> But before action was taken by city leaders, Buffalo police lied about the incident. In an initial statement, the department said that a person was arrested "during a skirmish with other protesters," and that "during that skirmish involving protesters, one person was injured when he tripped and fell." The video clearly refutes the statement, showing that there was no skirmish around the elderly man, and that the officers pushed him to the ground for no justifiable reason.
The Buffalo incident offers a vivid example of why police records should be considered unreliable. Where are the "good cops" among the 20 or so in the video who had the opportunity to speak up, but in practice chose to maintain the blue wall of silence?
> I’m told the entire
@BPDAlerts
Emergency Response Team has resigned from the team, a total of 57 officers, as a show of support for the officers who are suspended without pay after shoving Martin Gugino, 75. They are still employed, but no longer on ERT
They "resigned" but are still employed? It's not a resignation if you keep getting a paycheque.
They only resigned from the task force, because their union would no longer pay the legal fees related to the protests.
"The union representing Buffalo police officers told its rank and file members Friday that the union would no longer pay for legal fees to defend police officers related to the protests which began Saturday in downtown Buffalo and have continued on and off, according to one source. The union is upset with the treatment of the two officers who were suspended Thursday."
There is parallel with pilots and airplane crashes. There is a tendency for airlines to put the blame on a pilot in case of a crash, this disincentives pilots from speaking the truth. Unfortunately the 'anti cop' sentiment would have the same effect.
Imgaine how hard it is for us to admit a mistake at work which brings the website down but here someone's life is at stake.
What happens if a cop makes a mistake and causes grave injury to someone. What would be his incentive to admit mistake and possibly spend rest of his life in prison.
One of the key things the airline industry did to fix this was record everything. Same on the railways. Cockpit voice recorders on planes, Forward Facing CCTV on trains (there's only one driver usually so recording what they say is unlikely to present useful evidence).
When you tell investigators "A fucking bear was on the track!" the investigators don't believe you. Far more likely you screwed up and have made up this excuse about a bear.
When your train has FFCCTV you know the investigators are going to check it and they are going to see the bear. This country doesn't even have bears - what the actual fuck!
And that pays dividends because now staff have every reason to expect investigators will believe them if they tell the truth, and it means investigators spend less time second guessing human recollection of events which means more time to deal with the actual events of the incident.
> What happens if a cop makes a mistake and causes grave injury to someone. What would be his incentive to admit mistake and possibly spend rest of his life in prison.
i've said it before but here it is again, a workable system for police accountability:
there are tangible ways that laws could be setup and practices adhered to that would make cops more accountable and, while maybe the same level of racist in some parts, help ensure that they get held accountable more often than not.
mandatory body cams rolling at all times unless they are in a bathroom.
turning off or a malfunctioning camera during the act of a police brutality event immediately pierces the qualified immunity defense and they are tried as citizens.
have an outside investigative body that has zero ties to the police department investigate any reports of abuse.
have another outside investigative body that has zero ties to the police department randomly sampling police stop footage to see if there are any instances of impropriety.
I am sure this list is non-exhaustive but it's a start. also, while we are here, fix the issue of civil asset forfeiture. the clear "we get to take your money because it looks suspicious and then keep it for the police department" is a huge conflict of interest.
> There is a tendency for airlines to put the blame on a pilot in case of a crash, this disincentives pilots from speaking the truth.
the other side to this is that the airlines have every single input and the conversation that lead up to the crash along with the meticulous analysis of the wreckage and records of maintenance... the cops investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty of any crimes.
I'm a pilot. This isn't remotely a fair comparison. There are lots of very complex and nuanced situations in aviation that require judgment calls. People are going to get it wrong sometimes. We're human.
That's a far cry from this situation. There is no "judgment call" here: don't violently shove elderly people to the ground for no reason. If you accidentally do, help them up. If you pass by an elderly person lying on the ground and bleeding, check on them.
The area of flight safety provides some interesting practices to think about.
