Slashdot Mirror
Police Complaints Drop 93 Percent After Deploying Body Cameras (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader writes:A study from Cambridge University documents an immense drop in complaints against police officers when their departments began using body cameras. But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not. The data was collected in seven police departments, and represents over 1.4 million hours logged by 1,847 officers in 2014 and 2015; the researchers published their data last week in the journal Criminal Justice and Behavior. Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters. The authors used complaints against police as a metric because they're easy to measure, an established practice in most police forces and give a good ballpark of the frequency of problematic behavior. In the year before the study, 1,539 complaints in total were filed against officers; at the end of the body camera experiment, the year had only yielded 113 complaints.
So you don't think that just perhaps the officers wearing cameras were behaving better knowing they were being recorded?
It seems to me that to place all of the blame on one side is rather narrow minded of you.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
This whole police brutality bullshit is simply bullshit.
The brutality part isn't but the racial aspect is. Just to gin up the black vote and rile the lefty base. We won't hear anymore about it in the news after the election.
When I saw this earlier, I wondered if it's A) the small group of inherently bad cops curbing their bad behavior now that they are being monitored; or B) fewer [perceived] opportunities for dishonestly reported complaints. I imagine it is some combination of the two.
...when everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal.
Police cameras — good. Red-light cameras — bad...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This seems obvious, but would it work on sys-admins?
How about tech-support persons?
The most important thing is the end of the article.
"Specifics on how exactly this is happening are unclear. Is the officer less confrontational to begin with, avoiding escalation? Or are suspects and complainants more wary of their conduct? Is it some combination of the two, or are even more factors involved? To determine these things would be a far more complex and subtle piece of research, but the study does suggest that officer behavior is probably the most affected, and that other effects flow from that."
Someone already said it is the people acting better or making less complaints because they think they may be on camera. I am certain someone is writing, it means the police are behaving themselves.
I would guess (not scientific) that most of the drop in complaints are because people realize they might be caught on camera and acting better or not lieing to try and get a lawsuit. I am certain there are some police that are acting better as there are bad apples, but I would guess the drop is probably 10%/90% with the 90% being the people changing behavior as opposed to the police office.
- Stupid behavior by the public
- Stupid behavior by the police force
- Stupid and frivolous complaints
- Random appearances of Big Foot
- Slowing down the implementation of police state where all activity is monitored
- Non-compliance with Privacy Laws
Police don't want to be filmed doing dumb shit.
Citizens stop acting like jackasses when they too are being filmed.
Situations don't escalate as frequently.
While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
In fact, that would be the simplest way.
In order to believe that those not filed would have been mostly frivolous, it would mean that the would-be complainers would be very aware of the body cameras. I'd wager that the only party that is very aware of the body camera most of the time is the officer.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Pretty much what I was thinking. Fewer complaints because they know they would be in the wrong....
Keep the politicians, treasurers, citizens and media happy at a fraction of the cost.
The goal was to be able to prove how everyone one was acting in the situation so that way when conduct was brought up in court there very hard to dispute evidence one way or another. Therefor for an intelligent individual the logical conclusion is to behave in a way that is respectable, so as to have the best outcome in a court of law.
Convictions and and plea deals change A LOT with body cameras. Before, you put someone in a suit and train them to say "Yes Sir/No Sir" in front of the judge. Then give the judge and everyone else the dog and pony show of how he's an A student and wants to start a business taking care of puppies. This trick doesn't work so well when there is video of a raving lunatic high on drugs taking swings at the cops.
Like others have said, it is hard to tell if the reduction in complaints come from the police officers being on their best behavior when they wear body cameras or if it's simply harder for the complainants to fake an accusation. It's very possible that both of these are significant factors.
It seems that body cameras are a hit, though one possible snag immediately comes to mind. Cameras are replacing trust in police officers, and trust in the servants of the law is a very good thing. It correlates directly to trust in the other branches of government and a healthy democracy.
That is not to say that body cameras are bad, I think they are an absolutely positive step. Just keep in mind that building respect for the judicial institution is also a worthwhile goal.
Too many folks are treating this problem as though it were binary; it's all the cops fault, or it's all the suspect's faults.
The problem is more nuanced than that. In part it's an ignorant and entitled public who think they can act like little shits and endanger others because of feelings. On the other, you have officers trained in what seem to be brutal methods but are, in fact are designed to minimize harm by controlling the situation. This works out mostly in the public's favor, although they'll never realize it.
You do have a few bad eggs, as with any profession. The untrained, the illsuited or the downright malicious. However, I'd suggest that these folks account for a small percentage of officers.
If it were just the first two factors, the problem could be relatively simply solved. The problem is that politicians get involved, folks who have a vested interest in making sure that the problem never gets solved. Thus, we end up where we are.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
We've put cameras everywhere. People now routinely carry them in their pockets. We have not photographed Bigfoot. We have no video of aliens. The existence of the Loch Ness monster is not a proven fact.
We have hours and hours of video of corrupt cops. We have video of cops shooting unarmed people. We have video of cops beating unarmed people. We have video of people being arrested and phones being smashed simply because cops believed they were being filmed.
Yes, when cops carry cameras, and their activities are recorded, and they know this, and they can not turn them off, their behavior changes. For the better.
I think just having 2 data points (last year vs this year) is insufficient to imply causation. Especially given the drastic results and how it was uncorrelated with police actually having them on. I suspect the police department changed accounting policies (what classifies as a "complaint") or otherwise changed something that is unrelated to the body cameras. I didn't read the article though~
Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior. Perhaps even the officers cognizant of things and simply applied what they learned, that is, when they're not being a douche they have a better day at work.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
..but would 90+% of the population realize this before filing a complaint?
Usually it is brutality causing a feedback of intensity. The police man stops a guy, he is tense, that makes the policeman tense, which makes the guy defensive, which make the policeman to be more aggressive, that makes the guy feeling like he will need to fight to protect himself, which causes the policeman to fight back... With this feedback loop someone will cross the line first.
Having the camera, makes the guy less defensive, as he knows if something does happen to him there will be evidence, and the same with the policeman. Which desculates the feedback loop, as it puts a gap in the emotional response, knowing whoever crosses the line first will be the one who loses.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So you don't think that just perhaps the officers wearing cameras were behaving better
Did you read TFA? Or the summary? Complaints against the police went down. So the police were behaving better, or perhaps there were fewer false complaints.
It seems to me that to place all of the blame on one side is rather narrow minded of you.
