FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

There is a lot more awareness and accountability of the bad things, because of the media and internet and audio/video recordings, which is a good thing.

I think you're right, and I also agree it's not necessarily fair to judge today's cops against whatever imaginary version of the '50s beat cop I cobbled off of the TV. Basically it sounds like dumbing down services to the lowest-common-denominator, in order to reduce liability (be it cultural or legal).......so, basically just like every other service or business in modern America over the last 50 years?

[Blackadar]

Of course, cameras don't solve everything.

VIDEO: SWAT Raids Home Of Innocent Elderly Woman, Lawsuit Pending - Live Free, Live Natural

For those who don't want to watch the video, it's a SWAT tactical incursion into the house of a 68 year old woman and her 18 year old daughter. Even if they had the right house - which they didn't - the search warrant (not even an arrest warrant) was for making internet threats at officers.

Yeah, we need a full SWAT assault, complete with flashbang grenades, for making internet threats.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yeah, we need a full SWAT assault, complete with flashbang grenades, for making internet threats.

Yeah, just stroll in there like nothing's happening. That'll end well.

But hey, maybe you'd be happier if they just ignored it, no teenager ever posed an actual threat to anybody.

And if this happened to be that rare chance, what's a few dead cops, right?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

You didn't just make a commentary on the law, you said that if this guy was white the police report wouldn't have identified the crime as a robbery. And you're basing that on the fact of what a robbery is "to you". The officer isn't identifying a crime based on what a robbery is "to DT". They're relying on Missouri law. So accusing that officer (whoever it is, it's not even the shooter) of being racist is silly to me. He just wrote down the crime that was committed in the video. It's not binding to any later charges. If an officer is downgrading crimes on his own initiative in police reports, he'd probably have a problem with his supervisor.

That wasn't the intent of my statement. The intent of my statement was more general, not specific to this officer taking the report. It clearly wasn't stated eloquently enough, or was misunderstood or whatever. But AGAIN, that was before I heard it was $50 worth of cigars that he reached over the counter for. So enough already on that - move on already man.

And FYI - based on the reported history of things going on at that police department I have a feeling that downgrading/trumping up charges wouldn't be something a supervisor would bat an eye at.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Regardless of any question of morals, or whether any particular cop is some shade of 'bad' or 'good', it seems obvious that in recent years police have been trained to immediately assert their authority in any situation, and to some degree that causes every interaction with police to start on confrontational footing.

I've had several dealings with cops in Florida since emigrating - generally traffic related and have found all of them to be incredibly polite and friendly.

I'm always polite to them, call their sir/madam and apologise if I've been doing something wrong - so far I've had one minor ticket (which was my fault hands down) and 3-4 warnings where I've been let off.

To me they've behaved no differently to how I'd expect an English policeman to behave (and not at all confrontational) - I've treated them the same as I would an English policeman although I'll readily admit I'm a bit more nervous regarding them because they carry guns.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I've had several dealings with cops in Florida since emigrating - generally traffic related and have found all of them to be incredibly polite and friendly.

I'm always polite to them, call their sir/madam and apologise if I've been doing something wrong - so far I've had one minor ticket (which was my fault hands down) and 3-4 warnings where I've been let off.

Now that you bring it up, I realize that the two traffic stops I've ever had have been totally smooth and friendly, which may just go to show how my bias has been effected by the media/public. Likewise, each state/city also surely has it's own unique history/culture/rules of policing to work with or against, and Portland cops have been riding bad local PR for like the last 40 years, which is hard to keep out of my own judgments.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Of course, cameras don't solve everything.

VIDEO: SWAT Raids Home Of Innocent Elderly Woman, Lawsuit Pending - Live Free, Live Natural

For those who don't want to watch the video, it's a SWAT tactical incursion into the house of a 68 year old woman and her 18 year old daughter. Even if they had the right house - which they didn't - the search warrant (not even an arrest warrant) was for making internet threats at officers.

Yeah, we need a full SWAT assault, complete with flashbang grenades, for making internet threats.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, just stroll in there like nothing's happening. That'll end well.

But hey, maybe you'd be happier if they just ignored it, no teenager ever posed an actual threat to anybody.