You might like some of the mission and stated thinking behind ASAP and ASRS, and that there's interest in encouraging pilots and crew to speak up about mistakes and other safety-related observations, so that everyone can learn and benefit:
I don't know enough about law enforcement to say whether and how any of these practices might be helpful to adapt to different and complicated challenges there.
Regarding admitting a mistake in software development/operations work that brings the site down, it helps to have a culture of trust that everyone can admit making mistakes. In that culture, you'll probably still feel sick and humbled by the mistake, but the first priority is for the team to solve the immediate problem. After that, everyone wants to understand the mistake, to try to learn and avoid problems like that in the future. The professional move is to be upfront with all pertinent information; the unprofessional move would be to attempt to hide information, misdirect efforts understanding the cause, etc. The professional move by everyone else is to expect and respect that professionalism, and to act in the same forthright spirit.
Somehow professionals under the constant threat of malpractice lawsuits and criminal/civil liability are able to operate and flourish in their industries just fine.
IANAL, but the law takes this into account by requiring mens rea to be convicted of many crimes [0]... for example, 1st degree murder. If it's an accident, it's not 1st degree murder because intent must be proven. At best, an accident might result in some lesser charge that carries less time in prison. So I doubt your scenario (a mistake results in life in prison) would ever occur.
I’d like to read examples of pilots being disincentived from speaking up. On the contrary I always had the impression that, while not perfect, aviation had a very successful approach on recording, learning from and subsequently avoiding human and technical errors.
What kind of mistake? Shoving a person that did not show any signs of violence towards the officer? Did you ever shove a person by accident?
Even if the older guy used language this could have been resolved without the need to escalate the conflict. Using violent force against somebody that does not seem to be posing a threat is a serious problem if your sole job is to keep peace.
There is one "almost good cop" who tried to check the man when he was lying on the ground, but quickly one of his colleague pulled him by the vest to tell him they don't do this kind of thing.
Unfortunately he didn't have to courage to stand up for his first feeling.
Do we know that's what he was going to do? It looked to me like the officer could have been going to check on the elderly man who he just knocked down, or he could have been about to follow that up with more violence. Neither would surprise me.
If you watch more closely you'll see that this "almost good cop" shoved Gugino very hard, and is probably the reason he fell. This officer was holding his baton in both hands, and pushed both arms forward quickly just as the officer that "pulled him by the vest" braced him from behind for a very forceful shove. This happened at the exact same time the foreground officer straight-armed Gugino.
That combination would probably knock most people off their feet.
One issue I have found is that people, even educated people who are otherwise paying attention (including the news media and such) seem to drop this skepticism entirely when it comes to statements made by feds.
It’s as if they believe that local PD is some unprofessional good old boys or something, but the FBI, those are the professional ones.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Make sure your skepticism of police statements (including those regurgitated verbatim on the news) extends to feds as well. They have a decades-long history of the exact same damage.
Beware anything put in a sworn statement or affidavit by feds, or provided by federal informants or federal undercovers. You’d be astounded how much of it simply isn’t true.
Cops may ask you not to record and even threaten you with arrest for recording. Do not be intimidated; it is your right to record without obstructing.
If you find yourself in a situation where you might be detained and thereby unable to control interactions with your device, on iPhone you can disable TouchID and FaceID by holding one of the volume buttons and the sleep/wake button simultaneously for a few seconds. This will require you to enter your passcode the next time you want to unlock iPhone. Anyone have similar instructions for Android?
> Do not be intimidated; it is your right to record without obstructing.
Be very careful taking this advice. If you weren't already aware, the past week should make it crystal clear that police have absolutely no problem arresting or assaulting you for exercising your rights.
"When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the police."
"Police may not confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant, nor may they delete data under any circumstances. Visual records are fully protected, but some states have tried to regulate the audio portion of videos under wiretapping laws."
