New bills about cops

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: New bills about cops

Postby A-R » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:50 am

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants


You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29


Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: New bills about cops

Postby Cedar Park Dad » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:56 am

A-R wrote:
Cedar Park Dad wrote:
A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants


You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

If appreciating the Bill of Rights as a priority over "safety" then color me guilty, and gladly.

User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: New bills about cops

Postby A-R » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:56 am

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
A-R wrote:PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0


And he wasn't fired, nor charged until the video came out with what actually happened.
How about the other officer? Has he been fired yet?
How about the San Bernardino sheriffs who beat that guy up on video? Have they been fired yet?

You're not helping your argument.


I'm going to regret answering this, but your assertions are so devoid of reality that I can't allow them to stand.

Of course he wasn't charged nor fired. State police had suspicions, not probable cause. They planned to investigate the inconsistencies. The video helped immensely and sped up the process of establishing probable cause. Without the video they still could've established PC with evidence, ballistics etc. Doing so just takes longer. Is your attention span so short that you're demanding video of all police critical incidents just so charges will be filed in an hour like a "Law & Order" episode?

User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: New bills about cops

Postby A-R » Tue Apr 14, 2015 11:59 am

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
A-R wrote:
Cedar Park Dad wrote:
A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants


You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

If appreciating the Bill of Rights as a priority over "safety" then color me guilty, and gladly.


:banghead:

So the only way to abide by the Bill of Rights is with body cams and without body armor?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: New bills about cops

Postby VMI77 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:34 pm

A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants over an officer's physical safety and quite possibly his/her life. Seems both of you would rather see video of an officer shot and killed than to have an officer alive with a slug in his vest but no video to quickly and easily "prove" how nor why.

If you'd said we want body cameras AND body armor, then there would be no issue and no labeling. But you both willfully and seemingly happily announced your twisted logic.

Go ahead and spin this and pontificate all you want. I'm done. Should've stayed out earlier - my mistake.


Nice try. An attempted preemptory strike of ad hominem, name calling, red-herring, and straw-man "arguments." I'll go a step further and state unequivocally that the mantra of "officer safety" has gone way too far and is now to the point where the results of this philosophy threaten public backlash.

It is safer to be a cop now than it has been in about 100 years. I posted stats on another thread proving that assaults on LEOs are at a 10 year low and LEO deaths, unadjusted for population are on a downward trend. Adjusted for population LEO deaths have declined dramatically. For instance, 116 LEOs were killed in 1914, when the US population was about 100 million, less than a third of what it is today. In 2014 117 LEOs were killed. The bloodiest period for US law enforcement by far was between 1920 and 1935. Furthermore, over the past 10 years, traffic related fatalities have outnumbered deaths by gunshot by 605 to 539.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.htm

There are no such exact totals of citizens killed by police. Is that because the police are anti-citizen? However, it is estimated that these deaths average around 400 a year. Some claim the numbers are much higher. In 2014 the estimate of citizens killed by police is 593. And that isn't just more than 4 times the number of LEOs killed, it's more than 10 times, because only 48 LEOs were killed by gunshot in 2014, and the same number were killed in traffic accidents. Yeah, cameras are not a panacea but they are an aid in determining if a killing is justified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

Furthermore, law enforcement is far from being the most deadly occupation in America. LEO deaths have been hovering around 18 per 100,000 (and this rate includes traffic accidents, not just criminal assaults for which body armor would help). Commercial fishermen have a death rate in the range of 120 to 160 per 100,000. Other occupations that are more deadly than law enforcement: loggers (102 per 100,000), pilots and flight engineers (57 per 100,000), refuse collectors (41 per 100,000), roofers (32 per 100,000), steel workers (27 per 100,000), farmers and ranchers (25 per 100,000), sales workers and truck drivers (24 per 100,000), power company linemen (20 per 100,000), and taxi drivers (19 per 100,000) --approximate rates based on the link provided.

http://pattyinglishms.hubpages.com/hub/Most_Dangerous_Jobs

Everyone should get to come home at night, not just LEOs. Being a LEO is not supposed to be risk free and totally safe, and in fact, can't be and also keep the public trust. It's strange how militaristic the police have become while at the same time eschewing the associated spirit of sacrifice. I entered the military prepared to die in the line of duty. Sometimes we did things that weren't "safe." The military is the public defense against external enemies. The police are supposed to be the public defense against the internal enemies of society. It's not an occupation that can be without risk, but it's not particularly dangerous either and it is supposed to entail a sense of public duty and obligation, just like military service.