The summary says "everyone" behaved better, and does specifically blame either side. TFA implies that police behavior changed.
Specifics on how exactly this is happening are unclear. Is the officer less confrontational to begin with, avoiding escalation? Or are suspects and complainants more wary of their conduct? Is it some combination of the two, or are even more factors involved? To determine these things would be a far more complex and subtle piece of research, but the study does suggest that officer behavior is probably the most affected, and that other effects flow from that.
It's a possibility. However, it goes against everything we know about how people work. Implied habitual behaviors, shared by a dept, radically changing virtually overnight is unlikely. In the extreme.
Even if you had one or two statistical outliers who did modify their behaviors in such a way, you'd have far more who get tripped up and shit would get on camera.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
see http://www.wral.com/new-nc-bod...
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Whose to say behavior changing during the interaction is the main reason for the difference. Maybe people are less likely to file BS complaints when they know the interaction is on video.
You're confusing ineffectual political policies with whether or not there is an actual problem.
Democrats lack the courage to take on the police corruption, it's doubtful that even prison de-privatization will happen, let alone other needed reform.
While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.
Assuming that officers worked in pairs and given that the cameras were randomly assigned, any given team will not have a camera only 25% of the time.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Which election? This shit has been going on for years... it's not just about the current US presidential election.
When we start seeing videos on YouTube of white people being tased to death, or shot way too many times or in the back or both, or being choked to death while being unarmed and non-hostile, then you can claim this has no racial component to it.
Another officer on the scene might have a camera.
The behavior already changed radically and virtually overnight. The only matter up for debate is why.
Wanna blow a conservative's mind?
Most Police are Union members.
could very well be true. It is difficult to behave like an angel only when camera is on so when change of behaviour is done it is done globally and not only for weeks with camera.. Does not work for all probably and there are some that have to work hard to not be an arse. Looking from another perspective most of police officers joined the force not only to earn their bread and butter but also to do what police officers are expected to do and cameras just enforce good behaviour they aspire to have anyway but fail because they are 'tired' etc. The interesting part of it would be if the change is constant over the years.
I find it difficult to attribute a preponderance of the change onto the public. The individuals who might have normally filed a complaint would have no inclination to not file a complaint when the officer in question was not wearing a camera.
If the reduction in complaints matched the likely hood that a camera was involved, sure, I'd agree that the numbers track. I find it far more likely that the officers, knowing there's a chance that someone is recording (themselves, their partner, or another unit that shows up) are acting on their best behavior in all cases and thsi have a larger impact on the overall results.
The two factors together are likely what is influencing the outcomes.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
The behavior change stays when off camera for a simple reason: knowledge that data comparison can be used against you.
Officer john wears the camera one week and gets 3 complaints. Next week he doesn't wear the camera and gets 30 complaints. It's safe to infer he behaves like an asshole when off-camera, so, to counter that, he is NOT an asshole even when not wearing the camera.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
While we're basking in the glow of the decrease in complaints against police, let's not lose sight of the fact that the paternalistic hand of body-cam surveillance is simply treating a symptom, not the disease that causes it. If our society's overall psychological health were such that citizens weren't routinely afraid of and/or abusive of police, and police didn't routinely brutalize minor criminals and even innocent citizens, then body cameras wouldn't be necessary. When good behaviour, respect, and mutual tolerance can only be guaranteed when "someone's watching", then we live in an immature and ailing culture. We need to address that problem; police body cameras are a dirty band-aid on a wound that ultimately requires disinfectant, stitches, antibiotics, and time to heal.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
unlike the police who keep getting caught in lies about what actually happened by bystander cameras?
Pretty much what I was thinking. Fewer complaints because they know they would be in the wrong....
Or MUCH more likely, the police behaved themselves better because they were being watched. The police know they have cameras. It's unlikely most people interacting with police were aware of the cameras. Most logical conclusion is that the police started minding their manners when on camera. Better behaved police = fewer complaints.
Blacks are shot by police in excess when compared to their % of population, but less than would be expected based on their % of violent criminal population.
Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Actually it suggests it is down to officer behaviour. All the police had cameras at some point during a study, and the reduction in complaints happened to both police with an active camera and those without.
In an encounter with a policeman who doesn't have a camera the only difference between new encounters and those from before the study is the officers knowledge of the study and previous experiences wearing a camera. The people on the street will have no knowledge of the bodycams or that they have been in use, and with no camera present their behaviour will be the same as pre-study.
The fact that complaints dropped even with no camera present (but with the officers knowledge that it's a possibility and possible experience wearing one) suggests that wearing a body camera enforces good policing and that this effect lingers after the cameras are removed.
The first time this statistic was calculated (for some rich CA coastal town) the 'cop suckers' claimed the same thing. Problem was: they hadn't told anybody but the cops.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The MSM will just edit out the parts that don't follow the narrative like they did in Charlotte NC recently and in August in Milwaukee MN. Gotta make sure the police saying "Drop the gun!!!" 12 times in 38 seconds doesn't get in the way of mob hysteria, right? And "burn down the suburbs instead!" just doesn't go along with the "peace in the city" in a grieving sister's message.
I mean, who are you going to believe? The media or your lying eyes and ears?
little does he know the camera has been "accidentally" turned off, and the escalation was planned from before the flashers even lit.
[maybe it's] Fewer [bogus] complaints because they know they would be [detected to be] in the wrong....
Or MUCH more likely, the police behaved themselves better because they were being watched [and knew the cameras were there even if the people they interacted with did not].
I don't really care how much of it is formerly bad-behaving policemen avoiding the harassment of civilians and how much is bad-behaving civilians avoiding the filing fake harassment reports to inconvenience and deflect the attention of properly-behaving officers. BOTH are improvements.
And a 93% improvement of the aggregate is FANTASTIC!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I would say it's a mix of all of the above. Not all cops are assholes and the public are angels. Each has it's share of bad apples. I've seen my fare share of videos where people antagonize police for a reaction.
It is in everyone's best interest for law enforcement officers to wear body cams. It's a win/win. They should be mandatory for any officer that engages with any citizen, in any situation, in my opinion. After watching countless marathons of cop videos on youtube I feel bad for the ludicrous chaos that cops have to put up with. The majority of the time; a body cam saves the cop from a lying accusation.
If I were a cop I would want one just to cover my own ass. Hell I would youtube every recording if I was allowed. Actually there are cops on youtube that have quite a following...especially the pretty female officers. They have their own cop youtube community. I'm all for it, we need to support cops not demonize them.
