Taser, body cameras, money and politics
November 16, 2015 11:09 AM Subscribe
Whichever cameras are used, it’s increasingly clear police will control the footage. In a recent survey of 25 departments with body camera programs, only two made the footage available to individuals filing complaints against the department, and only four had systems to prevent tampering or unauthorized access. - Who controls the cop cam?
I came across a good working paper on police body-worn cams done by the Data & Society Research Institute (pdf); basically, they note that there is a lot of policy and procedure around these that needs to be fleshed out if the cameras are going to be impactful:
As pilot and permanent body-worn camera programs are implemented, it is important to ask questions about how they can be best used to achieve their touted goals. Will these devices make law enforcement more accountable to the public or will they usher in a new era of surveillance, deception, and abuse? Who will have access to the footage and under what circumstances? How will judges, juries, and the public interpret what
is recorded? How will the implementation of these programs be assessed for their efficacy in achieving accountability goals? What are the best policies to have in place to support those goals?
posted by nubs at 11:34 AM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
As pilot and permanent body-worn camera programs are implemented, it is important to ask questions about how they can be best used to achieve their touted goals. Will these devices make law enforcement more accountable to the public or will they usher in a new era of surveillance, deception, and abuse? Who will have access to the footage and under what circumstances? How will judges, juries, and the public interpret what
is recorded? How will the implementation of these programs be assessed for their efficacy in achieving accountability goals? What are the best policies to have in place to support those goals?
posted by nubs at 11:34 AM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's also the fact that both sides of the debate have their issues - yes, we should be concerned about the video getting locked up behind the government, but just releasing the footage to the public at large is very problematic as well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:37 AM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:37 AM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I did a security assessment of Taser's evidence.com "evidence-storage-as-a-service" platform for a third party a while back.
It's some fairly amateur hour stuff IMO very little redundancy and has at least one account confirmation vulnerability and no support for two-factor authentication meaning it'll be trivial for some admin-cop to get phished and give up the goods.
There's also the matter of the evidence.com dock, which is (per the manual) not supposed to be directly connected to the internet. But there are many. They're easy to find as they all have a very distinct signature. I discovered about 10 US universities with their dock directly connected to the internet.
yes, we should be concerned about the video getting locked up behind the government, but just releasing the footage to the public at large is very problematic as well.
Better still, lets lock up the evidence with a private corporation vested in selling (occasionally-)less-than-lethal torture devices.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 11:40 AM on November 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
It's some fairly amateur hour stuff IMO very little redundancy and has at least one account confirmation vulnerability and no support for two-factor authentication meaning it'll be trivial for some admin-cop to get phished and give up the goods.
There's also the matter of the evidence.com dock, which is (per the manual) not supposed to be directly connected to the internet. But there are many. They're easy to find as they all have a very distinct signature. I discovered about 10 US universities with their dock directly connected to the internet.
yes, we should be concerned about the video getting locked up behind the government, but just releasing the footage to the public at large is very problematic as well.
Better still, lets lock up the evidence with a private corporation vested in selling (occasionally-)less-than-lethal torture devices.
posted by Matt Oneiros at 11:40 AM on November 16, 2015 [7 favorites]
There are a number of "common sense" assumptions that come with most of the public demands for body cameras. And if we actually articulate these assumptions I think we will find that none of the options being offered actually do what is being asked for.
Maybe something like:
Maybe something like:
- always on
- editing or deletion is logged or prevented
- video is available to defense attorneys
- video is conditionally available to FOI requests
- missing or damaged video is something that would incriminate the officer or department.
Hey, if the police have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind an unwarranted search if the cameras are recording 24/7 and the video is freely available to the public, right?
posted by xedrik at 11:57 AM on November 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by xedrik at 11:57 AM on November 16, 2015 [9 favorites]
missing or damaged video is something that would incriminate the officer or department
This won't happen which makes the rest moot. Look at rape kits, and presumably most of those don't incriminate any cops.
posted by PMdixon at 12:02 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
This won't happen which makes the rest moot. Look at rape kits, and presumably most of those don't incriminate any cops.
posted by PMdixon at 12:02 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
xedrik: "Hey, if the police have nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind an unwarranted search if the cameras are recording 24/7 and the video is freely available to the public, right?"
