The stop and frisk program doesn't stop and frisk criminals, mainly because it skirts around probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
Nearly everyone stopped by the program walked away without a summons or citation or arrest. That makes it unfair to everyone. What makes its targeting unfair is that 88% of those stopped (a large majority of whom weren't charged, detained or issued a summons) were minorities.
Adding up the murders by race and discovering that it roughly equals the same percentage as the minorities stopped is taking two unrelated numbers, noticing they resemble each other and assuming that resemblance is also a correlation. It isn't.
Because the city's makeup isn't 88% minorities, minorities are unfairly targeted.
Right. But it's being used in the commission of another crime -- robbing a bank. That changes things. A perceived threat delivered via social media with no other criminal activity is hardly the same thing.
Credit where credit it due: OOTB is our most trusted and ONLY news source.
Odd thing about your comment. It seems to make the claim that the NSA is proud and unbowed by the recent leaks and this story proves it.
That kind of ignores the fact that the ONLY reason NCSU announced this is because the grant money was at risk if it didn't. Note also that the news was dumped out on a Friday, the day entities set aside to deliver bad or unwelcome news in hopes that everyone will have forgotten by the time everyone punches in on Monday.
Could the language really be intended to prevent agencies from saying "it's too complicated and expensive to answer that request because the info is held in a computer" for info that would be easily available were it held on paper?
Possibly. But I don't see how that would make it any less stupid.
You hint at, but don't explicitly point out a correlation that is quite glaring.
You mention that use of force decreases and take that to mean that cops are less likely to use force because they know they're being recorded, but just a couple of paragraphs later, you talk about the fact that the civilians they're interacting with are more likely to be civil, which I would contend means that force is less likely to be needed.
Further, you talk about the reduction in complaints, and imply that this means that cops are less likely to act in a manner which causes complaints, but there HAS to be at least a few complaints that were never filed because they were false complaints and the complainant knew there was video evidence.
I think that's all addressed in the post. I made it clear there were benefits for both cops and civilians. I'm not sure how you feel it was insufficiently addressed, unless the slant of the article just wasn't "pro-cop" enough.
From the article--
No cop wants to show up at a call and have to deal with nothing but assholes. Likewise for civilians. With a camera recording everything being said, the dialog tends to be lower key. Every encounter has a chance to be part of someone's (cop or member of the public) permanent record, so to speak. Being an asshole may not be a crime, but it's seldom helpful when one party insists on being antagonistic.
Quote from another source:
... Steve Tuttle, a Taser vice president, said the cameras can be a hard sell — until police officers discover the video can be used to back them up. And then, Tuttle mirrored Sergeant Landato's experience. "Once they've had a complaint, and realize 'Oh my gosh, there is a video of this,' that changes their feelings very quickly." Tuttle said the cameras reduced complaints against police by "a dramatic number."
With the exception of bashing the NYPD and its self-appointed general (something I will continue to do until there's some significant improvement), I think the entire article is rather balanced.
As for my anti-cop bias... my personal take is that law enforcement agencies have to hire from the human race just like any other employer. The problem is that these fallible humans are given huge amounts of power with little oversight. This is problematic.
As commenters have already pointed out, a lot of this misconduct and abuse of power goes unnoticed and worse, is often covered up or "punished" with the lightest tap on the wrist. Good cops covering for bad cops makes everyone culpable.
Too many anti-cop stories can be wearing, I'm sure. Like any other subject, it ebbs and flows. If I wrote up everything I come across, you'd have probably unsubscribed long ago.
Over the years, I've had friends that were (and still are) cops who were genuinely good people who I imagined took that attitude into their day-to-day business. Another area I attack frequently is schools and school administration, this despite the fact my sister is a teacher (and also a damn good person). It's not that I don't believe there are plenty of good cops. It's just that I don't think any bad cop has earned a pass on bad behavior just because he or she rubs elbows with good cops.
Until there's more routine expulsion of bad cops from the system, these stories will likely continue. Right now, it seems there isn't much of a deterrent to bad behavior, at least not in terms of disciplinary action. Putting cameras on cops makes bad cops better cops. Good cops have nothing to fear from this and everything to gain, as it makes asshole citizens a little more civil.
Not sure if all of this addresses your specific complaints but hopefully, it explains a little about my motives and mindset.
Well, this is all very fascinating and gives us some very valuable insight into your thought processes. As for your accusations of censorship, I'll let your completely accessible and viewable by all comment speak for itself.
It's obvious to everyone, Mike, that you have no respect whatsoever for law enforcement, and the same goes for your church flock here.
Well, respect is earned and there just doesn't seem to be many in the law enforcement community willing to make that effort.
Do you consider lawyers for copyright holders less than human and figures for your own twisted entertainment?