I just read that due to fear of the police, and a belief they won't help you anyhow --- calls to 911 are down drastically too.
Apparently being nice is good for business. Or being really brutal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
Most? Who isn't?
Want to blow a SJW's mind?
All the police departments with the BLM-related accusations and riots are run by Democrats, who also run the mayor's office, etc.. Most are also heavily black police forces, which is why it keeps being black cops being accused of racist behavior in some of these BLM "incidents".
The reason most police are union members is also related... their bosses love their union political contributors/supporters and the police are required to join in order to work in left-wing run cities.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Are you kidding, the escalation was planned from the day of application to the academy. Only the crafty ones get through with that agenda in mind, though - there are actually psych profiles that filter out the worst of the "gonna crack me some heads" abused children looking for payback.
Agreed. Very few people (police included) wake up and say "I want to be a jerk today, escalate lots of situations, get complaints filed against me, and be in a bad mood all day 'cos I didn't abuse someone enough."
Once they see being reasonable, and taking the professional stance, works as well or better than abusing the other person, they internalize the new behavior pretty fast. They probably go home feeling more professional and happier, camera or no camera.
The increase in accidents is less dangerous relatively slow speed rear end collisions, while
side on higher speed, and so more deadly, rates go down.
While can't you people on your side of the pond keep your distance with the person in front of you ?
Most driving code/law require the driver to keep enough braking distance in front.
(If you can't stop suddenly, then it's your fault than you didn't leave enough distance to be able to / weren't attentive enough).
---
Said as someone who drives mostly in northern Europe
---
Yes, I know, the situation is quite different in southern France or Italy.
---
And anyway the whole point is quickly becoming moot as most European car constructors are not only providing anti-collision assisting technology, but even putting them in standard configuration (the *whole* VW fleets is equipped with there beast. Even the punny little "Up!" has a LIDAR).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I thought police unions *WERE* the biggest argument the right has against unions?
Because making sure those nurses aren't understaffed and working 60 hour weeks lets them get their kids into college, and keeps patients from dying to grave errors.
No, Police and Firefighter both use unions because they know they work. Who do you think provides legal support to officers when they get in trouble? The unions do. Who negotiates and threatens when a officer's job is on the line? The union.
But since they are authoritarians, they will vote conservative.
But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not.
Sounds like this is less about the cameras reducing shenanigans and more about the two parties not wanting to become the next "officer shot an unarmed suspect" news story. So it's more a change in behavior due to current political climate.
Your implied assertion ("A") that it's a small group of inherently bad cops is both flawed and wholly unsubstantiated.
The fact that there are *daily* reports from all over the country of cops abusing their authority in various ways and being caught engaging in criminal acts themselves debunks your assumption.
Policing problems in the USA are institutional. The personnel issues are symptoms of the larger sickness. Body camera deployments here bear out my contention: how many incidents of violent police behaviors have we seen recently where the cop "forgot" to turn on his recorder? How many incidents where recordings were captured, but the police refuse to release the raw footage to the public?
Anyone actually interested in providing police accountability through these would have mandated that individual officers have no control over the recorder's operation, and stipulated that failure to wear the device properly would have resulted in suspension or termination depending on what was "missed." They also would have demanded that raw footage be held securely in escrow by a non-LE third-party. That neither of these very basic parameters were even discussed, much less required, should tell you all you need to know about what a charade this truly is.
Alternately: while being polite for the week with the camera on, he realized there is a better way to interact with people, and it gets better results.
I doubt many police like getting tons of complaints, so he was happier when his complaint count went down.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We've put cameras everywhere. People now routinely carry them in their pockets. We have not photographed Bigfoot. We have no video of aliens. The existence of the Loch Ness monster is not a proven fact.
On the other hand there was convincing evidence of Bishopville South Carolina's lizard man caught on camera in the last couple of years.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
The whole thing is a ginned up controversy created to get black people to go out and vote in the same numbers they did for Obama. The side effects are a significantly increased murder rate and rates of violent crime in urban areas...and the reduction in 911 calls that you point out.
The interesting part is that I am not sure that it is going to accomplish its intended goal. But we'll have the blowback for years to come.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
You forgot the /sarc
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
"Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'."
What about the statistic that minorities are stopped, ticketes or incarcerated at much higher rates for the same non-violent offenses?
Is that racist? Against whom?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
It's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!
Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior.
Unless they also received nicotine as a result of wearing the camera, I'm going to vote for successful operant conditioning.
Otherwise, no one would swear in the vicinity of a visible "swear jar".
Nothing to do with violent crime rates. Unless you believe cops under investigate violent crimes with white victims.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Officer john wears the camera one week and gets 3 complaints. Next week he doesn't wear the camera and gets 30 complaints. It's safe to infer he behaves like an asshole when off-camera, so, to counter that, he is NOT an asshole even when not wearing the camera.
An alternate explanation would be that people don't make as many false complaints when there's video evidence available.
On the other hand there was convincing evidence of Bishopville South Carolina's lizard man caught on camera in the last couple of years.
Ummm...that was Hillary on the campaign trail...
"Nothing to do with violent crime rates"
So? It have everything to do with incarceration rates. And many, of any race, who were locked up for non-violent crimes go on to commit violent ones.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Officer john wears the camera one week and gets 3 complaints. Next week he doesn't wear the camera and gets 30 complaints. It's safe to infer he behaves like an asshole when off-camera, so, to counter that, he is NOT an asshole even when not wearing the camera.
An alternate explanation would be that people don't make as many false complaints when there's video evidence available.
Likely, but complaints dropped even when the officer wasn't wearing a camera: "But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not... Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters."
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
The police also know that they're participating in a study involving wearing these cameras and may have been on their best behavior because they knew that they were being observed. Maybe their superiors told them to be on their best behavior because the number of complaints against them was being closely investigated.
Maybe they were on their best behavior when not wearing the cameras because they wanted to spoil any correlation between their good behavior and wearing the cameras, but it was instead interpreted as the cameras having a more pervasive influence.
It's hard to properly blind the participants in this study, so it's hard to account for all of the unexpected influences.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
I'm sure there's a fair amount of people out there who also made spurious complaints against the police, and if recorded wouldn't make that complaint as well.
I don't think the bad behaviour leading to complaints is entirely on one side - I'm fairly certain that the cameras cut down on naughty police behaviour and also on false claims by the non-police.
To be honest - there are some pretty strong arguments to wear the camera by "good" cops, in that it serves to protect them from bad people.