And if this happened to be that rare chance, what's a few dead cops, right?

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I've had several dealings with cops in Florida since emigrating - generally traffic related and have found all of them to be incredibly polite and friendly.

I'm always polite to them, call their sir/madam and apologise if I've been doing something wrong - so far I've had one minor ticket (which was my fault hands down) and 3-4 warnings where I've been let off.

To me they've behaved no differently to how I'd expect an English policeman to behave (and not at all confrontational) - I've treated them the same as I would an English policeman although I'll readily admit I'm a bit more nervous regarding them because they carry guns.

Fair to say this covers the whole spectrum?

[JPhillips]

I've had positive reactions to all the cops I've met or been stopped by, except one.

When I was in grad school in Boston, my wife (then fiancee) got terribly ill and dehydrated to the point that her hands were curling. Being a grad student, it never occurred to me to know where a hospital was located and this was before Google. I drove to what I thought was a local hospital. As I turned into the parking lot a cop lights up and I stop and wait, mostly focused on my very sick wife. I heard a knock on the window and when I turned there was a gun pointed at my head.

Luckily nothing really bad happened. The cop asked me what I was doing and I explained. When he saw my wife he told me that I was at a nursing home, not a hospital. I don't know why he stopped me and I don't know why he pulled his gun. We were in Brighton, so not a fantastic neighborhood, but full of students like my wife and I.

At the time I took it in stride, but I've wondered what might have happened if I turned quickly or spoke aggressively.

[digamma]

Damn...lost this the first time due to an techmological differences...

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Don't think anybody (at least not here) said it had anything to do with the threat level. It's merely the motive for said threat.

Fine, but I still maintain that's not relevant. The self defense claim will go to what the officer perceived, not what may have caused the suspect/victim to act. I mean he could have committed worse crimes in the days or weeks before that to make him more afraid. Conversely, he could have had a really awful experience where a cop unlawfully shook him down a few days ago. And both may have been more the cause of his actions than the robbery. But, my point is I don't think any of those scenarios are relevant to the officer's (likely) claim that he acted in self defense. They only go to show what a bad (or good) person Brown was.

Put another way, what are you trying to show in court with the convenience store footage? Pretty much the only thing I can come up with is that Brown is a baddie. And, in my view, that's not at all relevant to the threat the officer perceived and to which he reacted.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Like attacking a unicorn.

Not really my point, but I understand how you got there. My personal feelings aside (and of course I have them) I think the release of the convenience store tape is poor police work/lawyering. Even with the best intentions, you're going to do nothing to sway public opinion and you're going to risk tainting your jury pool and losing sympathetic jurors.

[Izulde]

My experiences with police are slightly different than most on this board I think, in that most of my dealings have been with university police (including the infamous cape incident).

Almost overwhelmingly, I've found university police to be wonderful, kind, and patient people - save for one cop at UArk who was very surly, but he was probably having a bad day, or annoyed at the dingy GA who accidentally locked his keys in his office , so I give that a pass.

City police, it's varied. The ones in La Crosse, WI were efficient and firm, but fair. (It was always amazing to watch how swiftly they moved to nail somebody committing a traffic violation, or shut down house parties that got too loud). Lot of students hated them, but to me they were just doing their job.

Now Las Vegas Metro... holy shit, are they a bunch of assholes by and large. And the ones that aren't assholes? They've acted completely indifferent, like they don't really care about anything. Again, these are just my experiences, and I realize that there's some cyclic effect here - bad cops on the force engage in unlawful shootings (which there seem to be several each year) and/or questionable behavior, and that turns the citizenry against them, which makes the cops defensive.

And I know they have to deal with a lot of really aggravating things like jagoff tourists who act like toddlers in the terrible twos. But still... the difference between UNLV campus police and Metro couldn't be greater. And I expect that's all to do with the environment they're policing in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Now Las Vegas Metro... holy shit, are they a bunch of assholes by and large. And the ones that aren't assholes? They've acted completely indifferent, like they don't really care about anything. Again, these are just my experiences, and I realize that there's some cyclic effect here - bad cops on the force engage in unlawful shootings (which there seem to be several each year) and/or questionable behavior, and that turns the citizenry against them, which makes the cops defensive.

