Police Body Cams

[qazplm]

Everyone on this board can agree these are necessary right? That every single police officer who has a weapon on their person should be wearing one of these, yes?

I'm sure folks will look at the most recent two police shootings and blame the person who was shot, but in both cases they either weren't wearing a body cam at all (Minnesota) or they "fell off" of two different police officers during the encounter (Louisiana).

But surely everyone agrees body cams should be mandated across the country for all officers who aren't sitting at a desk or otherwise not engaging with the public/armed with a deadly weapon.

Yes?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Everyone on this board can agree these are necessary right? That every single police officer who has a weapon on their person should be wearing one of these, yes?

I'm sure folks will look at the most recent two police shootings and blame the person who was shot, but in both cases they either weren't wearing a body cam at all (Minnesota) or they "fell off" of two different police officers during the encounter (Louisiana).

But surely everyone agrees body cams should be mandated across the country for all officers who aren't sitting at a desk or otherwise not engaging with the public/armed with a deadly weapon.

Yes?

How about they don't carry guns all the time?
Also if you're gonna talk about non national stories, at least provide a link.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Everyone on this board can agree these are necessary right? That every single police officer who has a weapon on their person should be wearing one of these, yes?

I'm sure folks will look at the most recent two police shootings and blame the person who was shot, but in both cases they either weren't wearing a body cam at all (Minnesota) or they "fell off" of two different police officers during the encounter (Louisiana).

But surely everyone agrees body cams should be mandated across the country for all officers who aren't sitting at a desk or otherwise not engaging with the public/armed with a deadly weapon.

Yes?

Yes. I can agree without qualification. Although, when I think of Eric Garner it makes me wonder what good they do. That said, I'd rather have the video evidence than not have it.

On a related note, I think Peter Rosenberg got it right. It's time for cops to step out from behind the thin blue line.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...rg-rips-cop-over-alton-sterling-shooting.html

 

[TOKenBoiler]

How about they don't carry guns all the time?
Also if you're gonna talk about non national stories, at least provide a link.

I think the Alton Sterling and Jamar Clark shootings are national stories.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I think the Alton Sterling and Jamar Clark shootings are national stories.

well I didn't want to assume.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

well I didn't want to assume.

Good on you for not assuming. I got the Minnesota shooting wrong...unfortunately. There was another one last night. Cops shot and killed Philando Castile in St. Paul, Minnesota last night...shit has got to stop.

 

[qazplm]

I think the Alton Sterling and Jamar Clark shootings are national stories.

It's completely irrelevant to whether they are national stories or not. It was a basic, fundamental question tied to why are we still at a point where all cops don't have them. You've answered it (the only one so far). I agree with you that it won't solve everything, but as you say, it will at least get video evidence out there.

Slowly but surely we are starting to see the barest hints of a willingness to prosecute and even convict officers in police shootings. What is preventing it I think is that your average person/grand jury member operates under an extreme deference standard and that most of these encounters are not happening with clear video evidence, it's just one word v another.

As we get more of these, and as more of these are broadcast, one would think folks would be less prone to overdo it on the deference angle and simply apply reasonable, common sense to these incidents and some of these ridiculous shootings will stop or at least the shooters will be brought to justice.

Castile does not appear to have a criminal record, and was a licensed carrier. So all the gun rights folks should be fervently on his side yes?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I'd agree that "shit has got to stop" with respect to unjustified police shootings, and that there have been cases of unwarranted use of force nation wide against predominantly black suspects, but I'd also caution that officers need to have the right to defend themselves against any suspect, regardless of color, when the situation warrants. Just because a black man gets shot does not make it "shit" that "has got to stop."

There is an element here of resisting the police that is a common thread, and I understand that the distrust the black community has of the police is a major factor there. If you believe the system is rigged against you, yes, I understand (in what way I can) resisting being part of that system. But in my estimation, if I am on the ground under restraint by the police, I'm not fighting back because I would rather spend the night in jail and take my chances with that system than end up dead.