..........FULL STOP.
Are you suggesting that blacks cannot, as a rule, be racist against blacks?
Also, from the police officer's point of view, there is basically no such thing as an unarmed person, because the can always go for the officer's gun.
I bet this is where the "hate the sin, not the sinner" cliche comes from. :-)
Likely, but complaints dropped even when the officer wasn't wearing a camera: "But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not... Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters."
It is also possible that even though an officer was not wearing a camera, they were on their best behavior for fear that another officer who was wearing a camera might show up to assist and capture their bad behavior.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
Likely, but complaints dropped even when the officer wasn't wearing a camera: "But even more surprising is that the data suggests everyone is on their best behavior whether the cameras are present or not... Officers were randomly assigned to wear or not wear cameras week by week (about half would be wearing them any given week), and had to keep them on during all encounters."
So... how exactly does the average perp (who isn't exactly a cyberpunk hacker-type dude) actually know if there was or wasn't a camera present? Probably wouldn't.
It's also highly likely that once reaching jail, said perp would likely try to lodge a complaint, whereupon the jailer would simply say "you know they're wearing body cameras nowadays, right?" This would cause said perp to drop the complaint, knowing that if it were all recorded, his story would most likely carry little-to-no water.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The article states that there was about a 50% chance of an officer wearing a camera, but no mention if officers were paired up. In that case it could be that one officer had a camera and the other didn't, both officers were on their best behavior because at least one of them was recording at all times.
Then there are also times when officers run into each other on the beat or multiple officers report out when an incident is called in, which means that again at least one officer has a recording of the incident.
So unless the coverage is below a certain ratio the officers were conditioned to expect they would be caught on camera if they acted out. Of course this also goes for the students as well.
Why not? The officer on an "off" week is simply performing the habituated alternate behavior. Perhaps even the officers cognizant of things and simply applied what they learned, that is, when they're not being a douche they have a better day at work.
Or people see the body cam (and know the cars have front cameras) and know they can't file a bullshit complaint against an officer.
Which would only be relevant if blacks were only shot when suspected of a violent crime.
The police also know that they're participating in a study involving wearing these cameras and may have been on their best behavior because they knew that they were being observed. Maybe their superiors told them to be on their best behavior because the number of complaints against them was being closely investigated.
Maybe they were on their best behavior when not wearing the cameras because they wanted to spoil any correlation between their good behavior and wearing the cameras, but it was instead interpreted as the cameras having a more pervasive influence.
It's hard to properly blind the participants in this study, so it's hard to account for all of the unexpected influences.
Superiors? I'd say a notice went out to the entire country to stop being assholes or your name will be in the news. This study also occurred long before all these riots and BLM.
In fact, that would be the simplest way.
In order to believe that those not filed would have been mostly frivolous, it would mean that the would-be complainers would be very aware of the body cameras. I'd wager that the only party that is very aware of the body camera most of the time is the officer.
Most people aren't aware that a good portion of cops don't have body and dashboard cameras. People are starting to assume everyone is equipped with one.
Ahhh... sometimes I like to believe in the good of humanity as well.
"Now is where SJWs yell that % of criminal population is a 'racist statistic'."
What about the statistic that minorities are stopped, ticketes or incarcerated at much higher rates for the same non-violent offenses? Is that racist? Against whom?
If the city, town or state is a majority of minorities you're going to be hard pressed to find statistics that show Caucasians being stopped more than minorities. When they did the Ferguson study that said the Police department was targeting AA's they forget to include that African Americans were 70% of the town's population.
Tell that to the dead
What a timeline to live in where fighting for social justice is frowned on.
We've put cameras everywhere. People now routinely carry them in their pockets. We have not photographed Bigfoot. We have no video of aliens. The existence of the Loch Ness monster is not a proven fact.
Yeah, it's scared me and my buddies to much that we've become shut-ins and our alien friends took their prankster probing over to the next inhabited world.
Thanks a lot,
Mr. Foot
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I read the summary and my first thought was how they weren't really taking into account the cameras effect properly.
If I am a cop, I have a 50% chance of getting a camera.
My partner also has 50% chance of getting a camera.
So there is a 75% chance we won't be able get away with anything while we are together.
Plus cops don't hate all blacks (sorry BLM), they just hate the ones who piss them off/run away/are in big crowds/etc. A lot of these scenarios are the same ones that they call for backup on, so now in the cases where a cop is most likely to want to kick a little extra ass, they have a car coming with another 75% chance of getting them on video...so they have to wait and see who is in the other car and if they have cameras.
You now have 4 cops and the chance that none of them have a camera is 6.25% (or a 93.75% chance they will have at least one camera)
I think that is the point. The officers are in know enough know exactly when they are being recorded. And yet we do not see any statistical anomalies that show that they act differently. But all the criminals likely know is that some big body-cam roll out happened last year and everything is not being recorded. It is likely how everyone drives slower because their might be a cop around the next corner. In this situation, it is exactly because their is never any change that outcome that primary change must of been in the behavior of the criminals.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Filtering out the psychos during application would work, except that the Stanford prison experiment showed us that even if you put psychologically healthy people in police roles, they get abusive.
You don't have to believe, you just have to draw eyes on the wall...
Wired
New Scientist
Scientific American
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
The vast majority of officers are doing their jobs with no illegal behavior. There is always going to be those bad actors in any department. The majority of the complaints against officers though is very likely to drop for a few simple reasons. The fact that the smarter bad actor officers that were skirting the law are cognizant of the chance of getting caught by said camera now modifying their behavior. The public, now aware that their interactions with officers as well are also being recorded, are not willing to take the chance that they will be found out to be reporting behavior by the officer that simply didn't happen. This is an almost daily happening for departments that have patrolling officers in the inner cities. Most are unfounded and are simply an attempt to get out of a ticket or an arrest. IE: They are trying to game the system. A third reason is that it is very likely that the officers are being far less proactive in their policing duties preferring to be dressed down for being less productive to being beefed, sued, or fired for even a minor infraction at this point. A fourth reason is that the public in these areas is initiating contact with law enforcement less often due to the irrational fear of possible police brutality now instilled in them by the press and their community leaders. Someone once said that "God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal" In this present day it is now the cameras making us equal.
Police stop beating the shit out of innocent people when they are wearing cameras, so complaints go down.
But if you want to blame that on the innocent people being "fucking out of control" that's fine. Blaming the victim is standard for some people.