It's not just that, but that police interact with various communities -- would you want the location of vulnerable populations broadcast if, say, a police officer goes to a domestic violence victim's residence to get a statement?
posted by boo_radley at 12:20 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's not just that, but that police interact with various communities -- would you want the location of vulnerable populations broadcast if, say, a police officer goes to a domestic violence victim's residence to get a statement?
posted by boo_radley at 12:20 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Not to mention that people winding up on these videos could very well find them used against them if they were public, in a "well, why were the cops talking to you?" sense.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:25 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:25 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Video being freely available to the public is not necessarily an unalloyed good, either. Let's say the cops bust down your door on suspicion of a felony taking place. In reality you're just laying back sharing a joint with your dealer. Do you really want your employer having access to this footage? So maybe only those being filmed should be able to freely request copies? In that case your dealer would have a little extortion angle. The whole thing could be a setup, even.
posted by xigxag at 12:34 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by xigxag at 12:34 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Clearly some things taped will not be appropriate for public release, for privacy or safety reasons for example. But there's a big jump from "some things are not appropriate to publicize" to "no oversight or protocol for archiving video and providing access when appropriate". We already have procedures for archiving and request of public records, it seems like video could be regulated under those same policies.
posted by idiopath at 12:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by idiopath at 12:36 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Stealth Mode? Built-In Monitor? Not All Body Cameras Are Created Equal (NPR, Oct. 30, 2015)
Requirements should be standard at the state, if not federal level. Raw footage should be archived in government facilities, or at least per gov specs. This information is matter of public record, though there need to be filters to protect the innocent and so forth. Those filters shouldn't be handled by a 3rd party unless they go through the same vetting and oversight as police (I know, this hasn't always worked out well, but at least police aren't shielded by corporate policies and lawyers who are protecting company secrets).
posted by filthy light thief at 12:54 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Amid the recent pressure on police to wear body cameras, one thing is often overlooked: Not all cameras are created equal. In fact, cameras vary a lot — and the variations — some contentious — can have a profound effect on how the cameras are used and who benefits from them.Another case of technology being sold as a cure, without care to what's in the medicine.
Take the buffer function. Most cameras buffer — they save video of what happens just before an officer presses record.
Taser is a leading company in the body camera business. Its buffer function doesn't include sound.
Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for the company, says that's to avoid recording what an officer was saying right before an incident.
Requirements should be standard at the state, if not federal level. Raw footage should be archived in government facilities, or at least per gov specs. This information is matter of public record, though there need to be filters to protect the innocent and so forth. Those filters shouldn't be handled by a 3rd party unless they go through the same vetting and oversight as police (I know, this hasn't always worked out well, but at least police aren't shielded by corporate policies and lawyers who are protecting company secrets).
posted by filthy light thief at 12:54 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
A defense lawyer could argue that police failed to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence. However, the burden lies with the defense to prove that the unpreserved evidence was material, potentially exculpatory, and that the government acted in bad faith.
Here's a recent article on the San Francisco police not seeking out all available video evidence - but in these cases, fortunately, Public Defender investigators found the exculpatory video before it had been overwritten.
posted by larrybob at 12:54 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Here's a recent article on the San Francisco police not seeking out all available video evidence - but in these cases, fortunately, Public Defender investigators found the exculpatory video before it had been overwritten.
posted by larrybob at 12:54 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
When Should S.F. Police Involved in Shootings Get to See Body-Cam Video?
posted by larrybob at 12:56 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by larrybob at 12:56 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
It took like a few months to set up the TSA
I'm... not sure that's the best possible example...
posted by Naberius at 1:47 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm... not sure that's the best possible example...
posted by Naberius at 1:47 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Why would the police want to give oversight power to a body outside their own department? The opportunity for politicization and abuse is immense.
(Of course, with control inside their departments, the opportunity for politicization and abuse is immense.)
posted by theorique at 1:59 PM on November 16, 2015
(Of course, with control inside their departments, the opportunity for politicization and abuse is immense.)
posted by theorique at 1:59 PM on November 16, 2015
You know what might be cool? If local or state civic archives were able to hire on a new archivist to specialize in working with police videos. The archivist could manage the organization of the videos and field access requests. Ideally they would be physically situated at an archives, rather than a police station.