One of the main points of the article is that the law is not being respected by those tasked with upholding the law:
> Everyone in the United States — citizen or resident — has a constitutional right to record police who are performing their public duties. The police don’t have the right to stop you as long as you’re not disrupting their business, and they aren’t allowed to confiscate your phone or camera just because you were recording them. This is the consistent opinion of federal courts and the Supreme Court, which affirmed in 2014 (in a 9-0 decision) that cops need a warrant if they want to seize and search your cellphone.
> Of course, the nationwide protests are about the police ignoring civil rights. Indeed, the videos we’ve seen in the past week show widespread police lawlessness, with officers arbitrarily violating the rights of peaceful demonstrators in lawful assemblies.
I think for non-Apple users Periscope allows to automatically stream and record an event right? No need to "finish" recording as it directly streams and saves it to their servers. Is that correct?
On most Android phones after 3 fails the fingerprint is disabled. So touch it 3 times with your pinky or any finger that you didn't registered and that will do the trick.
> Cops may ask you not to record and even threaten you with arrest for recording. Do not be intimidated; it is your right to record without obstructing.
Better advice is to read the situation. Cops can make, and have made, people's lives very difficult, whether through legal harassment, false charges or bodily harm, and it is your word against a cop's when you go before a judge.
You can also press the power button five times rapidly and it goes into emergency mode. It makes a loud sound and calls 911 automatically after three seconds if you don't hit cancel. It also locks out FaceID.
So if you're under eminent attack this might be a better option. It's all configurable in setting though, so test it before you go protest.
Why? What do you hope to achieve other than to possibly inflame the situation? I can't possibly believe that you think the cop is going to think "gee, that's a good point citizen, please carry on".
I think half of the police force should be 'armed' with nothing more than cameras.
Arrests are not necessary in the vast majority of situations police are called for, and recording technology is far superior to verbal testimony for serving our courts
Cops carry guns because the situation can always get out of hand. Violent criminals still exist in society.
EDIT: the ignorant people claiming average police officer does not deal with violent criminals have obviously never worked as a first responder. They deal with rape, suicide, murder, assault, domestic abuse, robbery, every week unless they're some small town cop in a gilded neighborhood.
The cops in St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, etc, see it every single day.
I hear a lot of suggestions by people have have never done the job. People making spurious claims about what police do and don't deal with on a daily basis.
I would never support female cops without firearms, for example. A grown man can easily overpower any woman, period. Especially when they are tweaked out on drugs.
Cops carry a gun because they have less than 6 seconds to respond to deadly situations that can save lives.
In what percentage of police dispatches do they arrive on scene while an armed suspect is still there? I would guess it's significantly lower than 50%
Sure, send armed cops to handle situations that force is likely to needed. But cops don't need guns to take down police reports. Rape victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Property crime victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Officers do not need to be armed to write speeding tickets or DUIs.
The primary role of police is observation, recording of facts and interacting with the community. 90+% of the time they spend serving society do not require force.
We could spend much less on police and have better trained cops when force is actually needed by not even considering arming the half of cops who respond to situations where force is unnecessary. The unarmed cops can cost less because they don't need firearms training and job would be less mentally taxing so they could be paid less: then, they can call in armed cops for the minority of situations where force is necessary.
Only give guns to the best cops: the bar to become a cop is way too low to continue arming all of them. I'd love to see a tiered system where cops have to be continually tested and trained to prove they should be entrusted with various levels of force: ex. Camera -> Authorization to use force in arrests -> Pepper Spray -> Stun Gun -> Firearms
If the system worked then you could argue that cops have a reasonable right to be armed. But the system is not working, and 10x people without guns are killed by cops, than are cops killed. Plus whenever a cop is actually killed, the entire system has their back, and justice is almost always served.
This is not the case for people without guns who are killed by cops. It's an acceptable loss that a few more cops are killed because we don't arm every single one of them, if it means that a lot more innocent people aren't killed by cops with an itchy trigger finger.
Sorry, cops. They've had decades of chances, and this past weekend proves that cops can't control themselves even when they're being called out by the thousands who are recording their behavior for all to see. So now they will have to earn the right to carry lethal weaponry.