Now, all that said, the Louisiana shooting at first look appears abhorrent and should lead to an indictment, regardless of whether he had a gun in his pocket or not. The South Carolina shooting where the guy was running away was abhorrent. The Ohio (I think it was) shooting of the guy during a traffic stop was abhorrent and appeared to be murder in my opinion. I haven't seen the latest one from Minnesota.

I think the community outrage about police never standing up and saying "this is bullshit, and XXXX is a bad cop" is warranted, but I also understand their hesitation to do so before the facts are all presented. We almost always watch videos from one perspective and cast judgment based on immediate, limited information as a society, and that often leads to ill-informed judgments in situations like this. The Mike Brown shooting case is a prime example of this, and one which was a justified use of force, though still a tragic loss of life.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

It's completely irrelevant to whether they are national stories or not. It was a basic, fundamental question tied to why are we still at a point where all cops don't have them. You've answered it (the only one so far). I agree with you that it won't solve everything, but as you say, it will at least get video evidence out there.

For the record, I agree that cameras are necessary for the protection of the populace and also the protection of the police.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I'd agree that "shit has got to stop" with respect to unjustified police shootings, and that there have been cases of unwarranted use of force nation wide against predominantly black suspects, but I'd also caution that officers need to have the right to defend themselves against any suspect, regardless of color, when the situation warrants. Just because a black man gets shot does not make it "shit" that "has got to stop."

There is an element here of resisting the police that is a common thread, and I understand that the distrust the black community has of the police is a major factor there. If you believe the system is rigged against you, yes, I understand (in what way I can) resisting being part of that system. But in my estimation, if I am on the ground under restraint by the police, I'm not fighting back because I would rather spend the night in jail and take my chances with that system than end up dead.

Now, all that said, the Louisiana shooting at first look appears abhorrent and should lead to an indictment, regardless of whether he had a gun in his pocket or not. The South Carolina shooting where the guy was running away was abhorrent. The Ohio (I think it was) shooting of the guy during a traffic stop was abhorrent and appeared to be murder in my opinion. I haven't seen the latest one from Minnesota.

I think the community outrage about police never standing up and saying "this is bullshit, and XXXX is a bad cop" is warranted, but I also understand their hesitation to do so before the facts are all presented. We almost always watch videos from one perspective and cast judgment based on immediate, limited information as a society, and that often leads to ill-informed judgments in situations like this. The Mike Brown shooting case is a prime example of this, and one which was a justified use of force, though still a tragic loss of life.

I would really prefer we not have cameras everywhere all the time, but I don't believe I'm in the majority there. I think it actually encourages state sponsored tyranny in a lot of ways. secondly, I think it's important to let the trial take place. These videos are often edited to incite people. If this officer is guilty of what is alleged, then I hope the maximum penalty is given. But as I said before, they probably don't need guns all the time either. I think it builds mistrust in the community and builds too much of a hunter/enforcer mentality with officers, who are most of the time just tax collecting for petty infractions. They don't regularly carry them in several european countries.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

It's completely irrelevant to whether they are national stories or not.

Agreed. I didn't mean to suggest it was relevant, just that the stories were, in fact, national news stories.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I would really prefer we not have cameras everywhere all the time, but I don't believe I'm in the majority there. I think it actually encourages state sponsored tyranny in a lot of ways.

Cameras wouldn't be "everywhere all the time", and if anything, I'd think you'd want cameras on the police to defend against state-sponsored tyranny, so I don't understand that logic at all. If the eyes of the police are already on you, you're under that same "tyranny" regardless of if a camera is there or not. The camera, then, becomes protection both for the populace as we as the police officers by providing additional evidence about the truth of what happened. I think that flies directly in the face of your argument above.

I agree that trials are important, but reality is that the public often/always forms judgment on its own, thus all the more reason to have cameras offering a closer perspective to what the officers are seeing to provide a counter narrative to the first one on the ground.

In the Mike Brown case, the first narrative turned out to be partly fabricated and there was no video evidence to support either the police or the victim in that case. We may never know exactly what happened, but we do know that the stories of the police shooting him in the back, standing over him and emptying the clip, "execution style" shootings that were reported initially by "eyewitnesses" were forensically proven false. A police camera in that case would probably have helped prevent the entire situation from becoming "they said, we said". It is my opinion - since I don't actually know what happened - based on the reports and grand jury testimony that the Ferguson riots were largely unwarranted, even if the BLM movement as a whole has other, justified points throughout the country.