Interestingly, Vegas is also the tourist location (or even just city visited) that I felt by far the safest in. The reputation was, at least in the now years-back era when I was visiting several times, that it was a city where the thugs knew to leave the tourists alone or face the wrath of an angry police force & one where even cab drivers knew that if they shot a perp in action they'd be hailed as heroes rather than getting charged.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

But, my point is I don't think any of those scenarios are relevant to the officer's (likely) claim that he acted in self defense.

But they become relevant if, hypothetically (hell, this is all hypothetical since there's currently no charges) the prosecution goes the "why on earth would he come after you" route to try to discredit the officers defense.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I've always gone out of my way to be overly nice to cops in my dealings with them. It usually works wonders. Being a jackass to them will likely end in a result directly opposite to my experiences.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Interestingly, Vegas is also the tourist location (or even just city visited) that I felt by far the safest in. The reputation was, at least in the now years-back era when I was visiting several times, that it was a city where the thugs knew to leave the tourists alone or face the wrath of an angry police force & one where even cab drivers knew that if they shot a perp in action they'd be hailed as heroes rather than getting charged.

Yeah.... not so much anymore. Lot of gangbangers come in from LA, and a guy got killed at Drai's nightclub a few months back. The Metro police and casino security are both still aggressive assholes in general, which makes sense given the environment as I've said, but it does have a toxic effect on their relationships with the rest of the city.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I've always gone out of my way to be overly nice to cops in my dealings with them. It usually works wonders. Being a jackass to them will likely end in a result directly opposite to my experiences.

I'm not a religious man, but ye olde Golden Rule (or whichever religious rule of reciprocity you want to substitute) sure does wonders when dealing with pretty much every other human on the planet. 'Course, that goes both (all?) ways. Lots of interactions/communication these days (e.g. the internets) seem to be based on confrontation first.

[thesloppy]

Ye gods, can you imagine trying to police the Vegas strip? I am altogether sympathetic to their plight, extremely thankful for their presence, and assume you have to be some flavor of sociopath to sign up for such a thing.

[RainMaker]

Looks like looting and violence is back tonight. Cops are being passive and not intervening. Guess the plan now is to let them destroy their town.

[Lathum]

The thing I think everyone needs to remember when dealing with a cop, especially if you have been pulled over, is they don't know who or what is in that car. They have to always assume the worst. They don't know if it is Marc Vaughn who is going to be respectful, or Jeff who hates their existence, or some gangbanger who has a murder warrant and it going to blow his head off and flee. Literally every traffic stop could become life threatening.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Looks like looting and violence is back tonight. Cops are being passive and not intervening. Guess the plan now is to let them destroy their town.

That'll show those carpetbaggers!!!

I'm sure there are plenty of entrepreneurs waiting to open businesses once all the outside ventures are crumbled into rubble!

Booming economy here we come!!

Cincinnati riots of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Yeah, just stroll in there like nothing's happening. That'll end well.

But hey, maybe you'd be happier if they just ignored it, no teenager ever posed an actual threat to anybody.

And if this happened to be that rare chance, what's a few dead cops, right?

Thanks for the extremes, but most of us live somewhere in the middle. They can easily execute something simple like a search warrant (not an arrest warrant, douchenozzle) without a full blown military incursion.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The thing I think everyone needs to remember when dealing with a cop, especially if you have been pulled over, is they don't know who or what is in that car. They have to always assume the worst. They don't know if it is Marc Vaughn who is going to be respectful, or Jeff who hates their existence, or some gangbanger who has a murder warrant and it going to blow his head off and flee. Literally every traffic stop could become life threatening.

I agree and that swings both ways. When dealing with a cop, you have to assume the worst. You don't know if it's Officer Clemmons from Mr. Roger's neighborhood, a guy who thinks Tango & Cash was the ultimate flick or Denzel Washington's Training Day character. Best to be extremely cautious, don't engage and most of all don't say anything.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I agree and that swings both ways. When dealing with a cop, you have to assume the worst. You don't know if it's Officer Clemmons from Mr. Roger's neighborhood, a guy who thinks Tango & Cash was the ultimate flick or Denzel Washington's Training Day character. Best to be extremely cautious, don't engage and most of all don't say anything.