According to 538, police interactions have been trending safer in urban areas but rural and suburban areas are becoming more dangerous. It may be the small town cop who is most dangerous, but the big city cop who is most visible.
> I would never support female cops without firearms, for example. A grown man can easily overpower any woman, period. Especially when they are tweaked out on drugs.
Uhhhhh, damn dude. Words kinda fail me here. As a male Marine, with several years practice in BJJ, I find your comment either offensive, or just plain stupid. I've had my ass kicked many, many times by female Marines. I had several MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Art Program) trainers who were female. For that job, you are required to win at full contact hand to hand combat with people bigger and stronger than you. Your comment is sexist for one, and ignorant for another. I have a few female friends who've read your comment, and would like to have a friendly roll with you, if you are game.
Cops typically carry guns, tasers, a knife, pepper spray, and a baton. Cops in patrol cars also have additional gear in the trunk. Maybe people react poorly to heavily-armed people trying to intimidate them? If we focus only on downside risk then eventually all scenarios require Robocop.
So should we carry guns for when cops get out of hand, and start acting like criminals? Your statement seems to suggest that the lives of cops are worth more than the lives of everyone else...
They take a job to protect the community. That would seem they are accepting the danger that comes with the job, but for the low low price of a gun they are passing that danger on to you! Yay!
Right now, cops are legal bullies that we have to suffer under.
Bombs exist in society too. Should every officer be trained in defusing a bomb and walk around in a blast suit? No, because that's ridiculous and an uncommon situation. Just like the vast majority of police encounters don't require lethal weapons.
It will cost more but what if we pair cops with non cop observers or participants? Like someone trained to talk with people and asses rather than just bust heads. Maybe it could even be volunteer sign a waiver and be a community observer? Or jury duty style even.
Then, if head busting is actually needed (and sadly occasionally it is, please don't be naive) the head buster is on hand. But it should be much rarer.
Something like balance of power in government to prevent one party from doing whatever it wants. That is what seems to be what is missing in police work. It's all one sided and few checks and balances.
Maybe you are using 'head busting' metaphorically, but no one needs to have their head actually busted, unless what they need is to be dead. In which case, the cop needs to kill them, with their bodycam on, so the inquest can be clean and proper (which is another issue entirely, sadly).
This idea that beating people is acceptable law enforcement procedure is ludicrous and part of the problem.
They don't even need to be paired. The majority of police could be unarmed and armed cops are only dispatched for calls where necessity of force seems likely or when unarmed cops call for armed backup.
Considering how much is spent on weapons training, this would likely be a net cost reduction. "Camera cops" could probably be paid less because they would have less risk of being in violent situations, don't have mental anguish of making life or death decisions daily, and less animosity from the community.
How about a body cam system that automatically switches to RECORD whenever a weapon or tool is removed from the belt, and cannot be switched back to STANDBY until everything is back in its place?
Important to consider privacy around record retention, but I'd love if cops badges were like taxicabs: they are only on duty and supported by the force of law when the light is on and recording is in progress. Ideally, there would be 3+ cameras on the cops body to get a more complete perspective of situations.
Needs systems to limit access to any footage that is not concerning a criminal complaint, but existing cryptographic technology can make it so only the courts have access to the encryption keys if implemented with the right process and key management systems.
Semi off topic, but one thing that really bugs me about the dialogue around police is when people (especially authority figures) call non-police “civilians”. I get that you need a word for it, but “civilians” is a particularly poor choice.
The police ARE civilians. They are not military, nor are they subject to military justice or discipline, and their training and function in society is (whether they like it or not) entirely different. They are members of the community, not an occupying army.
This might seem like pedantry but it’s not: using the word civilian for non-police takes the militarization of the police as an unquestioned assumption.
Strongly agree. This is just one example of how police culture is toxic and likely un-fixable without dramatic changes to the entire concept of policing.