Cameras in those cases would help to strike a balance between blaming the cops due to fabricated or incomplete stories and blaming the victims in cases where unjustifiable force was used.

 

[kboiler]

This is a ruthless cycle, and has probably been going on for YEARS and YEARS. The difference now is that everyone has cameras.

Even before "F the Police" became popular. SOME police officers on are high alert with black suspects, and SOME black suspects are unruly with police officers they don't respect. And the problem that will soon come to fruition is that the people that want to be cops are the ones that really don't have the chops for it, and we'll have departments full of trigger happy people that can't handle the stress. I guarantee the cop in Minnesota had no business being a cop, and the stress of the job caused them to overreact and ANY move not expected was going to be met by bullets. That person is not a good police officer. We need more GOOD police officers, but much like politics, the people that would really be good at the job, want nothing to do with the profession.

Just my $.02.
It's all so sad. All the way around.

 

[qazplm]

This is a ruthless cycle, and has probably been going on for YEARS and YEARS. The difference now is that everyone has cameras.

Even before "F the Police" became popular. SOME police officers on are high alert with black suspects, and SOME black suspects are unruly with police officers they don't respect. And the problem that will soon come to fruition is that the people that want to be cops are the ones that really don't have the chops for it, and we'll have departments full of trigger happy people that can't handle the stress. I guarantee the cop in Minnesota had no business being a cop, and the stress of the job caused them to overreact and ANY move not expected was going to be met by bullets. That person is not a good police officer. We need more GOOD police officers, but much like politics, the people that would really be good at the job, want nothing to do with the profession.

Just my $.02.
It's all so sad. All the way around.

I don't think it's that simple. I think there are a host of complicated reasons for this problem. Police training (or lack thereof), lack of body cams, too much deference to police preventing legit incidents of police brutality from being resolved justly which leads to distrust, moving away from community policing (which works IMO both as a policing model and as a model for creating trust) to a broken windows/stop and frisk approach, in addition to the fact that there are bad actors on both sides of the equation as you note.

I think that means there is a path to resolution, but it requires apparently something more than we are willing to do since we can't even get basics like body cams for all officers accomplished, something one would think would be self-evident and noncontroversial.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I don't think it's that simple. I think there are a host of complicated reasons for this problem. Police training (or lack thereof), lack of body cams, too much deference to police preventing legit incidents of police brutality from being resolved justly which leads to distrust, moving away from community policing (which works IMO both as a policing model and as a model for creating trust) to a broken windows/stop and frisk approach, in addition to the fact that there are bad actors on both sides of the equation as you note.

Do you think non-compliance has anything to do with it? I ask that in a non-inflammatory manner, believe it or not. There is a common thread in a lot of these shootings (and it's not involved in a few of them as well). I agree with making a stand for your rights, but I'd want to live to do so. Given the current state of things and as much coverage as this has gotten, I would think one lesson for the entire community would be, essentially, do what they ask you to do and fight later! Your chances of survival, even in a system that you feel is rigged against you, are far greater than they are if you get involved in a physical struggle with police.

 

[prophit44]

I'd agree that "shit has got to stop" with respect to unjustified police shootings, and that there have been cases of unwarranted use of force nation wide against predominantly black suspects, but I'd also caution that officers need to have the right to defend themselves against any suspect, regardless of color, when the situation warrants. Just because a black man gets shot does not make it "shit" that "has got to stop."

There is an element here of resisting the police that is a common thread, and I understand that the distrust the black community has of the police is a major factor there. If you believe the system is rigged against you, yes, I understand (in what way I can) resisting being part of that system. But in my estimation, if I am on the ground under restraint by the police, I'm not fighting back because I would rather spend the night in jail and take my chances with that system than end up dead.