I think that tactic is fine. It seems to me when these incidents escalate it is because the person stopped isn't cooperative. Like it or not that raises suspicion with the officer, as it should IMO.

Not I am not saying the victim is to blame in these situations, the police likely have some culpability as well and there is plenty of blame to go around, but if you have noting to hide no reason not to cooperate.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Regardless of the outcome here, I think it's high time that cops just start wearing body cameras all the time with legal muscle to back it up so that tapes can not be destroyed. It would resolve much of the confusion in some cases. If Brown was shot from 20 feet away with his hands up, there's zero justification for that shooting regardless of what happened 5 minutes or 5 seconds before. If he was shot 5 feet away in an aggressive pose, then there would be good reason for that. We'd know with a camera.

The city of Rialto did this a couple of years ago. Officers' use of force went down by 60% while public complaints dropped over 80%. Those statistics are staggering.

http://www.policefoundation.org/site...e-of-Force.pdf

I'm not generally big on cameras and "big brother", but I think it's gotten to the point that the only way out is to hold both sides accountable for their actions - criminals and cops - and to do so impartially. The camera doesn't lie.

I am not the big brother type at all, but I am in favor of big brother into big brother.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

They can easily execute something simple like a search warrant (not an arrest warrant, douchenozzle) without a full blown military incursion.

There's no such thing as "a simple search warrant". Especially going into the home of someone who had made threats to kick off the process in the first place.

[Young Drachma]

Such a train wreck in this town. On so many levels.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Such a train wreck in this town. On so many levels.

I probably wouldn't be looking for a job or a home there anytime soon, that's for sure.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by Izulde

My experiences with police are slightly different than most on this board I think, in that most of my dealings have been with university police (including the infamous cape incident).

Almost overwhelmingly, I've found university police to be wonderful, kind, and patient people - save for one cop at UArk who was very surly, but he was probably having a bad day, or annoyed at the dingy GA who accidentally locked his keys in his office , so I give that a pass.

Now Las Vegas Metro... holy shit, are they a bunch of assholes by and large. And the ones that aren't assholes? They've acted completely indifferent, like they don't really care about anything. Again, these are just my experiences, and I realize that there's some cyclic effect here - bad cops on the force engage in unlawful shootings (which there seem to be several each year) and/or questionable behavior, and that turns the citizenry against them, which makes the cops defensive.

And I know they have to deal with a lot of really aggravating things like jagoff tourists who act like toddlers in the terrible twos. But still... the difference between UNLV campus police and Metro couldn't be greater. And I expect that's all to do with the environment they're policing in.

Considering I went to U of Ark and live in Las Vegas I'll give my 2 cents here.

U of Ark cops (And the NWA police) are largely a joke. They could care less if something was happening. U of Ark cops spend most their time checking parking lots for parking violations. Went on a ride along with Springdale cops and it was 6 hours of playing grab ass with other cops.

As for Vegas, you need to break the precincts into two groups. There are "Strip" cops who have to deal with more shit then you could every imagine. My ex-brother-in-law did a ride along and he said they had about 10 times as many calls in one night compared to his normal shift in LA. They would have to give everything a priority just because it was impossible to get to every call. They don't even both with the small drug or public intox that they would because of the small force on the strip. You also have "Naked City" in this area where the scum of Vegas lives(Followed by D street. Add in the amount of suicides that happen on the strip that go unreported (We are #1 in the nation in suicides) and it becomes too much for one force to take care of.

Now once you get out of the Strip you are dealing with local cops just like anywhere else. The farther away from the strip, the nicer the cops are.

Originally Posted by Izulde

Yeah.... not so much anymore. Lot of gangbangers come in from LA, and a guy got killed at Drai's nightclub a few months back. The Metro police and casino security are both still aggressive assholes in general, which makes sense given the environment as I've said, but it does have a toxic effect on their relationships with the rest of the city.