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:07 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by One Second Before Awakening at 2:07 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
There is a video of a cop committing murder in Chicago last year that the city is doing everything it possibly can to keep out the public view despite almost immediately paying out 5 million to the family of the victim.
It must be awful because even the Chicago Tribune's resident asshat John Kass is writing about it.
A court case in the next few weeks will decide if it goes public now or later.
posted by srboisvert at 2:50 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
It must be awful because even the Chicago Tribune's resident asshat John Kass is writing about it.
A court case in the next few weeks will decide if it goes public now or later.
posted by srboisvert at 2:50 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Steve Tuttle, a spokesman for the company, says that's to avoid recording what an officer was saying right before an incident.
Did Mr Tuttle think this makes any sense or is he just making words come out of his mouth?
posted by PMdixon at 3:09 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Did Mr Tuttle think this makes any sense or is he just making words come out of his mouth?
posted by PMdixon at 3:09 PM on November 16, 2015 [4 favorites]
Always bears mentioning, "The police are not your friend. Fuck tha police."
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Purposeful Grimace at 3:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
cameras on police should be understood as one small part of the struggle to abolish the police as an institution. Certainly, we need to militate for body cams that automatically turn on whenever the police wearing them pulls their gun, pulls their taser, or (ideally) gets out of their car. This is obvious — there is no controversy about how useful this would be for us. In the absence of controversy, we must accept that the reason we don't have reliable cameras on police is that police are better organized than we are, and are able to prevent any such attempts to monitor their behavior. We must get more strong and make them more weak in order to get reasonable camera monitoring in place.
I guess the thing I'd like to stress here, though, is that we don't need to put cameras on police, cameras that the police don't themselves control, because we think this will result in better behavior from the police. Instead, we need to put cameras on police for three reasons:
This is because of the quirk in our criminal justice system, where although prosecutors are famously able to indict a ham sandwich, prosecutors, no matter how much evidence they have, are almost always either unwilling or unable to ever actually indict the whole pig.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:29 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
I guess the thing I'd like to stress here, though, is that we don't need to put cameras on police, cameras that the police don't themselves control, because we think this will result in better behavior from the police. Instead, we need to put cameras on police for three reasons:
- To demonstrate to police that we have power over them.
- To potentially get video camera footage that will inspire more people to oppose police and their institutions.
- the sheer fact of having organized to make police submit to our will in this way will inspire us to move forward toward making them submit in more meaningful ways, or toward breaking them up altogether.
This is because of the quirk in our criminal justice system, where although prosecutors are famously able to indict a ham sandwich, prosecutors, no matter how much evidence they have, are almost always either unwilling or unable to ever actually indict the whole pig.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 4:29 PM on November 16, 2015 [6 favorites]
Police body cameras seem like an excellent example of a social problem (police violence, corruption, lack of accountability) that people are attempting to solve with technology.
Technology can be a tool to help solve problems, but in itself, is rarely (if ever?) a solution to social problems. Until we address the core problems of accountability and a toxic police culture, technology will not help us.
The problems with the implementations of police cameras are a symptom of this.
posted by el io at 5:08 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Technology can be a tool to help solve problems, but in itself, is rarely (if ever?) a solution to social problems. Until we address the core problems of accountability and a toxic police culture, technology will not help us.
The problems with the implementations of police cameras are a symptom of this.
posted by el io at 5:08 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
cameras on police should be understood as one small part of the struggle to abolish the police as an institution.
Holy crap, this is an extremist position.
From my limited view of history, it seems that the creation of a police force is an improvement over previous forms of "law enforcement". Maybe there's an even better system out there, anything's possible. But are we going to get there by destroying the system that already kinda works without a replacement? No.
Other-izing that divides police and citizens into different, warring, camps, is the root of the problem. Cameras might help a bit with that, but certainly can't solve everything at a stroke.
posted by breath at 5:25 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Holy crap, this is an extremist position.