Now, all that said, the Louisiana shooting at first look appears abhorrent and should lead to an indictment, regardless of whether he had a gun in his pocket or not. The South Carolina shooting where the guy was running away was abhorrent. The Ohio (I think it was) shooting of the guy during a traffic stop was abhorrent and appeared to be murder in my opinion. I haven't seen the latest one from Minnesota.

I think the community outrage about police never standing up and saying "this is bullshit, and XXXX is a bad cop" is warranted, but I also understand their hesitation to do so before the facts are all presented. We almost always watch videos from one perspective and cast judgment based on immediate, limited information as a society, and that often leads to ill-informed judgments in situations like this. The Mike Brown shooting case is a prime example of this, and one which was a justified use of force, though still a tragic loss of life.

I appreciate your points. I an not in law enforcement, and for the record come from a family with multiple generations of cops in both mine and my wife's families. So perhaps my circle of family and friends skews what I see/read/hear.

I simply cannot remember a single incident where the police union leadership, or any prominent person from the police ever stands up and admits that a "brother/sister" officer screwed up. We can see what looks like clear execution on video, and never an acknowledgement of error (let alone malice) coming from the blue line.

I do, however, get to read/hear LOTS of "if you don't wear the badge you need to shut up", and loads of other exclusionary BS to deflect and defend... Along with "all lives matter".

I have great respect for those who serve and protect. That respect would grow immensely if they would get out front and lead the charge to weed out bad cop behavior. Hiding behind the badge and the union makes them seem weak and small.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Spent some time watching subject videos. I'm inclined to agree that both are excessive use of deadly force, but I think I'm a little more open-minded/wait-and-see towards the police in the Baton Rouge shooting than I am the St. Paul shooting.

The second one... man, that video is surreal, and listening to that cop, yeah... While I understand the body's reaction to stressful situations, I would find it very hard to believe that he did anything to even attempt to defuse that situation and simply defaulted to shoot first. Hate to say it, but police have a right to protect themselves, but an obligation to protect others, and it's going to be difficult to turn public opinion that the Minnesota officer was anything but scared and ill-equipped to be a field officer.

That one is almost as disgusting as the Ohio traffic stop, maybe moreso. I'm not sure. Bullshit - at first glance.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I appreciate your points. I an not in law enforcement, and for the record come from a family with multiple generations of cops in both mine and my wife's families. So perhaps my circle of family and friends skews what I see/read/hear.

I simply cannot remember a single incident where the police union leadership, or any prominent person from the police ever stands up and admits that a "brother/sister" officer screwed up. We can see what looks like clear execution on video, and never an acknowledgement of error (let alone malice) coming from the blue line.

I do, however, get to read/hear LOTS of "if you don't wear the badge you need to shut up", and loads of other exclusionary BS to deflect and defend... Along with "all lives matter".

I have great respect for those who serve and protect. That respect would grow immensely if they would get out front and lead the charge to weed out bad cop behavior. Hiding behind the badge and the union makes them seem weak and small.

I agree with all of this wholeheartedly. In some cases - as mentioned the Mike Brown case - the union is right not to stand up and say that. In others - Baltimore, South Carolina, Rodney King among many other LA cases - the union absolutely should stand up... but I'm not holding my breath. Unfortunately, just like in politics, we've created an us vs. them mentality, and that just makes "them" defensive, which affects their judgment. I understand waiting until facts are out, but just like in other situations where someone might not be criminally liable, they can still be wrong, and I think a lot of these cops are wrong, even if not indicted/convicted.

 

[CWS]

The down side to body cams is that anything recorded becomes public record and is accessible to the public due to freedom of information type laws.

I asked this to a (biased) police chief who said this - imagine that you are in the privacy of your own home, had a few too many to drink, and the neighbor's call the police. When you answer the door, you say/look/do something that isn't your proudest moment, however, it's not illegal. With body cams, this would be on video and would be accessible to any U.S. Citizen until the end of time.

If the cameras turned on when guns were drawn, this would be easier to justify.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

If the cops are involved, then I don't have a problem with someone losing their privacy. Sorry. Secondary concern, if that.