Learn to love Alaska
The people already knew dash cams are there, and there's not a good correlation between those and civilian behavior, and the body cameras are not as obtrusive as you imply. Most people wouldn't see or notice them. They are just another bulge/lump on an officer's uniform.
Learn to love Alaska
True, but remember "the behavior" that changed is "people making complaints against police". This doesn't prove that the police's behavior changed, although it's circumstantially strong.
Milgram was the best, all it takes is an authority figure telling someone to be a monster and 9/10 will comply. The Blue Line is a logical extension - it's better to be a monster than to rat out your buddies, especially those in charge.
So... how exactly does the average perp (who isn't exactly a cyberpunk hacker-type dude) actually know if there was or wasn't a camera present? Probably wouldn't.
Most, but not all, of the body cameras are pretty obvious. People know what cameras look like.
I think that is the point. The officers are in know enough know exactly when they are being recorded. And yet we do not see any statistical anomalies that show that they act differently.
Other studies show that we do see a reduction in use of force incidents, which are recorded regardless of any complaint. So police are acting differently, either in not escalating encounters or not needing to escalate encounters (because people behave better around them).
But all the criminals likely know is that some big body-cam roll out happened last year and everything is not [sic] being recorded. It is likely how everyone drives slower because their [sic] might be a cop around the next corner. In this situation, it is exactly because their [sic] is never any change that outcome [??] that primary change must of been in the behavior of the criminals.
Your poorly expressed speculation is as good as mine, but it seems odd that the criminal communications network manages to inform all of the many drunks, hoodlums, and generalized ne'er-do-wells, but forgets to tell them that the camera is a big hulking box with a camera lens or a super-obvious camera on the side of their head.
Likewise, UFO sightings also dropped by over 93% now that virtually everyone is carrying a camera in their phone.
It is amazing what real evidence can do.
How does that suggest a shift away from the officers when the officers are the ones most cognizant of the change in the state of affairs?
Except the complaints still went down when there was no camera. Also, the police officer would be the one most aware there was a camera at any given time.
Except the behavior of everyone else changing is even more unlikely.
Nope. They controlled for that, and more importantly, the big issues in the Ferguson report were the police and court systems other conduct. :www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
Says that 67% of the population had a disproportionate amount of arrests and charges, but even then, the specific conduct was troubling.
which could be solved very quickly with a simple reg that no city would have the stones to make.
In any and all cases where a camera has been issued to the officer
1 the officer shall do a functional check of said camera before each shift and shall get the camera replaced if it does not function (to include a check of any and all storage devices) before leaving the issuing area.
2 if any complaints are filed or a reportable incident occurs and the resulting recording is missing or otherwise corrupt then the courts shall find for the civilian (and all materials belonging to the civilian shall be returned intact or replaced).
Im not sure if the language is correct exactly but no vid then
A the officer loses any case
B Free GOJF card for somebody that gets arrested
Agreed. Very few people (police included) wake up and say "I want to be a jerk today, escalate lots of situations, get complaints filed against me, and be in a bad mood all day 'cos I didn't abuse someone enough."
Judging by US schools, I disagree. There are tens of thousands of people who do precisely that. I strongly doubt all of them stopped when they got a little older, either.
I see an AC has already responded to you but let me add a comment since I've recently found some reports about New York City's stop & frisk.
Data archives for 2003 - 2015 are at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/h...
Out of 5 MILLION stops in ~12 years, 25% were young black men but they make up NOT EVEN TWO PERCENT of NYC's population.
The percentage of stops annually where the suspect was found to be innocent was never below 75% and usually above 85%
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The cameras work both ways.
If the cops are being brutal, the camera catches it, and they're screwed, Now if people false report the cops, the cameras also catches it, and the false reporter is screwed.
It's kinda a Win-Win scenario here.
So... how exactly does the average perp (who isn't exactly a cyberpunk hacker-type dude) actually know if there was or wasn't a camera present? Probably wouldn't.
The University of Cambridge press release (read that instead of the Techcrunch report) says:
Well, the Feds are stopping the use of private prisons, under Obama's presidency. What do you mean?
Uh, yeah. And then they drum the "We're fighting a war" rhetoric into them and have them train with Israeli police. These current-day institutions share a lot of the blame; they are called militarized for a reason.
Many people have difficulty "doing the right thing" while nobody is watching. This is why we invented God and body-cams, no behaviour change required, just make them believe they are being watched by someone more powerful than themselves and they will act accordingly.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
While I'll grant you that the data can be explained by competing theories, in this case only half the officers had cameras on. That certainly suggests that it's not limited to officer behavior.
Police rarely go into situations alone. If 50% of police are wearing cameras it often means that the situation in question is being recorded by someone. That may be enough of a deterrent to greatly reduce routine beatings and the resulting 'cover charges' at the very least. Those guys are addicted to violence but it isn't a literal addiction. They can go without it for a while until their little masochistic brains can figure out a way to continue their behavior with less risk. Never forget that police are mostly cowards. So it is not that hard to deter them with simple measures.
Very few people have the balls or are crazy enough to actively confront a police officer, especially in the US. Very, very few. And for that tiny percentage of crazy/violent people I don't think body cams are going to be a much greater discouragement than batons, tazers, pepper spray and a Glock with a hair trigger. I think we need a little common sense here.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
But that's fair because I'm a racist.
People are trying to paint this as black and white, as with everything else. In reality, both the police and the suspects probably have a hand in the statistics change. Sure, the officers are going to act proper now that they know video evidence may be used against them. However, now the suspects also cannot just claim mishandling/brutality/unprofessional behavior by the cops every time they are arrested. Until now, a great amount of claims were simply made up or grossly exaggerated. The cameras keep both parties in check.
Maybe they are reacting to their coworkers having cameras even when they don't.
The summary says "everyone" behaved better
Like when a rapist decides not to rape the girl wearing sexy clothes because he knows he will be recorded helps everyone 'behave better'.
Like when a lion is caged or tied up so he cannot chase the gazelle helps both the lion and the gazelle 'behave better'.
On the one hand you have a heavily armed, body armored group trained in the use of violence. On the other hand you often have a single individual with no weapons or training. A pack of wolves versus a single sheep. Hmm. Who should we give the credit to if the expected violence does not occur? I wonder.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The Stanford experiment only showed that if you put white, 18-25 year old, liberal university students in a position of authority then they become abusive.
However, now the suspects also cannot just claim mishandling/brutality/unprofessional behavior by the cops every time they are arrested. Until now, a great amount of claims were simply made up or grossly exaggerated.