From my limited view of history, it seems that the creation of a police force is an improvement over previous forms of "law enforcement". Maybe there's an even better system out there, anything's possible. But are we going to get there by destroying the system that already kinda works without a replacement? No.
Other-izing that divides police and citizens into different, warring, camps, is the root of the problem. Cameras might help a bit with that, but certainly can't solve everything at a stroke.
posted by breath at 5:25 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
People are trying to solve the social problem with social solutions too. One of the things that can help with that is if the activists can show that the social problem exists. This is what body cams are useful for.
posted by Mitheral at 5:48 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitheral at 5:48 PM on November 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Abolitionism is, thank glob, increasingly a mainstream position, even among white Americans who rarely find ourselves at the pointy end of police crime. Although it used to be the case that the police system was found by those not exposed to it to be something that sort of worked, something that just needed a few patches to get the last few bugs out, that is no longer a tenable position.
Really, I'm not sure when it stopped being a tenable position. Certainly, it's not a tenable position now that so many people carry cameras these days — way back when, it was rare to catch police on camera committing crimes, and as such many people could get away with pretending that police crime itself was rare. these days, though, it's common to catch police on camera murdering people like Oscar Grant. Honestly, though, I think most people accepted the pervasiveness of police crime long, long ago; I mean, most people still recognize the name Serpico, and it's been what, 45 years since Serpico (and the movie that was subsequently made about him) blew the lid off the longstanding, pervasive, impossible to eradicate corruption of the NYPD. Most people understand intuitively that the job of the police is to maintain chaos, not to end it, and they knew that even before we had pervasive video evidence of it.
Most people know that it's common for police to plant drugs and guns on people they find inconvenient, most people can remember hearing jokes (that aren't really jokes) about corrupt cops demanding sexual favors through threats of tickets, jail time, or physical assault, and most people know it's not safe to drive while Black (or walk while Black, or ride transit while Black) due to police terrorism.
Who knows when it was that we woke up to what police are doing? Regardless, it is necessary to acknowledge that conversation these days, at least, is becoming less about whether police are a threat, and more about how to manage and contain that threat.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:15 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Really, I'm not sure when it stopped being a tenable position. Certainly, it's not a tenable position now that so many people carry cameras these days — way back when, it was rare to catch police on camera committing crimes, and as such many people could get away with pretending that police crime itself was rare. these days, though, it's common to catch police on camera murdering people like Oscar Grant. Honestly, though, I think most people accepted the pervasiveness of police crime long, long ago; I mean, most people still recognize the name Serpico, and it's been what, 45 years since Serpico (and the movie that was subsequently made about him) blew the lid off the longstanding, pervasive, impossible to eradicate corruption of the NYPD. Most people understand intuitively that the job of the police is to maintain chaos, not to end it, and they knew that even before we had pervasive video evidence of it.
Most people know that it's common for police to plant drugs and guns on people they find inconvenient, most people can remember hearing jokes (that aren't really jokes) about corrupt cops demanding sexual favors through threats of tickets, jail time, or physical assault, and most people know it's not safe to drive while Black (or walk while Black, or ride transit while Black) due to police terrorism.
Who knows when it was that we woke up to what police are doing? Regardless, it is necessary to acknowledge that conversation these days, at least, is becoming less about whether police are a threat, and more about how to manage and contain that threat.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 6:15 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Most people know that it's common for police to plant drugs and guns on people they find inconvenient, most people can remember hearing jokes (that aren't really jokes) about corrupt cops demanding sexual favors through threats of tickets, jail time, or physical assault, and most people know it's not safe to drive while Black (or walk while Black, or ride transit while Black) due to police terrorism.
Ah, but your optimism is unwarranted when you assume all or even a large majority of those people disapprove of those facts.
posted by PMdixon at 6:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ah, but your optimism is unwarranted when you assume all or even a large majority of those people disapprove of those facts.
posted by PMdixon at 6:28 PM on November 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
From my limited view of history, it seems that the creation of a police force is an improvement over previous forms of "law enforcement". Maybe there's an even better system out there, anything's possible.
It's fine to advocate for abolishing the police, but what comes next? Sidearms and the Wild West all over again?