 

[CWS]

Even without a warrant? Knock on the door, open it, and they are taping inside your car, home or business? What if they walk into a medical facility? Say they walk into an HIV treatment facility. How about those patient's rights to privacy? Police bring people into the ER all the time. They are then walking through the halls videotaping everything that is going on there. If the hospital released surveillance tapes they would be shut down. The police tapes would be mandatorily available to the public. A police officer goes to church in uniform. Later someone tries to sue the pastor for violating their civil rights. These cameras will eventually be used as a weapon against political opponents. "Ambulance chasers" just got a whole new level of access to frivelous lawsuits as well. On the pros/cons list, there are definitely more cons than just cost.

 

[kescwi]

Even without a warrant? Knock on the door, open it, and they are taping inside your car, home or business? What if they walk into a medical facility? Say they walk into an HIV treatment facility. How about those patient's rights to privacy? Police bring people into the ER all the time. They are then walking through the halls videotaping everything that is going on there. If the hospital released surveillance tapes they would be shut down. The police tapes would be mandatorily available to the public. A police officer goes to church in uniform. Later someone tries to sue the pastor for violating their civil rights. These cameras will eventually be used as a weapon against political opponents. "Ambulance chasers" just got a whole new level of access to frivelous lawsuits as well. On the pros/cons list, there are definitely more cons than just cost.

FOIA requests are regularly redacted, why would it be impossible to edit body cam videos? Police records are also regularly destroyed, expunged, when charges are dropped or a person deemed innocent, why would video of innocent people be any different? Not to mention records being sealed...

Poor arguments, why doesn't the same "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about" logic apply to law enforcement?

 

[CWS]

N

FOIA requests are regularly redacted, why would it be impossible to edit body cam videos? Police records are also regularly destroyed, expunged, when charges are dropped or a person deemed innocent, why would video of innocent people be any different? Not to mention records being sealed...

Poor arguments, why doesn't the same "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about" logic apply to law enforcement?

no one is going to edit these millions of hours of tape. Once it's publicly available, it can't be effectively redacted. It's like posting somthing to Facebook and then asking your friends to unsee it.

 

[qazplm]

Do you think non-compliance has anything to do with it? I ask that in a non-inflammatory manner, believe it or not. There is a common thread in a lot of these shootings (and it's not involved in a few of them as well). I agree with making a stand for your rights, but I'd want to live to do so. Given the current state of things and as much coverage as this has gotten, I would think one lesson for the entire community would be, essentially, do what they ask you to do and fight later! Your chances of survival, even in a system that you feel is rigged against you, are far greater than they are if you get involved in a physical struggle with police.

I don't think "non-compliance" should equal get shot and killed, unless that non-compliance turns into actual positive actions against an officer. The right answer is do what the cops tell you or die. That's effectively establishing the death penalty without a trial for an offense that I'm pretty sure has a low official punishment (noncompliance with an officer).

 

[kescwi]

N

no one is going to edit these millions of hours of tape. Once it's publicly available, it can't be effectively redacted. It's like posting somthing to Facebook and then asking your friends to unsee it.

You're kidding right? It very simple, if a request for the video of the police at your front door is made, and you have done nothing wrong, the video, if not already destroyed, is not released or simply destroyed at that time. If there is video requested of you standing on the curb while the police are at your neighbors you are blurred out... Or how about if a person is worried they can simply request the video destroyed?

The solutions are very simple, may require some tweaking of existing rules but in no way do body cameras pose a threat to civil liberties.

What happens to all the millions of hours of footage taken of innocent people from police cruisers today? You don't think they carry video that could compromise innocent people? I have yet to hear of an innocent person being harmed by it.

 

[qazplm]

The down side to body cams is that anything recorded becomes public record and is accessible to the public due to freedom of information type laws.

I asked this to a (biased) police chief who said this - imagine that you are in the privacy of your own home, had a few too many to drink, and the neighbor's call the police. When you answer the door, you say/look/do something that isn't your proudest moment, however, it's not illegal. With body cams, this would be on video and would be accessible to any U.S. Citizen until the end of time.

