a better voting system, among other things. There are plenty to choose from that are far better than what the US has.