Of course, everyone's 'ultimately' responsible for his own personal (and family) protection, but nowadays a lot of people don't know this (or deliberately avoid thinking about it). And so many do delegate protection to the police, whether by choice or by default.
posted by theorique at 5:05 PM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's fine to advocate for abolishing the police, but what comes next? Sidearms and the Wild West all over again?
Of course, everyone's 'ultimately' responsible for his own personal (and family) protection, but nowadays a lot of people don't know this (or deliberately avoid thinking about it). And so many do delegate protection to the police, whether by choice or by default.
posted by theorique at 5:05 PM on November 17, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm having a hard time imagining a return to vigilante justice and lynchings as being a net win for black men.
posted by Mitheral at 9:38 AM on November 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 9:38 AM on November 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Return to?
posted by PMdixon at 10:12 AM on November 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by PMdixon at 10:12 AM on November 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sidearms and the Wild West coming into fashion along with the disintegration of 'police' would yield a much safer world for black people.
I suspect it would lead to more "Travons" and "Michael Browns" except there would be no recourse or investigation by the nominal authorities. It would pretty much be a KKK-ocracy.
The existing regime, for all its faults, at least has to pretend to look like it cares. A pure vigilante justice state would be pretty much Crips vs Bloods vs MS-13 vs Aryan Brotherhood - it would look like prison.
posted by theorique at 10:15 AM on November 18, 2015
I suspect it would lead to more "Travons" and "Michael Browns" except there would be no recourse or investigation by the nominal authorities. It would pretty much be a KKK-ocracy.
The existing regime, for all its faults, at least has to pretend to look like it cares. A pure vigilante justice state would be pretty much Crips vs Bloods vs MS-13 vs Aryan Brotherhood - it would look like prison.
posted by theorique at 10:15 AM on November 18, 2015
It's fine to advocate for abolishing the police, but what comes next? Sidearms and the Wild West all over again?
Like a bad thing?
Movies aside, the cities had a far higher murder rate than the west. Certainly in places like Dodge City you had corrupt government and a higher murder rate, but not higher than back east in the big cities.
Lots of wagon trains and frontier towns had contractual rights and most of those were enforced by social ostracism.
Much like any primitive society, that could be a severe, even deadly sentence.
Got no one who will shoe your horse because you jumped a claim? Now you can't plow. Which means you have no crop. Which means you're gonna starve unless you leave.
Most of the actual violence came from big corporations like the transcontinental railroad, the pinkertons, big money outfits looking to oppress people who bought politicians to give them government subsidies and military aid. Wound up doing things like slaughtering the Plains Indians.
I doubt a few guys with sidearms drove the Buffalo to near extinction.
There were black cowboys. And there was plenty of range equality.
Strange how many people say we can't trust ourselves with guns, but are happy to hand them over exclusively to the police and military when demonstrably more people have been killed by their own governments than foreign armies.
What's gonna protect you, asserting your rights?
I don't advocate sidearms as the only, or even the first (or second, or third...) mechanism of justice, but having a citizenry responsible for its own security doesn't automatically lead to mass chaos.
Most people prefer stability and predictability and tend to self-organize.
Racism has to be learned and institutionally supported otherwise it drops off. Gangs are a response to instability and external oppression. People aren't naturally just violent kill-crazy drug abusing racists.
Granted, most of them don't have the strength of character to handle even the small bit of power owning a firearm affords.
But whether it's independent review of camera footage or citizen owned firearms the concept of the power of self-determination and its corollary community responsibility are the same.
All government power is delegated by the people.
The military and police only have delegated power regardless of whether they're the only ones who get firearms or not. The problem is we have delegated our responsibility as well.
I mean, who looks forward to jury duty? Big pain in the ass amirite? So who's going to sit and review hours of police footage?
Frankly, someone who can't take enough interest in their community to get off their ass and attend a few community police beat meetings shouldn't be considered responsible enough to own a gun anyway.
And the power to review a police camera is much more powerful.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:36 PM on November 19, 2015
Like a bad thing?