I haven't had a run in with the police in a long time. Based on a lot of the video footage I have been seeing revolving around these riots I would say the problem of police brutality is exceptionally larger than I was giving it credit for being not just a few weeks ago. I hold out hope that the majority of officers aren't like those I have seen in the media (left and right) committing acts of unprovoked, and unnecessary violence, but I am starting to loose some confidence in my conviction.
I have to be honest, I am not sure what the solution is here. On the whole, I think they need better training, but what that would look like.. I am afraid to say that topic is over my head.
Stream, but remember anyone can send a DMCA take down request for the evidence, and big companies have law enforcement liaisons who would be more than happy to remove content at the behest of LE. Some platforms will remove any violent content uploaded by users, so with some rules lawyering from LE posing as another user, it can be taken down.
Would the government even have standing to file a DMCA takedown for anything? Anything the government creates is in the public domain meaning there’s no copyright to infringe.
Anyone have any good suggestions for android recorders? Preferably something which will start uploading somewhere (dropbox? A server of my choice via ssh?) ASAP
If you install the Dropbox app there's a setting that let's you autosync your DCIM folder with the cloud, beware the data cost if doing so outside of wifi. Also, you may not want this setting on 24/7 or one day you'll be shocked to see what Dropbox saved on your behalf.
Readit News
The Buffalo incident offers a vivid example of why police records should be considered unreliable. Where are the "good cops" among the 20 or so in the video who had the opportunity to speak up, but in practice chose to maintain the blue wall of silence?
They "resigned" but are still employed? It's not a resignation if you keep getting a paycheque.
"The union representing Buffalo police officers told its rank and file members Friday that the union would no longer pay for legal fees to defend police officers related to the protests which began Saturday in downtown Buffalo and have continued on and off, according to one source. The union is upset with the treatment of the two officers who were suspended Thursday."
https://buffalonews.com/2020/06/05/57-members-of-buffalo-pol...
Imgaine how hard it is for us to admit a mistake at work which brings the website down but here someone's life is at stake.
What happens if a cop makes a mistake and causes grave injury to someone. What would be his incentive to admit mistake and possibly spend rest of his life in prison.
When you tell investigators "A fucking bear was on the track!" the investigators don't believe you. Far more likely you screwed up and have made up this excuse about a bear.
When your train has FFCCTV you know the investigators are going to check it and they are going to see the bear. This country doesn't even have bears - what the actual fuck!
And that pays dividends because now staff have every reason to expect investigators will believe them if they tell the truth, and it means investigators spend less time second guessing human recollection of events which means more time to deal with the actual events of the incident.
i've said it before but here it is again, a workable system for police accountability:
there are tangible ways that laws could be setup and practices adhered to that would make cops more accountable and, while maybe the same level of racist in some parts, help ensure that they get held accountable more often than not.
mandatory body cams rolling at all times unless they are in a bathroom.
turning off or a malfunctioning camera during the act of a police brutality event immediately pierces the qualified immunity defense and they are tried as citizens.
have an outside investigative body that has zero ties to the police department investigate any reports of abuse.
have another outside investigative body that has zero ties to the police department randomly sampling police stop footage to see if there are any instances of impropriety.
I am sure this list is non-exhaustive but it's a start. also, while we are here, fix the issue of civil asset forfeiture. the clear "we get to take your money because it looks suspicious and then keep it for the police department" is a huge conflict of interest.
> There is a tendency for airlines to put the blame on a pilot in case of a crash, this disincentives pilots from speaking the truth.
the other side to this is that the airlines have every single input and the conversation that lead up to the crash along with the meticulous analysis of the wreckage and records of maintenance... the cops investigate themselves and find themselves not guilty of any crimes.
That's a far cry from this situation. There is no "judgment call" here: don't violently shove elderly people to the ground for no reason. If you accidentally do, help them up. If you pass by an elderly person lying on the ground and bleeding, check on them.
There's no "mistake" here.