The camera or vest "argument" is a false dichotomy. LEOs on this board have said that their departments do not issue them a handgun. Some have to purchase all their own equipment. These polices are known to those seeking employment in a given department. Personally, I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

However, just like LEOs are perfectly capable of providing a sidearm at their own expense, along with other equipment, they're also capable of acquiring body armor at their own expense ---IF they consider it important enough. Obviously, many do not. And equally obvious is that fact that much of the time there are officers who don't wear it even when they have it because they feel the risk of not wearing it is not outweighed by the discomfort of wearing it.

OTOH, LEOs are very UNLIKELY to spend their own money on body cameras. Some might, but which LEOs are going to be the least likely to purchase and properly use a body camera? Those who are most likely to transgress and don't want evidence of their transgression. Body armor is also a stand alone item, like a handgun. For body cameras to be effective at protecting LEOs and the public there has to be some centralized method of storing and accessing the recorded video, effort and expense required beyond the resources of the individual LEO.

So, yeah, for all these reasons I think body cameras should be purchased by a department before body armor --not instead of. Just like many departments purchase other equipment and don't issue sidearms. Such a policy does not prevent a LEO from acquiring body armor. Not having LEOs with body cameras does prevent citizens from acquiring some important additional measure of police accountability. LEOs get a choice in the matter either way, citizens do not.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: New bills about cops

Postby A-R » Tue Apr 14, 2015 1:23 pm

Your oft-posted "law enforcement is safer now" diatribe is simplistic and biased use of basic statistics that doesn't take into account countless societal advances (medical, for example) that make ALL jobs safer now than 100 years ago. Regardless, it's beside the point.

You can call my original moral basis question whatever logical fallacy you want. But if you'll read back through the thread you'll see that the question discussed at the time in the thread was a budget analysis of body cameras and I brought up the point that with departments that cannot even afford body armor (and later discussed cannot afford firearms) how can we in good conscience mandate they pay for the vastly more expensive system of body cams (and associated technology & storage costs)?

Then CedarParkDad and later you came right out and said you believe body cams are more important than body armor. You're trying to justify this immoral stance (placing officer oversight ahead of officer safety) by stating an officer can just easily purchase his own vest (and gun). Let them eat cake, right? Maybe vestless cops should just contact OSHA and force you, the employer, to pony up for necessary safety equipment.

Anyway, I'm glad you finally acknowledge that cops should be provided body armor, firearms, and body cams. Certainly a much more morally defendable argument than body cams instead of body armor.


Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: New bills about cops

Postby Cedar Park Dad » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:22 pm

A-R wrote:
Cedar Park Dad wrote:
A-R wrote:PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0


And he wasn't fired, nor charged until the video came out with what actually happened.
How about the other officer? Has he been fired yet?
How about the San Bernardino sheriffs who beat that guy up on video? Have they been fired yet?

You're not helping your argument.


I'm going to regret answering this, but your assertions are so devoid of reality that I can't allow them to stand.

Of course he wasn't charged nor fired. State police had suspicions, not probable cause. They planned to investigate the inconsistencies. The video helped immensely and sped up the process of establishing probable cause. Without the video they still could've established PC with evidence, ballistics etc. Doing so just takes longer. Is your attention span so short that you're demanding video of all police critical incidents just so charges will be filed in an hour like a "Law & Order" episode?


I don't believe them. Since nothing was public before the video hit, the burden is on them to produce proof they were doing something. Was the cop suspended? Was the other cop suspended? Has the other cop been suspended even now?

Since you're being pithy about timelines, here's one back for you. Justice delayed is justice denied.

User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: New bills about cops

Postby A-R » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:41 pm

Cedar Park Dad wrote:I don't believe them. Since nothing was public before the video hit, the burden is on them to produce proof they were doing something. Was the cop suspended? Was the other cop suspended? Has the other cop been suspended even now?

Since you're being pithy about timelines, here's one back for you. Justice delayed is justice denied.


Good for you. I'm sure the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division's top priority is producing proof that satisfies your biased mind within your arbitrary timeframe that they were in fact already investigating Slager. They'll produce all the evidence they've collected if /when this goes to trial - same as every other case.