Movies aside, the cities had a far higher murder rate than the west. Certainly in places like Dodge City you had corrupt government and a higher murder rate, but not higher than back east in the big cities.
Lots of wagon trains and frontier towns had contractual rights and most of those were enforced by social ostracism.
Much like any primitive society, that could be a severe, even deadly sentence.
Got no one who will shoe your horse because you jumped a claim? Now you can't plow. Which means you have no crop. Which means you're gonna starve unless you leave.
Most of the actual violence came from big corporations like the transcontinental railroad, the pinkertons, big money outfits looking to oppress people who bought politicians to give them government subsidies and military aid. Wound up doing things like slaughtering the Plains Indians.
I doubt a few guys with sidearms drove the Buffalo to near extinction.
There were black cowboys. And there was plenty of range equality.
Strange how many people say we can't trust ourselves with guns, but are happy to hand them over exclusively to the police and military when demonstrably more people have been killed by their own governments than foreign armies.
What's gonna protect you, asserting your rights?
I don't advocate sidearms as the only, or even the first (or second, or third...) mechanism of justice, but having a citizenry responsible for its own security doesn't automatically lead to mass chaos.
Most people prefer stability and predictability and tend to self-organize.
Racism has to be learned and institutionally supported otherwise it drops off. Gangs are a response to instability and external oppression. People aren't naturally just violent kill-crazy drug abusing racists.
Granted, most of them don't have the strength of character to handle even the small bit of power owning a firearm affords.
But whether it's independent review of camera footage or citizen owned firearms the concept of the power of self-determination and its corollary community responsibility are the same.
All government power is delegated by the people.
The military and police only have delegated power regardless of whether they're the only ones who get firearms or not. The problem is we have delegated our responsibility as well.
I mean, who looks forward to jury duty? Big pain in the ass amirite? So who's going to sit and review hours of police footage?
Frankly, someone who can't take enough interest in their community to get off their ass and attend a few community police beat meetings shouldn't be considered responsible enough to own a gun anyway.
And the power to review a police camera is much more powerful.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:36 PM on November 19, 2015
Social ostracism is great if the ostracized guy actually jumped the claim. It is not so great if one is being ostracized for smiling at a white woman, having the wrong parents or for committing a crime for which you have been falsely accused.
posted by Mitheral at 1:46 PM on November 19, 2015
posted by Mitheral at 1:46 PM on November 19, 2015
There is a video of a cop committing murder in Chicago last year that the city is doing everything it possibly can to keep out the public view despite almost immediately paying out 5 million to the family of the victim.
It must be awful because even the Chicago Tribune's resident asshat John Kass is writing about it.
A court case in the next few weeks will decide if it goes public now or later.
Update: Judge Orders Chicago Police Release Video Of Cop Shooting Black Teen 16 Times
posted by indubitable at 3:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
It must be awful because even the Chicago Tribune's resident asshat John Kass is writing about it.
A court case in the next few weeks will decide if it goes public now or later.
Update: Judge Orders Chicago Police Release Video Of Cop Shooting Black Teen 16 Times
posted by indubitable at 3:48 PM on November 19, 2015 [1 favorite]
not so great if one is being ostracized for smiling at a white woman
Well....yeah?
I mean, institutional racism is institutional racism. The point being it's a learned trait perpetuated by whatever social mores are a play in the same way religion or language or opposing sports teams are considered rivals.
So there's no checks inherent in a system with less power given to people.
I mean, fascism is the answer to ending racism?
Point being, we can design a society where race isn't a relevant construct, and many American frontier societies in fact did.
The power to construct such societies are often subverted by interests other than what people would normally have.
That quote from Goring shows you how it's done: "People don't want war, why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship....voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Pretty much the same deal with police. You're in danger without them, yadda yadda.
Certainly there are times when government intervention in race relations was necessary, but that too was the will of the people. And too the result of people taking responsibility for the matter into their own hands. It wasn't the guys saying power to the people hitting them with fire hoses and setting police dogs loose on kids.
It's not transparency and public input that results in racism or social disorder.
The equivalent here is cameras in the hands of citizens. Well, everyone's got a cell phone camera now.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't find out the truth about things like the Fruitvale shooting without them. That's pretty much vigilantism.