Citation? How do you know this? It seems implausible to me.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Apparently recording the encounter encourage BOTH sides to be on their best behavior. Would having everybody wear google glasses make everybody in a society more polite?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Having the camera, makes the guy less defensive, as he knows if something does happen to him there will be evidence
Yeah. I am thinking this is not such a strong motivation for anyone who has had dealings with the police. Maybe he will get suspension with pay for shooting you in the face. Maybe if you are lucky it will be without pay. Although that seems unlikely.
Even if you are not killed all it really means is you may have a defense against false accusations and cover charges. People not afraid of the police usually haven't had much experience with them. Everyone else gives them a wide berth at all times. For good reason. They are dangerous. I'd sooner approach an angry rattlesnake than a cop in the US.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Evidence suggests that even black cops are prone to assuming black men are more dangerous than whites. Is that racism, inaccurate threat assessment, or accurate threat assessment?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The vast majority of officers are doing their jobs with no illegal behavior.
Do you personally know the 'vast majority of officers'? Or are you pulling that out of your ass?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
When we start seeing videos on YouTube of white people being tased to death, or shot way too many times or in the back or both, or being choked to death while being unarmed and non-hostile, then you can claim this has no racial component to it.
Actually most of the youtube videos I've seen have been of white people getting beaten or tazed. Like that 12 year old girl in Arizona or New Mexico or something getting tazered in the head a while back. The point actually penetrated her skull and punctured her brain.Just googled for it but there are so many similar cases it has been buried.
I did find an 8 year old girl who was tazered though and she wasn't black. But the most recent preteen tazered by our courageous police force is apparently a 12 year old black girl from St. Louis. Lucky our police have weapons or they would surely get wasted by preteen girls on a daily basis. In some places there just aren't enough black people to beat and murder. So they have to resort to beating/murdering white people too. Presumably not their first choice I'll admit, but I'm sure it still satisfies their bloodlust well enough and they go home well sated.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I think it comes down to emotions. People want to feel safe from violent cops. So they simply choose to believe that only a tiny percentage of them are violent or dangerous without really knowing either way. Most of them have had zero contact with real life police and only know what they see on TV and in movies which has almost nothing to do with how cops behave in the real world. This is also one reason jurists tend to choose the word of a cop over their victim when there is no evidence either way. They want to believe that most cops will not lie in court. So they do believe it. It's like magic.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I was told by a defense attorney that my state or maybe the city I was in used to have cruiser dashcams (which would have helped greatly in my case), but they were removed because statistically in court it tended to hurt the prosecution more than it did the defense. I guess someone did an analysis. Police routinely lie on the stand and any audio or video footage makes that much harder to do.
To anyone living in the real world this shouldn't be very surprising of course, but most people probably have had too little contact with real police officers to know this. There is a strong tendency for people to believe in the police image as portrayed in TV and film. But those people are actors who themselves don't really know what it is like to actually be a cop.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Most of the "unarmed civilian shot by cop" videos I see have the unarmed civilian being a black man and the cop being white.
Still, I think that even when a black cop shoots a black person, most people would call it racism -- even though SJWs have redefined the word "racism" to not apply to black people. I guess in that case they would say it's the "system" that's racist rather than the shooter?
dom
Because bullshit complaints against officers have been a rampant problem in the USA until now, far outweighing the problem of police behaving badly.
Several years ago, a police officer stopped a kid who was driving illegally (I don't remember what caused the cop to pull him over). The kid was driving without a license. The cop went with the kid to an apartment building the kid claimed as his residence, so he could get his license to show the cop. (i.e. the cop was being nice, and not just writing a ticket or hauling the kid in.) The kid fought with the cop in the foyer outside my brother's apartment, pulled the cop's gun and killed him with it.
There are a lot of questions about the cop's behavior in that story, but the bottom line is that cops have a valid concern if they feel that anyone who attacks them should be considered armed.
So why, when membership becomes no longer legally mandated by the government, public service union members stop paying dues and quit, resulting in dramatically lower membership?
Is that also because they find their union so useful to them?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
That's because it's not social justice, it's social "justice" based on the Oppression Olympics, a victimhood mentality, and identity politics. It's not based in facts or true justice.
Earlier this year, facebook decided that I was interested in violent cop videos and started spamming my feed with them.
I say spam because basically all of them was clearly jerks that was planning a setups to provoke cops so they could get some idiot video for the social favorite feed.
It went as far as me starting to mark these as spam and reported them. Facebooks investigation team however told me that I was wrong and kept sending that crap to my feed for a long time.
It clearly showed that the majority of complaints against cops are staged by idiots that think they are cool if they do their best to piss off the cops
Not at all. Cops tend to be authoritarian conservatives. D or R doesn't really matter. Conservatives are cheap asses. They will be the first to bitch about someone else getting something for free, but when it's their pocket book on the line, why buy the milk when they can get the cow for free? They're hypocrites which is also what you're trying to imply (but for different reasons). Your veracity in arguing against a pro-union AC and your leading line of questioning also makes it pretty obvious to me that my analysis applies to you as well. You believe your way is the right way to do something and the way you got (for instance) your promotion was through a fuck ton of late nights off the clock working while your kids got old without you, your "reputation", the amount of your personal sacrifice, the amount of ass you kissed, and you may have actually had to suck a real dick. You see the union members get their raises, promotions, and other benefits yearly on an automatic progression path without regard to how much ass they kissed or how many cocks they sucked. They get to go to little Cindy's recital and they can actually afford to take vacation. What a sane person would do is see that awesome job package the union people have and demand the same but authoritarians always want to take stuff away. If they can't have the toy, no one will. But what usually happens is they take said toy away, keep it, make sure no one else can have one and then wave it around to all the other kids so they can be "worshipped" for that cool toy they "worked" so hard to get.
No it isn't. It's circumstantial evidence that frivolous complaints are reduced.
Another possibility is that the public unsure as to whether the police were camered or not decided not to risk further jail time and behave themselves. I'm not saying that it's not the police's behavior just that it takes two to tango also these were British cops and though they by no means have a spotless record they are amongst the most highly regarded and reputable police forces in the world.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
I see an AC has already responded to you but let me add a comment since I've recently found some reports about New York City's stop & frisk.
Data archives for 2003 - 2015 are at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/h...
Out of 5 MILLION stops in ~12 years, 25% were young black men but they make up NOT EVEN TWO PERCENT of NYC's population.