And again, there is no cause to suspend an officer until you have probable cause to believe they have violated policy or broken the law. Stop demanding law enforcement put the cart before the horse just because they're investigating one of their own. The shooting happened 9:30 am Saturday April 4. The video was released Monday and Slager was arrested and charged Tuesday. There wasn't time to build a case based on the physical evidence and inconsistencies. The video release beat SLED to the punch.

You're grasping at straws with your petty gripes now.


Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: New bills about cops

Postby Cedar Park Dad » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:45 pm

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.


Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: New bills about cops

Postby Cedar Park Dad » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:48 pm

A-R wrote: You're trying to justify this immoral stance (placing officer oversight ahead of officer safety) by stating an officer can just easily purchase his own vest (and gun). Let them eat cake, right? Maybe vestless cops should just contact OSHA and force you, the employer, to pony up for necessary safety equipment.

Correction. Placing the Constitution over officer safety.

Frankly why aren't the police unions working for this?


Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: New bills about cops

Postby Cedar Park Dad » Tue Apr 14, 2015 3:51 pm


Good for you. I'm sure the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division's top priority is producing proof that satisfies your biased mind within your arbitrary timeframe that they were in fact already investigating Slager. They'll produce all the evidence they've collected if /when this goes to trial - same as every other case.

And thats the problem. Without the video nothing would have been done and both these guys would have gotten off scott free.


And again, there is no cause to suspend an officer until you have probable cause to believe they have violated policy or broken the law.

Lying in your report about attempting CPR is not cause to suspend them? is that the standard you want the public to expect from the police? You're digging a hole thats mighty deep.

Mighty petty gripes mean that call for DOJ oversight nationally is growing.

User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: New bills about cops

Postby VMI77 » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:01 pm

A-R wrote:Your oft-posted "law enforcement is safer now" diatribe is simplistic and biased use of basic statistics that doesn't take into account countless societal advances (medical, for example) that make ALL jobs safer now than 100 years ago. Regardless, it's beside the point.

You can call my original moral basis question whatever logical fallacy you want. But if you'll read back through the thread you'll see that the question discussed at the time in the thread was a budget analysis of body cameras and I brought up the point that with departments that cannot even afford body armor (and later discussed cannot afford firearms) how can we in good conscience mandate they pay for the vastly more expensive system of body cams (and associated technology & storage costs)?

Then CedarParkDad and later you came right out and said you believe body cams are more important than body armor. You're trying to justify this immoral stance (placing officer oversight ahead of officer safety) by stating an officer can just easily purchase his own vest (and gun). Let them eat cake, right? Maybe vestless cops should just contact OSHA and force you, the employer, to pony up for necessary safety equipment.

Anyway, I'm glad you finally acknowledge that cops should be provided body armor, firearms, and body cams. Certainly a much more morally defendable argument than body cams instead of body armor.


I get you don't like the statistics and would prefer to dismiss them as "simplistic," but the argument that every job is safer now is irrelevant as the issue is relative not absolute safety. I presented the current statistics for deaths in other occupations and the death rates are much higher in other occupations than law enforcement. This data isn't from 100 years ago, and all of those occupations that were in existence then were far more dangerous then than they are now. That doesn't change the fact that relative to a number of other occupations law enforcement is not particularly dangerous.

There is a political incentive to exaggerate how deadly the job is and I quote the data because that exaggeration is long standing and widespread in the media. I have two sons and I'd rather both of them were cops than any of the other occupations I listed as more deadly. In fact, I have recommended both the FBI and the military to the one in law school as law school has taught him to despise lawyers and he has no interest in practicing law. The other one actually went to the police academy but decided on a science related career instead. I work in the electric utility industry and I'd much prefer a son being a cop than a lineman.

If you want to make the argument that the statistics understate other dangers of the job such as assault you may have a case. I haven't been able to find any statistics that compare on the job injuries between different occupations, though people are severely injured in other occupations as well. But the hype on the danger of law enforcement focuses on it being deadly. Still, over the past 10 years, assaults of all kinds on LEO's have also declined significantly, so by every measure law enforcement is safer now than it was 10 years ago.