If the cameras turned on when guns were drawn, this would be easier to justify.

no they can't. FOIA is not carte blanche for everything, there are a ton of exceptions. You are creating a straw man. I don't think you are doing it intentionally, but you are.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Even without a warrant? Knock on the door, open it, and they are taping inside your car, home or business? What if they walk into a medical facility? Say they walk into an HIV treatment facility. How about those patient's rights to privacy? Police bring people into the ER all the time.

Yes, without question.

The medical facility question is valid, but would require training. In addition, there is the fact that Doctors uphold their end of the bargain by not openly discussing cases. Most hospitals even have signs posted about protecting privacy in hallways, elevators, etc. Perhaps police are trained to shut off cameras when they enter.

There are any number of questions and ways to resolve those questions, but if you ask me, having the ability to see interactions from the perspective of the officer rather than counting on dashcams at distance or a cell phone from 100 feet away hold value for both the public and the police. Far more value than the concerns you're expressing.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I don't think "non-compliance" should equal get shot and killed, unless that non-compliance turns into actual positive actions against an officer. The right answer is do what the cops tell you or die. That's effectively establishing the death penalty without a trial for an offense that I'm pretty sure has a low official punishment (noncompliance with an officer).

I agree with that. I'm not sure comply or die is where we are, because as you well know it's not 1s and 0s everywhere. Heck the guy in Minnesota appeared to be complying!

I expect that when there's an interaction with police, civilians ought to comply and seek recourse for injustices peacefully through "the system". I don't see great value in running or fighting police, who are also human beings and have reactions to other's actions if and when they perceive they are being threatened. That guy in Minnesota... listen to his voice... that's pretty clearly a guy who perceived a threat (where none existed), and he doesn't sound the least bit rational. When you put other human beings into that type of situation, it's a die roll to know which way they are going to go. I'd rather not throw that lot at all and take my chances in non-life-threatening ways, particularly today.

It is the obligation of the police to deescalate situations to the maximum extent practicable, and I think that's where a lot of these cops are getting it wrong. And that, I think, is a race issue.

But I also acknowledge that the chances of these situations going wrong - white, black, Muslim, Mexican - go down dramatically when the suspects comply with instructions.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

no they can't. FOIA is not carte blanche for everything, there are a ton of exceptions. You are creating a straw man. I don't think you are doing it intentionally, but you are.

Yup. Police departments don't keep video and audio indefinitely and FOIA exemptions are numerous. Plus, stuff that gets turned over tends to be heavily redacted/edited. Privacy concerns may be legitimate, but they don't override the need for body cams. It's in the best interests of all concerned parties.

 

[qazplm]

Spent some time watching subject videos. I'm inclined to agree that both are excessive use of deadly force, but I think I'm a little more open-minded/wait-and-see towards the police in the Baton Rouge shooting than I am the St. Paul shooting.

The second one... man, that video is surreal, and listening to that cop, yeah... While I understand the body's reaction to stressful situations, I would find it very hard to believe that he did anything to even attempt to defuse that situation and simply defaulted to shoot first. Hate to say it, but police have a right to protect themselves, but an obligation to protect others, and it's going to be difficult to turn public opinion that the Minnesota officer was anything but scared and ill-equipped to be a field officer.

That one is almost as disgusting as the Ohio traffic stop, maybe moreso. I'm not sure. Bullshit - at first glance.

Apparently from police audio right before the Minny stop:

"I’m going to stop a car...I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.

The two occupants just look like people who have been involved in a robbery. The driver looked more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide-set nose."

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Apparently from police audio right before the Minny stop:

"I’m going to stop a car...I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.

The two occupants just look like people who have been involved in a robbery. The driver looked more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide-set nose."

What happened to the busted tail light explanation?

 

[qazplm]

What happened to the busted tail light explanation?

Dunno...I'm guessing though that's part of the "I have reason to pull it over."

Some states have specifically removed things like broken tail lights as a permissible reason by itself to pull someone over. It leads me to a thought.

What if we created a system where cops couldn't pull you over unless you were clearly driving while possibly intoxicated, excessively speeding, or something similar? If you were committing minor moving violations they could simply record your license plate and send you a citation in the mail.