Most of the gangbangers moved back to Cali when the housing market crashed in 08 to be honest. Sales in our stores out here went down in most the gang affiliated items starting in '09. Don't get me wrong, there are still gangs here but they don't roam like they use to and stay in their own neighborhoods.

Metro should be aggressive because a lot of crazy shit goes on here. You bring up Drai's (which happened last year btw) so I'll bring up CiCi's Pizza where two cops were killed just 2 months ago (Page Not Found. You had the nut jobs who were pointing their guns at cops during the Bundy Ranch thing. Not one can of teargas had to hit the ground during the Bundy Ranch incident. I can't name another city that has to deal with the reckless behavior of it's tourism like Las Vegas does and I think the police for do a pretty decent job of it.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There's no such thing as "a simple search warrant". Especially going into the home of someone who had made threats to kick off the process in the first place.

At my company, we have three levels of customer violence codes: 1 = I think it's use caution; 2 = must take a buddy; 1 = must have a police escort. One of my jobs is to keep these up to date on digital maps so when a field crew/rep has to go to any property/neighborhood, they are aware of any potential threats (esp. turning off utilities of an uncooperative customer that has threatened violence). For all of the #1, the police do not go in with full combat or swat or riot gear and in all of these years, we have not had any lethal incidents. Being aware and being alert and knowing how not to provoke or escalate can a long ways.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

At my company, we have three levels of customer violence codes: 1 = I think it's use caution; 2 = must take a buddy; 1 = must have a police escort. One of my jobs is to keep these up to date on digital maps so when a field crew/rep has to go to any property/neighborhood, they are aware of any potential threats (esp. turning off utilities of an uncooperative customer that has threatened violence). For all of the #1, the police do not go in with full combat or swat or riot gear and in all of these years, we have not had any lethal incidents. Being aware and being alert and knowing how not to provoke or escalate can a long ways.

So would you count someone who has made a specific threat directed to your employees as a #1? (That was the scenario given in the search warrant example after all)

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

So would you count someone who has made a specific threat directed to your employees as a #1? (That was the scenario given in the search warrant example after all)

More apt example would be person A possibly issues threat (not entirely sure, need more info to confirm) to one of his employees, would he issue #1 on the random old lady sitting on the bench watching it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dubb93

More apt example would be person A possibly issues threat (not entirely sure, need more info to confirm) to one of his employees, would he issue #1 on the random old lady sitting on the bench watching it.

Maybe I misread the example that was cited.

Girl (teenager IIRC) makes a direct threat(s) against police via social media.
Search warrant (presumably to assertain the legitimacy of those threats, girl lived with her grandmother IIRC)
Warrant is served cocked, locked and ready to rock.

I see zero problem with that at all. It's a no-knock situation afaic.

(The address screw-up is an entirely separate matter from the tactical plan for serving the warrant afaic)

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe I misread the example that was cited.

Girl (teenager IIRC) makes a direct threat(s) against police via social media.
Search warrant (presumably to assertain the legitimacy of those threats, girl lived with her grandmother IIRC)
Warrant is served cocked, locked and ready to rock.

I see zero problem with that at all. It's a no-knock situation afaic.

(The address screw-up is an entirely separate matter from the tactical plan for serving the warrant afaic)

I agree 100%.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe I misread the example that was cited.

Girl (teenager IIRC) makes a direct threat(s) against police via social media.
Search warrant (presumably to assertain the legitimacy of those threats, girl lived with her grandmother IIRC)
Warrant is served cocked, locked and ready to rock.

I see zero problem with that at all. It's a no-knock situation afaic.

(The address screw-up is an entirely separate matter from the tactical plan for serving the warrant afaic)

Actually it was a male, a gang member at that. I actually agree you probably should server that one in the manner they did...but maybe they could have put more thought into it and researched who they were raiding. They do expect an awful lot from the public at times, I think matching who was making the threats on social media with who was living at the property probably could have been done in this situation. Unless I guess it was a direct immediate threat. We don't really get those details.