You might like some of the mission and stated thinking behind ASAP and ASRS, and that there's interest in encouraging pilots and crew to speak up about mistakes and other safety-related observations, so that everyone can learn and benefit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Action_Program...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_Safety_Reporting_Syst...
Also related is FOQA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_operations_quality_assu...
I don't know enough about law enforcement to say whether and how any of these practices might be helpful to adapt to different and complicated challenges there.
Regarding admitting a mistake in software development/operations work that brings the site down, it helps to have a culture of trust that everyone can admit making mistakes. In that culture, you'll probably still feel sick and humbled by the mistake, but the first priority is for the team to solve the immediate problem. After that, everyone wants to understand the mistake, to try to learn and avoid problems like that in the future. The professional move is to be upfront with all pertinent information; the unprofessional move would be to attempt to hide information, misdirect efforts understanding the cause, etc. The professional move by everyone else is to expect and respect that professionalism, and to act in the same forthright spirit.
https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/
which is something that the aviation regulators created in response to some of the dynamics you mentioned.
(I don't know how ASRS authenticates that people making reports are really pilots or aircrew.)
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Even if the older guy used language this could have been resolved without the need to escalate the conflict. Using violent force against somebody that does not seem to be posing a threat is a serious problem if your sole job is to keep peace.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/police
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...
Where are the good men and women, and what is the sum of their good acts in the grand scheme of things?
Unfortunately he didn't have to courage to stand up for his first feeling.
That combination would probably knock most people off their feet.
It’s as if they believe that local PD is some unprofessional good old boys or something, but the FBI, those are the professional ones.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Make sure your skepticism of police statements (including those regurgitated verbatim on the news) extends to feds as well. They have a decades-long history of the exact same damage.
Beware anything put in a sworn statement or affidavit by feds, or provided by federal informants or federal undercovers. You’d be astounded how much of it simply isn’t true.
If you find yourself in a situation where you might be detained and thereby unable to control interactions with your device, on iPhone you can disable TouchID and FaceID by holding one of the volume buttons and the sleep/wake button simultaneously for a few seconds. This will require you to enter your passcode the next time you want to unlock iPhone. Anyone have similar instructions for Android?
Be very careful taking this advice. If you weren't already aware, the past week should make it crystal clear that police have absolutely no problem arresting or assaulting you for exercising your rights.
https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1268588997829410816
"When you are lawfully present in any public space, you have the right to photograph anything in plain view, including federal buildings and the police."
"Police may not confiscate or demand to view your photographs or video without a warrant, nor may they delete data under any circumstances. Visual records are fully protected, but some states have tried to regulate the audio portion of videos under wiretapping laws."
> Everyone in the United States — citizen or resident — has a constitutional right to record police who are performing their public duties. The police don’t have the right to stop you as long as you’re not disrupting their business, and they aren’t allowed to confiscate your phone or camera just because you were recording them. This is the consistent opinion of federal courts and the Supreme Court, which affirmed in 2014 (in a 9-0 decision) that cops need a warrant if they want to seize and search your cellphone.
> Of course, the nationwide protests are about the police ignoring civil rights. Indeed, the videos we’ve seen in the past week show widespread police lawlessness, with officers arbitrarily violating the rights of peaceful demonstrators in lawful assemblies.
Better advice is to read the situation. Cops can make, and have made, people's lives very difficult, whether through legal harassment, false charges or bodily harm, and it is your word against a cop's when you go before a judge.
So if you're under eminent attack this might be a better option. It's all configurable in setting though, so test it before you go protest.
Pressing both should go into a mode where you can swipe to call emergency services or show your medical id if you have the feature.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208076
Note well: I have not actually tried this. IANAL, and this is not legal advice. Your mileage may vary.
Arrests are not necessary in the vast majority of situations police are called for, and recording technology is far superior to verbal testimony for serving our courts
EDIT: the ignorant people claiming average police officer does not deal with violent criminals have obviously never worked as a first responder. They deal with rape, suicide, murder, assault, domestic abuse, robbery, every week unless they're some small town cop in a gilded neighborhood.