The percentage of stops annually where the suspect was found to be innocent was never below 75% and usually above 85%
Choosing to stop more black men is not racist. As stated above, why wouldn't you stop someone (whatever race/gender/age) who is more likely to be guilty?
Regardless of the results, stop & frisk is blatantly unconstitutional. Same with DUI checkpoints.
Very "In Soviet Russia" of them.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Vampires wouldn't show up on camera. So, maybe the reason we don't see big foot is a vampire, feeling bad about feeding on humans, fed on big foot and turned him into a vampire.
Just sayin'...
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Wanna blow a liberal's mind? Use facts. You virtually have to belong to the union.
Even for an AC this comment is stupid. Deciding that someone is "more guilty" based on their appearance or ethnicity is the FUCKING DEFINITION OF RACAIL PROFILING. ......wait...for...it..RACIST
Which is
Also
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Wanna blow a conservative's mind?
Most Police are Union members.
Doesn't blow *my* conservative mind; I was in AFL-CIO (AFSCME), Teamsters and an independent group for twenty years as a correctional officer. But, of course, I'm only *one* anecdote. YMMV.
-- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
UK installed 1 million CCTVs for 62 million citizens
Casteism
So you don't think that just perhaps the officers wearing cameras were behaving better knowing they were being recorded?
It seems to me that to place all of the blame on one side is rather narrow minded of you.
Perhaps the public were better behaved, too. Knowing they were on camera.
No sig today...
GAH, I let my passion overwhelm my proofreading. Should be RACIAL not RACAIL
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
What you're describing might just be the best kind of fornication.
What happens is that someone will say that the cop may have had justification for screaming abuse and using a knife to cut away the screen he broke on the car door by something BEFORE the recording.
What COULD have justified his insane rage is never considered, but asserted as there nonetheless.
By that argument; Police shouldn't stop white bread suburban kids going into bad neighborhoods to buy drugs?
That is racial profiling too.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Having both family and friends in law enforcement as well as having worked in law enforcement for a short while I had extensive interaction with all manner of officers. There were a couple of sketchy officers but every other was a good man or woman and did a conscientious job. I have also been on the receiving end of the cops more times than I care to remember as a young man and not but a couple of times did they stray from the letter of the law in their dealings with me. So I would say that I have a better than average view into those doing the job, from both sides. So no that is not from "my ass" The tone of your response would lead me to believe that you think that the vast majority of those in law enforcement are on the take and out to do illegal stuff. If that is your assertion are you simply pulling that out of your ass?
By that argument; Police shouldn't stop white bread suburban kids going into bad neighborhoods to buy drugs?
That is racial profiling too.
What year are you living in? There have been drug dealers in the suburbs and even upscale areas of every city I've lived in since 1985.
Are there no black, brown or Asian kids going into your drug-fueled bad 'hoods to buy dope or are the cops simply assuming that the non-white kids all live there?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I hadn't had much contact with US law enforcement (just speeding tickets) until I got stopped at a DUI roadblock one night. I was not drunk. I rarely drink. Scored 0.00% 5 times in a row when they tested me at the station. So they had to drop that charge at least.
Basically I made some comment about it being a violation of my rights to have to be detained by them etc. That it was wrong. That they were bad people for doing it. I was polite about it though just speaking conversationally as if they were human beings like me. A cop swore at me for this and I swore back at him. Then he proceeded to beat me and choke me nearly to death in front of at least 10-15 other officers. The only reason I am alive is because one of the 'not so bad apples' pulled the maniac off of me so that I could breathe again. After I had been saved from death and was lying in a bloody mess with my face smashed into the gravel the cop who beat me started going over his 'story' with another cop. They did this not in whispers, but in loud voices that not only I could hear but the other 15 or so cops who were there including the guy in charge of the whole operation. So I guess making up stories to back 'cover charges' and justify beatings and attempted murder were routine to most of them. They charged me with assault and battery against a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon (what weapon?) and many other so called 'cover charges'. I guess I was lucky they didn't actually plant a gun or knife in my car or something to make the 'deadly weapon' more plausible..
It is true that one of those cops saved my life (the only time a cop has ever done something helpful for me in any way), but he and all those other guys went along with the "bad" cop and not a single cop there questioned what happened in any way or seemed at all disturbed by the situation. I was badly injured and nearly killed for saying, "fuck you" and then falsely charged with serious crimes and not a single one of the 20-30 officers made any attempt to amend the situation or cared even the slightest about what happened. I think most cops would be on the side of the cop who beat me because I disrespected him.
They are just evil people. I remember a Star Trek: TNG episode with this black blob that was supposed to be all of the condensed bad/evil from an entire society that was sloughed off and made into a separate thing. That is like what American cops are for our species: the lowest and most evil of all human beings. They would have become criminals except that they are too cowardly, too afraid of going to jail for their thirst for violence if they had no badge to hide behind. Some also have parents who were cops. So they choose that path.
I know the way bullies think very well because I grew up with one as a child. I have a kind of bullydar. It's like some combination of anger, sadism, sociopathy, and deep cruelty. My own bully as a child used to put firecrackers in frogs asses or mouths and blow them up. Great fun for that kind of person. Every cop that *I* have met in my life were bullies. Every single one. In the US they always seem to have that personality type: tough guy / thug / bully. Cops in most other countries are often just normal people doing a job to make money. They aren't out there to prove how tough they are or to satisfy their bloodlust. It's just a job to them. In the US being a cop is like a whole lifestyle that has a lot more in common with being a gang member than anything else, but unlike those gang members there are no limits at all on their actions. They are not only above the law, but they have no sense of right or wrong, no moral center. No compassion or empathy. And a deep hatred of all 'civilians'. Most of them are very stupid too. Luckily the cop who attacked me was too stupid to invent a coherent and consistent story. I don't even really see them as human beings anymore.
Now probably most cops would not go as far as that crazy one who flipped out and tried to kill a person because they dared to say 'fuck you' to him, but at
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
And once in awhile, to keep up price, the supply 'runs out' in the burbs. They all run to the street dealers in the ghetto, where 'the market' is healthy.
Stopping the drug traffic is still a common request of actual people who have to live in bad neighborhoods. In practice that means stopping cars from outside the neighborhood, particularly dumb ass, white bread kids.