I think that when they decide to use this much force they should put in as much research into making sure they are right about what they are doing as they do on the tactical side. In this instance, the person making the threats had a legal address in the same town that was not this address that they raided. Maybe he was posting anonymous, but I can't imagine why the article would not include that if that were in fact the case. And if the possibility that elderly people could have unsecured wifi escapes an entire cities police department in 2014, I would suspect that maybe some additional training could be required.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Boy, this just keeps getting crazier. Multiple reports of residents being fed up with looters, saying they're not Ferguson residents and are just taking advantage of the situation. Also, armed residents are now defending their stores. We could have residents vs. looters vs. police if this keeps up.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Boy, this just keeps getting crazier. Multiple reports of residents being fed up with looters, saying they're not Ferguson residents and are just taking advantage of the situation. Also, armed residents are now defending their stores. We could have residents vs. looters vs. police if this keeps up.

Situations like these seem to turn into a "vacation" destination for thugs more and more now, burning and looting others communities while making the local population, which now seems to be showing restraint, look like idiots.

A kind of criminals capitalism if you will, pretty fucking sad.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Dola

Person shooting video unknowingly captures eyewitness account moments after shooting that matches account given by friend of officer who shot Michael Brown.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/1686...uson-shooting/

[Dutch]

Well, that's a fairly significant piece of information there if true.

[Desnudo]

Can some translate what "dumpin on" means in that context?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Can some translate what "dumpin on" means in that context?

I took that to mean "firing rounds at/toward"

Urban dictionary agrees, and is even more specific, the unloading of an entire clip
(the definition was supplied in 2010, so it's not planted to match this story)

Urban Dictionary: dumping

[Solecismic]

Things are never as clear as they appear to be.

If these are both testimonies given by sources that have no connection with each other, and there's no way that the friend's testimony could have been given with knowledge of this recording, it is a potential game-changer. I don't know. Tampering is always possible, given some time. But something on that level would require a lot of cooperation and organization. People talk.

I just hope the two forensic reports agree. I assume, with Holder in charge, the federal one is the one people are more likely to trust if it's consistent with the police account. If this account is real, then there won't be unexplainable entry wounds in his back.

If this is true, and we still don't know a lot, Brown's friend is responsible for a remarkable amount of damage to his community.

I agree with the concept that we need to outfit all police patrols with decent recording devices. Surely in this day and age that isn't a back-breaking expense. At the very minimum, a VAR (voice-activated recorder) should be standard.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Surely in this day and age that isn't a back-breaking expense.

from an article (that actually advocates camera use/installation)

In New York City, the cameras could cost $450 to $900 a piece. That could add up to $32 million for the entire New York City Police Department

On the opposite end of the municipal spectrum, that tiny little town I lived in before moving here just disbanded their police force entirely (turning enforcement over to the county sheriff) because they're bordering on bankruptcy as a city.

[larrymcg421]

The person who live tweeted mentioned two shots in the back, then the remaining after Brown turned around. His account certainly didn't make it sound like Brown was running at the cop.

[Solecismic]

OK. But can we afford not to make this change? The status quo means a large segment of the population simply doesn't trust the police. And there's good reason why that lack of trust exists.

In the "old" days, good police knew their beats, got their feet on the ground, used the opportunity to really talk to people hanging out in their neighborhoods. Today, the only times you talk to the police in most neighborhoods are when they're unhappy with you.

It's either find a way to get police into neighborhoods on a more positive basis, which means tens of thousands of new cops and a lot more than $32 million for New York, or it's this more formal approach, where if there's a complaint, someone can review a tape and make it public. At this point, I think the latter approach makes more sense. Then, in time, everyone will have more trust in their interactions with police.

Fundamentally, I trust the police. But I can understand why many don't. The status quo really doesn't work for many communities, especially where there are a lot of minority people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that the cops aren't there to help.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

OK. But can we afford not to make this change? The status quo means a large segment of the population simply doesn't trust the police. And there's good reason why that lack of trust exists.

Compared to what (i.e. what are you not funding if you spend on this)? If you're awash in cash, have at it. If it's at the expense of, strictly for example, adequate equipment for officers -- or additional taxation on the productive members of a community -- then it's unjustifiable afaic.

But I can understand why many don't.

I do to. Whether those reasons reflect more on the police or on the unhappy part of society is where we differ.

[JPhillips]

How about we stop locking up so many non-violent drug offenders and use some of the savings to pay for cameras?