The cops in St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, etc, see it every single day.
I hear a lot of suggestions by people have have never done the job. People making spurious claims about what police do and don't deal with on a daily basis.
I would never support female cops without firearms, for example. A grown man can easily overpower any woman, period. Especially when they are tweaked out on drugs.
Cops carry a gun because they have less than 6 seconds to respond to deadly situations that can save lives.
Sure, send armed cops to handle situations that force is likely to needed. But cops don't need guns to take down police reports. Rape victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Property crime victims don't need armed officers to take down police reports. Officers do not need to be armed to write speeding tickets or DUIs.
The primary role of police is observation, recording of facts and interacting with the community. 90+% of the time they spend serving society do not require force.
We could spend much less on police and have better trained cops when force is actually needed by not even considering arming the half of cops who respond to situations where force is unnecessary. The unarmed cops can cost less because they don't need firearms training and job would be less mentally taxing so they could be paid less: then, they can call in armed cops for the minority of situations where force is necessary.
Only give guns to the best cops: the bar to become a cop is way too low to continue arming all of them. I'd love to see a tiered system where cops have to be continually tested and trained to prove they should be entrusted with various levels of force: ex. Camera -> Authorization to use force in arrests -> Pepper Spray -> Stun Gun -> Firearms
This is not the case for people without guns who are killed by cops. It's an acceptable loss that a few more cops are killed because we don't arm every single one of them, if it means that a lot more innocent people aren't killed by cops with an itchy trigger finger.
Sorry, cops. They've had decades of chances, and this past weekend proves that cops can't control themselves even when they're being called out by the thousands who are recording their behavior for all to see. So now they will have to earn the right to carry lethal weaponry.
The vast majority of police do not need guns.
edit:
> hey deal with rape, suicide, murder, assault, domestic abuse, robbery, every week unless they're some small town cop in a gilded neighborhood.
Can you back this up? Statistics I've seen do not support your claim, and put violent crimes under 5% of police investigations.
Uhhhhh, damn dude. Words kinda fail me here. As a male Marine, with several years practice in BJJ, I find your comment either offensive, or just plain stupid. I've had my ass kicked many, many times by female Marines. I had several MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Art Program) trainers who were female. For that job, you are required to win at full contact hand to hand combat with people bigger and stronger than you. Your comment is sexist for one, and ignorant for another. I have a few female friends who've read your comment, and would like to have a friendly roll with you, if you are game.
Is this supposed to be a violent crime now? Cops should not even deal with the police.
Right now, cops are legal bullies that we have to suffer under.
It will cost more but what if we pair cops with non cop observers or participants? Like someone trained to talk with people and asses rather than just bust heads. Maybe it could even be volunteer sign a waiver and be a community observer? Or jury duty style even.
Then, if head busting is actually needed (and sadly occasionally it is, please don't be naive) the head buster is on hand. But it should be much rarer.
Something like balance of power in government to prevent one party from doing whatever it wants. That is what seems to be what is missing in police work. It's all one sided and few checks and balances.
This idea that beating people is acceptable law enforcement procedure is ludicrous and part of the problem.
Considering how much is spent on weapons training, this would likely be a net cost reduction. "Camera cops" could probably be paid less because they would have less risk of being in violent situations, don't have mental anguish of making life or death decisions daily, and less animosity from the community.
Needs systems to limit access to any footage that is not concerning a criminal complaint, but existing cryptographic technology can make it so only the courts have access to the encryption keys if implemented with the right process and key management systems.
Deleted Comment
The police ARE civilians. They are not military, nor are they subject to military justice or discipline, and their training and function in society is (whether they like it or not) entirely different. They are members of the community, not an occupying army.
This might seem like pedantry but it’s not: using the word civilian for non-police takes the militarization of the police as an unquestioned assumption.
I have to be honest, I am not sure what the solution is here. On the whole, I think they need better training, but what that would look like.. I am afraid to say that topic is over my head.