I mean - are there adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment of police officers who commit crimes like that, like the Fruitvale BART cops shooting a downed, unarmed man?
Aren't then taking footage of such things extra-legal action by people who otherwise have no legal authority? Most particularly when there were laws on the books criminalizing filming police?
I don't think there's any question our law enforcement has to be more transparent and subject to public scrutiny, but more public involvement doesn't lead to social chaos.
Obviously vigilantism can and has been misused. But sometimes it's not taking the law into your own hands it's reminding people that the law IS in their hands.
For better or worse.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:23 PM on November 19, 2015
Well....yeah?
I mean, institutional racism is institutional racism. The point being it's a learned trait perpetuated by whatever social mores are a play in the same way religion or language or opposing sports teams are considered rivals.
So there's no checks inherent in a system with less power given to people.
I mean, fascism is the answer to ending racism?
Point being, we can design a society where race isn't a relevant construct, and many American frontier societies in fact did.
The power to construct such societies are often subverted by interests other than what people would normally have.
That quote from Goring shows you how it's done: "People don't want war, why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship....voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Pretty much the same deal with police. You're in danger without them, yadda yadda.
Certainly there are times when government intervention in race relations was necessary, but that too was the will of the people. And too the result of people taking responsibility for the matter into their own hands. It wasn't the guys saying power to the people hitting them with fire hoses and setting police dogs loose on kids.
It's not transparency and public input that results in racism or social disorder.
The equivalent here is cameras in the hands of citizens. Well, everyone's got a cell phone camera now.
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't find out the truth about things like the Fruitvale shooting without them. That's pretty much vigilantism.
I mean - are there adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment of police officers who commit crimes like that, like the Fruitvale BART cops shooting a downed, unarmed man?
Aren't then taking footage of such things extra-legal action by people who otherwise have no legal authority? Most particularly when there were laws on the books criminalizing filming police?
I don't think there's any question our law enforcement has to be more transparent and subject to public scrutiny, but more public involvement doesn't lead to social chaos.
Obviously vigilantism can and has been misused. But sometimes it's not taking the law into your own hands it's reminding people that the law IS in their hands.
For better or worse.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:23 PM on November 19, 2015
It's not my intention to be argumentative. Sorry if it comes off that way. In Illinois, Cook County in particular, there's zero transparency. That leads to corruption. The more information that is open, the less chances there are for abuse. And hate is almost never openly practiced. It's always in the dark. I welcome any opportunity to shine yet more light.
posted by Smedleyman at 8:18 AM on November 20, 2015
posted by Smedleyman at 8:18 AM on November 20, 2015
The police officer at the center of the video ordered released in Chicago, Jason Van Dyke, has been formally charged with the murder of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:32 AM on November 24, 2015
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:32 AM on November 24, 2015
Apparently, the police deleted footage from the security system at the Burger King where McDonald was shot.
posted by nubs at 3:39 PM on November 24, 2015
posted by nubs at 3:39 PM on November 24, 2015
The video of Laquan McDonald's murder has been released.
Warning - the video contains graphic violence of a police officer murdering a young black man in cold blood.
...things are not going to end well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:52 PM on November 24, 2015
Warning - the video contains graphic violence of a police officer murdering a young black man in cold blood.
...things are not going to end well.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:52 PM on November 24, 2015
Where did the word 'Taser' come from? A century-old racist science fiction novel
posted by Artw at 9:39 AM on December 2, 2015
posted by Artw at 9:39 AM on December 2, 2015
« Older I must down to the seas again, to the lonely sea... | “the best for nervous flyers” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is clearly a place where the public would benefit from a vendor-neutral spec. But I've seen far to many procurement turn into specific-vendor lock-in because of whiz-bangs. And usually this ends in tears, if not now, in the five or ten years after when someone has to figure out how to buy the next generation/archive and release the old stuff/make the old stuff compatible with the new stuff.
Losing evidence to vendor lock-in and shitty encryption schemes should not be tolerated, but if the past is any guide, that's where we'll be in a few years.
posted by bonehead at 11:18 AM on November 16, 2015 [13 favorites]