[molson]

Even the small departments in my jurisdiction have audio devices recording everything. I haven't heard whether there was anything like that here, but that could help some.

Video's even better, but only the state police and maybe 1 or 2 of the biggest counties in my jurisdiction already have those, and only mounted on the patrol cars. Officers and attorneys and judges want them though. It's hard enough to analyze suppression issues and such when you have every word recorded. When you add the extra level of imperfect memories and testimony sorting things out months later, some things can be just impossible to sort out.

Edit: There are some privacy concerns, but that can all be sorted out with appropriate state legislation. Like if you call the police for help and they come to your home, any video of that encounter would be a public record, except for the time that there's an active criminal case. But you could easily pass legislation to limit that kind of thing.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How about we stop locking up so many non-violent drug offenders and use some of the savings to pay for cameras?

While we're at it, let's throw in legalized weed tax revenue.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How about we stop locking up so many non-violent drug offenders and use some of the savings to pay for cameras?

It's more complicated than that. The police and department of corrections don't have any say about what sentences people get. Even though they tend to get the blame for everything. The Director of the Department of Corrections in my state briefly tried to push a "zero growth" slogan - as in zero growth of the prison population. But it was really just a wish, there's nothing he could do. State legislatures have to either reduce the number of police officers (and some communities do have WAY too many police officers) and let more crimes go un-prosecuted, or impose lower maximum sentences to limit courts' discretion.

Legalizing weed helps a little but nearly as much as people think. There are not a lot of marijuana-only drug traffickers serving time in state prisons. Even in my state which probably has the most harsh marijuana laws in the country, marijuana-only traffickers get probation. The stats on those things tend to be really skewed, you really have to get to the source data and how they're defining things. Depending on the study, Anybody serving time on a drug case is considered "non-violent", even if they're ALSO serving time for violent crimes, or for trafficking harder drugs. Anybody serving time on a marijuana sentence is considered someone "in prison for marijuana", even if they're ALSO serving time for other crimes, or if they violated their marijuana probation by committing some other crime. We can definitely still do better here, and everybody says they want to reduce the prison populations, but nobody with actual power to do so seems to act on that very often. (If it was up to me, I'd reduce maximum sentences across the board for many crimes, but, for whatever reasons, state legislatures are generally unwilling to do that - even when the state correction agency recommends it.)

Edit: And at the federal level I'd get rid of all minimum sentences for drug cimes, but that's not really as big an issue in my state, where courts can sentence probation on most drug crimes, but often choose not too. And of course, probation and real rehabilitation efforts are pointless unless there's some mechanism for having your probation revoked if you don't comply with the rules of probation. That's the trickiest part of the whole thing to me. In my state we have rehabilitation-focused drug courts, which many people have been very successful on, but there's always people who just can't or won't comply with those kinds of things, and those are the ones that tend to fill up the jails and prisons. Maybe the best solution fiscally would be to just cut them off and cut them loose, and the loss of the free rehab and treatment is the punishment instead of jail....but we're not quite there yet to where that's realistic. The state doesn't have a magic wand to cure addiction, and they don't have the will yet to just ignore it and let these people go kill themselves. It's like with mental health - the criminal justice system provides the opportunity for the state to have jurisdiction over people, to require treatment, to require accountability with that treatment

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How about we stop locking up so many non-violent drug offenders and use some of the savings to pay for cameras?

I'm fine with not locking them up, they should have been executed as the scourges on society they are long ago. Perhaps our greatest failure as a society is to have tried to mollycoddle them in the first place. Had we eliminated them in the 60s when it became so en vogue (and yes, I do realize there is history prior to that) then we would be in exponentially better shape in this country.

[Solecismic]

Jon, it's hard to have a discussion when you're advocating this kind of position. Yes, drug addiction is a burden on society. But people do stupid things, and those who do stupid things and don't cause others harm shouldn't have to pay for it with their lives.

Long sentences for first-time drug offenders is a problem with the system. I don't see the value to society of any sentence longer than the time it takes to get the drug out of your system, as long as no other crime was committed.

Also, if we legalize and tax the crap out of marijuana, it might solve some budget problems.