How does one know which murders by the hands of the police are justified when so few even make it to trial? Alleging that more police footage would change this core problem of cops operating above the law is naive, at best.
How does one know which murders by the hands of the police are justified when so few even make it to trial? Alleging that more police footage would change this core problem of cops operating above the law is naive, at best.
http://www.courant.com/news/connecti...m_content=link
CT State Police caught on camera making up charges to bring against a protester along with falsifying a story to go along with it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...plaints-rialtoBut Rialto's randomised controlled studyhas seized attention because it offers scientific – and encouraging – findings: after cameras were introduced in February 2012, public complaints against officers plunged 88% compared with the previous 12 months. Officers' use of force fell by 60%.
"When you know you're being watched you behave a little better. That's just human nature," said Farrar. "As an officer you act a bit more professional, follow the rules a bit better."
This is the future you chose.
Does armed automatically result in ok to kill to you?
No I do not know how many were armed, but I also think it's pretty irrelevant.
You are fundamentally missing the point. I did not post the statistic to say that definitely X people were unjustly killed. I post it to show trends. You posted under the assumption that the amount of police related deaths have always been the same. I am saying the trend suggests probably not. In order for the statistics to work for you, you'd have to believe that with crime high (for two decades), police were extremely corrupt when it came to reporting kills to the point they were killing more percentage-wise than today with a very low crime rate, but an extremely high rate of police death.
Personally, I think the trend shows more and more cops using the gun as their first option.
And to be clear, I think "justified" means they had no other option in apprehending the person without resulting in their own death or that of a civilian.
Bingo.Personally, I think the trend shows more and more cops using the gun as their first option.
And that's where we are going to disagree on. If a suspect is armed, I'm going to 100% support the officer so they can go home, so yes me asking if the stats showed if how many of those killings the suspect is armed is relevant. You are never going to baton an armed suspect and not all agencies have tasers so in those cases, even having a knife is going to get met by being shot.
No, that part is actually pretty relevant. Full stop.
Unless it isn't:
Spoiler: show
lol, perfect.
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/loca...83907936-story
Don't know if this ever got posted here. But its a good listen.
That's a interesting situation.
Do the body cams cause a drop in use of force complaints because the officer knows they are being recorded?
Or
Do the body cams cause a drop in use of force complaints because it helps weed out the BS IAD complaints people file against officers when a situation doesn't go the way they like?
I'm thinking both and lately it seems to have gone both ways.
Both great outcomes. Everyone is more likely to behave better when they know the cameras are rolling.
http://www.startribune.com/agencies-...ngs/367453551/
MN police forces are considering releasing video footage sooner than before a case is over.