Would this reduce these kind of pretextual stops, and reduce these confrontations? I don't know, probably not, but seems like some new thinking is required.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Dunno...I'm guessing though that's part of the "I have reason to pull it over."

Some states have specifically removed things like broken tail lights as a permissible reason by itself to pull someone over. It leads me to a thought.

What if we created a system where cops couldn't pull you over unless you were clearly driving while possibly intoxicated, excessively speeding, or something similar? If you were committing minor moving violations they could simply record your license plate and send you a citation in the mail.

Would this reduce these kind of pretextual stops, and reduce these confrontations? I don't know, probably not, but seems like some new thinking is required.

There are traffic violations that could be handled this way, for sure. But, whether it would have any impact on pretextual stops, who knows?

 

[qazplm]

There are traffic violations that could be handled this way, for sure. But, whether it would have any impact on pretextual stops, who knows?

I think it would make it harder. I don't think it would eliminate them.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Apparently from police audio right before the Minny stop:

"I’m going to stop a car...I’m going to check IDs. I have reason to pull it over.

The two occupants just look like people who have been involved in a robbery. The driver looked more like one of our suspects, just ‘cause of the wide-set nose."

You've got to be f*&%ig kidding me.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Dunno...I'm guessing though that's part of the "I have reason to pull it over."

Some states have specifically removed things like broken tail lights as a permissible reason by itself to pull someone over. It leads me to a thought.

What if we created a system where cops couldn't pull you over unless you were clearly driving while possibly intoxicated, excessively speeding, or something similar? If you were committing minor moving violations they could simply record your license plate and send you a citation in the mail.

Would this reduce these kind of pretextual stops, and reduce these confrontations? I don't know, probably not, but seems like some new thinking is required.

I personally don't like camera tickets, and I don't really like the idea of mail citations. Part of the point of traffic stops is demonstrated enforcement - the visual of being stopped and others seeing you be stopped. If you take that away and merely go to the "money grab" I don't think it has the same effect. I know for me I'm usually more worried about the inconvenience of the stop itself than I am about the money.

I'd agree with removing the busted taillight as a stop unless there is probable cause for something else (speeding or reckless driving, etc.).

 

[Bruce1]

I think this whole discussion is unnecessary. We have over 900,000 law enforcement officers in this country. More than 100 die each year protecting us. Each year there are 4 or 5 cases like these. The numbers are small but of course our left wing media makes it a political issue. Hell, 5 policemen were killed in Dallas that were directly related to inflamatory news reporting.

I'm not ignoring those few cases where a police officer killed someone. They should be held accountable but to make this a national emergency is wrong. More than a hundred cops are killed every year protecting us and what do wee
do? Throw them under the bus.

I agree all policemen on patrol duty should have cameras.

I also feel those officers on patrol duty should be periodically be screened for PTSD and/or other issues.

I support the police, period.

 

[Bruce1]

I personally don't like camera tickets, and I don't really like the idea of mail citations. Part of the point of traffic stops is demonstrated enforcement - the visual of being stopped and others seeing you be stopped. If you take that away and merely go to the "money grab" I don't think it has the same effect. I know for me I'm usually more worried about the inconvenience of the stop itself than I am about the money.

I'd agree with removing the busted taillight as a stop unless there is probable cause for something else (speeding or reckless driving, etc.).

For me, I think camera tickets should be used. Not for the money but to get away from the fact that most people ignore traffic laws because the vast % of time they know they will not get caught. People running red lights and going over +15 mph are the cause of a lot of accidents so I think they should be used.

 

[TOKenBoiler]

Hell, 5 policemen were killed in Dallas that were directly related to inflamatory news reporting.

The Dallas shootings were caused by the reporting about the shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile and not the actual shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile...got it.

I support police who deserve to be supported, period.

 

[Bruce1]

The Dallas shootings were caused by the reporting about the shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile and not the actual shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile...got it.

I support police who deserve to be supported, period.

That's not what I said. When a horrible shooting like this occurs it get immediate national coverage for hours on end...tweets, face books, and on and on.

How much coverage is given when one policeman is killed in the line of duty compared to either one of these?