'White bread' comes in all colors these days, even if black or tan, the peer group is mostly white.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Interesting how you are able to recall this with such clarity after getting your ass kicked. I suspect that you recall this through more than a little bit of bias and have twisted it to suit your point of the argument. It is also interesting that you, like so many others stopped at sobriety check points, question the legal validity of said stops. Also, I doubt that you were "conversational" in your protestations. Having been through more than a few of these check points the cops were never assholes. The cops simply did what they needed to do because morons can't get it through their heads that drinking and then driving kills others and that they are basically selfish fucking assholes for doing it. I have met more than a few bad cops in my many interactions with them. Every time I remained calm and respectful regardless of their inappropriate attitude or actions. Two things happened in all the interactions. One, they calmed down and started to act more rationally. Two, they generally either reduced the infraction or charges or outright let me go with a simple warning or admonishment to deal with my issues ASAP or suffer the consequences if they stopped me again. In a number of cases I was in the car with cuffs on. NEVER EVER did I get pissed or mouthy with them. He escalated, you responded and escalated, you got your ass kicked and charged. Cause and effect. What happened to you is totally fucked up and wrong but it happened. The sad part is that all interactions you have with cops now and in the future are tainted by this and all cops are bad no mater what. Good luck with that in the future, it will not serve you to well. This will all be academic in the future as police departments and police unions are forced to implement body cams.
>I suspect that you recall this through more than a little bit of bias and have twisted it to suit your point of the argument
Yes you do. For emotional reasons rather than logical ones. This is what you *want* to believe because it makes you feel better to not think badly of American police. Makes you feel safer and less in danger for your life when you have interactions with them.
Of course it already seems like in interactions with them you treat them as if they are dangerous and mentally unstable gang members with itchy trigger fingers. That's good. Because that is indeed exactly what they are.
>It is also interesting that you, like so many others stopped at sobriety check points, question the legal validity of said stops.
They *are* illegal in 5 US states, but I don't and have not questioned their *legality*. What I questioned was their morality and their constitutionality and indeed such a violation of human rights is consistent with neither.
>Also, I doubt that you were "conversational" in your protestations.
Yes I know. I've met a lot of people like you over the years. It's why I took a plea bargain despite badly wanting to tear apart the cops ridiculous, illogical, and inconsistent story at least some of which I could *prove* was a lie. In any account of events people like you will *always* choose to believe the cops side of the story. Why? Again for emotional reasons. It makes you feel better. Safer. Otherwise you'd have to accept that there are a significant number of cops who are liars and very bad people.
>Having been through more than a few of these check points the cops were never assholes.
Because in your view *no* cops are assholes. Am I right?
>Every time I remained calm and respectful regardless of their inappropriate attitude or actions.
What inappropriate attitude or actions? I thought they weren't assholes.
>One, they calmed down and started to act more rationally.
So they were acting irrationally? Really. I find that so surprising. I thought cops were perfect human beings which is why you always choose to believe their story.
>Two, they generally either reduced the infraction or charges or outright let me go with a simple warning or admonishment to deal with my issues
Did you miss the part where I said, "Fuck you!" quietly but with an angry voice? He *was* provoked, but his overreaction (attempted murder and then false charges) was impressive. Good luck calming a cop down after saying 'fuck you' right to his face. Maybe you are talking about speeding tickets or something.
>NEVER EVER did I get pissed or mouthy with them.
You would not get angry if a cop swore at you for complaining about something? As far as being mouthy yes most people aren't mouthy with the police because they are afraid of them. I was afraid of them as well, but it just got me so mad that he could swear at me like that and that I was not allowed to swear back. Like he is a higher class of citizen. He can verbally abuse me, but I am not allowed to verbally abuse him back?
>He escalated, you responded and escalated
I was out driving to get a pizza. They stopped me and detained me for no reason other than the fact that I refused to answer their stupid questions. I was complaining about how wrong these roadblocks are and he escalated by saying something like, "Shut up you asshole. Then I escalated by saying, 'fuck you'. Then he escalated by attempting to kill me. That last escalation is what I have a problem with. Only a violent psychopath who thinks he can get away with anything would actually do that. It's just crazy. In fact it is so crazy that I think a lot of people would choose not to believe my story. Another reason I took a plea deal.
The whole system of beating + cover charges works quite well really. Otherwise I may have complained about getting beaten for swearing at the cop. Swearing is 100% legal. Beating people up is not. I say 'may have' because complaining about a cop who is
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Btw 'getting your ass kicked' seems to imply that it was some kind of fair fight and I lost it. Are you really thinking of it as a fight? Not that I don't think he could have won in a fair fight. He was like 6' 3" 250 lbs and had at least some fighting and combat experience and I was a 5' 6" 140 lb geek with almost no fighting experience. I think I had actually been writing code that night and was getting a pizza afterward. But calling it a fight is ridiculous. I *knew* I couldn't fight back. I wanted to but I knew that if I did I really would be charged with assault against a police officer and god knows what else. So I didn't try to defend myself or 'resist' until it was too late and I was pinned under a 250 lb guy unable to breath or even speak before being asphyxiated. And indeed that's how it would have probably ended if the other cop had not pulled him off of me. BTW if this were just a made up story to make cops look bad because I hate them why would I include that last part? That seems to show that at least some cops (say 1 out 15 or so) are willing to actually intervene to stop a murder.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Well it seems that you are the one person in all of the united states that has had nothing but bad interaction with every one the the cops you have been unfortunate enough to meet. Taking this into consideration I will form my opinions about your inter personal skills and leave it at that. On second thought I think it necessary that i spell it out for you. If every person you meet in a uniform is an asshole from the very start then guess what ASSHOLE! That's right ASSHOLE, you are the ASSHOLE!!! I on the other hand have had both good and bad interactions with cops over the years. I also recognize that the job they carry out involves interaction with the bottom 10% of the population. Generally those that would be referred to as the dregs of society. Persons that are criminals and/or just have bad attitudes when forced to act in a manner counter to their own selfish interest and comply to the laws in the state they live in. This I suspect is the category you may fall under if I am generous. I would challenge you to to spend one year in doing their job, dealing with the shit they have to take day in and day out from smart ass ASSHOLES just like you. Dealing with hardened criminals, child molesters, rapists, and spouse abusers. At the end of it come out with less of an attitude than most of them have after a decade or two of the job. Cops don't just up and out of the blue go all shit house crazy like you claim happened to you. In fact I am damned sure that you were not conversational with them before, during, or after. A man does not just go off like you said if you simply stated in a non confrontational manner that you think they are carrying out an illegal action. I call bullshit to your story and the lead up to you getting your ass handed to you. The one thing I am very sure of though is that you will not get in the face of a cop with that "Joe Q Public attitude" again.