Prenda? Yes. All the way across the board? No. Keep in mind that actions and statements of Prenda's lawyers provide the entertainment. We just comment on it here. If Prenda approached the bar set by legitimate legal representation, we'd probably have much, much less to say about it.
Never mind that you pilfer and steal from these people, but you refuse to even give them the civil expectations of fair standards and due process.
What? Accusations of theft aside, as far as I can tell, we haven't gotten Prenda banned from any courtrooms or denied them "fair standards," whatever the hell that means. I suppose it's flattering that you believe this blog has the power to deny due process, but that flattery is tempted by the sheer ridiculousness of the accusation.
Did you think that John Steele and Jacques Nazaire were going to take your baseless accusations and insults lying down?
No. But it would obviously be better for them if they did. Crying to the court about the "mean internet" only draws more attention to their incompetence and extraordinarily thin skin.
Have you considered that all these "victims" could have just paid John Steele the money he and the rightsholders were entitled to, and all this could have been avoided?
Have you considered these "victims" might actually be victims (without the scare quotes)? A business model predicated on filing multiple lawsuits based on nothing more than an IP address isn't much more than low-level extortion.
Perhaps you should look at some of these "grandmothers" you claim to be protecting, instead of getting all uppity about legal practitioners of the law, who are guilty of nothing more than asserting their own righteousness against the scourge of piracy.
Bullshit. Pay attention. Prenda has been caught seeding its own files simply to "grow the business," with John Steele making some moves that appear to induce infringement.
I also notice you still haven't answered my question here: Are you employed by Wyden's office or doing consulting for them? You seem to be giving them very wide access to your blog and audience. Campaigning for Wyden for President 2016, perhaps?
That's for Mike to answer if he feels he needs to entertain your conspiracy theories. Of course, it may just be that Ron Wyden is one of the few representatives whose views have consistently aligned with the viewpoints here and one of the few people in Washington incessantly battling against intelligence agency overreach and bad "cyberlaws."
I pray that one day law enforcement will ding you for each and every illegitimate file you come in contact with and "due process" you for life in prison. People like you with no respect for copyright law must be taken off the streets.
Wow. That is fucked up. You honestly think copyright infringement, if there's enough of it, should result in lengthy prison sentences?
"Respect for copyright?" What a strange, sad little phrase. Again, like the law enforcement above, the abuses perpetrated under copyright law won't earn it any respect. And the endless extensions aren't helping.
I cannot believe people like you who feel so powerless despite EVERY decision on copyright going in your favor over the past several decades and various copyright industries having the DOJ, ICE, FBI and others on tap for enforcement. Quit your crying. It's just embarrassing.
This case has generated much unneeded attention on the internet.
They say, as if the case did it on its own, behind their backs, in the dark of night, rather than as a result of their increasingly incompetent, comical flailings.
Acting as if the case was able to "generate" attention on its own sounds like police reports stating "the officer's weapon discharged." The humans at the center of the activity had nothing to do with the outcomes, apparently.
If you read some of Greenfield's post on the subject, you'll see why this rule a.) shouldn't apply to law enforcement officers and b.) how often they use it to justify excessive force or unloading weapons into unarmed individuals.
When someone takes a dangerous job that they know going in contains the possibility of dying while performing their duties, they no longer have the luxury of placing their safety (or perception of their safety) above the safety of others.
Joining the military puts you at the same risk and yet you rarely hear "I needed to make it back alive" used as a justification for excessive force or violence.
Bloomberg is being VERY disingenuous by equating a cop having a gun pulled on him with performing a rights-violating search. And it's true, when someone pulls a gun on a cop, he's not going to try to remember all of the external guidance -- he's going to fall back on his training. If his actions result in the death of the person pulling the gun, odds are that, if he follows his training, he will be acquitted of any wrongdoing by every level of oversight.
This additional oversight will, however, make it harder for cops to trot out the First Rule of Policing as an excuse for unwarranted responses to perceived threats.
Even the rest of us civilians don't use the First Rule as justification for our actions. It's not a conscious response and instincts often trigger actions that remove others from danger, hence "women and children first," etc.
The First Rule is a dodge that's been deployed far too often. Cops are public servants. This means their safety is secondary to the safety of the public, even if the member of public is currently awaiting a pair of handcuffs.
There are a lot of bad cops doing bad things and they rely upon other cops to "back up" their stories, no matter how insane that story may sound. After all, it would be the perps word against several fine officers. Photographic evidence of them doing bad things would make it hard to lie.
Hard, but not impossible. Nee (the photographer) notes that he withholds a certain amount of footage because the cops will concoct a story to fit what's caught on tape, one that justifies their actions. When the additional footage makes it out, this punches holes in their narratives.