Oversight ahead of officer safety is a red herring. The issue of body armor and safety is far more complex than your argument allows. For one thing, lots of LEOs choose not to wear body armor even when it is available. Even special forces operatives choose not to wear body armor under combat conditions at times. I said from the start that they should be provided body armor but we both know that when it comes to money department polices are captive to political considerations and it doesn't always happen. In which case, just like any citizen can decide to purchase a handgun for self-protection and acquire a CHL, any LEO can buy body armor if that is a priority. The military wasn't even providing body armor to all soldiers in combat areas at one point and parents were buying it and sending it to them.

Body armor does not guarantee safety...it is an incremental measure. In 2014 68% of the LEO fatalities were wearing body armor. Unfortunately the stats are not broken down further and I suspect that most of those deaths were traffic fatalities where the body armor was irrelevant. Yes, it provides additional protection and should be provided so an officer has a choice but if we were to follow your officer safety logic to its conclusion then cops should wear not just upper body armor but full body armor with ballistic helmets and face shields and drive around in armored vehicles. They don't do that because it's not practical and there is a trade-off between safety and the ability to do the job properly. To arbitrarily draw the line between one trade-off and another and call one side of the line immoral is ideological posturing.

I am libertarian oriented so in my view a legal system, a military, and police forces are one of the very few legitimate functions of government. I'd strip the so called "education" budget in a heartbeat to properly equipment police and firefighters. I'd increase the intelligence/educational requirement to be a LEO and pay more to attract the best possible guardians of the public interest. We both know the political system has other priorities. This country doesn't even take proper care of its military veterans. So again, we're down to tradeoffs.

As far as your OSHA remark goes....I find it very interesting that you apparently have an impulse to solicit a Federal regulatory agency to coerce funds to benefit police. It's very telling that you're so quick not only to suggest government coercion but to suggest it occur in a way that bypasses the political process. The government agency that provides department funding is the responsible entity for providing body armor. If the funding is inadequate the process is to seek additional funding. Ultimately that may mean increasing taxes with the incumbent political implications. You seem to be suggesting the police should be exempt from that process and obtain their funding at gunpoint...for that is ultimately what government compulsion means.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com


cb1000rider
Senior Member
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Re: New bills about cops

Postby cb1000rider » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:06 pm

MechAg94 wrote:The problem is that even if you set a "safe distance" of 25 or 30 feet, someone recording might still be standing on evidence in a crime scene or worse, inadvertently kicking it around. I would say the cop shouldn't arrest you, but they should have the authority to demand you move further away or point out a boundary.


They can arrest you for destroying evidence or whatever that particular crime is. The idea isn't an "arrest free" zone - it's the concept that beyond a certain distance, you're not impacting the ability of the officer to do his/her job.

User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: New bills about cops

Postby A-R » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:29 pm

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.


Because the Pentagon gives what they have available. They could give surplus body armor, but unlike vehicles and weapons, body armor actually has an expiration date beyond which it is no longer guaranteed to function as specified (meaning actually stop the types of bullets it is supposed to stop). I know you don't care because you don't care if your agency's officer have armor to begin with - but conscientious police brass do care that their officers not wear substandard safety equipment to better protect the officer from harm and the department, and ultimately the government and your tax dollars from giant liability.

User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: New bills about cops

Postby A-R » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:41 pm

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Good for you. I'm sure the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division's top priority is producing proof that satisfies your biased mind within your arbitrary timeframe that they were in fact already investigating Slager. They'll produce all the evidence they've collected if /when this goes to trial - same as every other case.

And thats the problem. Without the video nothing would have been done and both these guys would have gotten off scott free.


And again, there is no cause to suspend an officer until you have probable cause to believe they have violated policy or broken the law.

Lying in your report about attempting CPR is not cause to suspend them? is that the standard you want the public to expect from the police? You're digging a hole thats mighty deep.

Mighty petty gripes mean that call for DOJ oversight nationally is growing.



You're rehashing the same argument. There is no verifiable way for you to claim "nothing would've been done" without the video. Basically a false dilemma logical fallacy with a bit of correlative fallacy thrown in.

"Lying on your report about CPR" ... do you not understand that you can't take action against someone based in information you don't yet know? How between 9:30 Saturday and the release of the video on Monday was anyone supposed to KNOW that they didn't perform CPR? Geez, your standard is that unless an investigator is omniscient then their investigation is bogus and only video can show the truth.

Investigations TAKE TIME. Deal with it. Get over it. Move on. The video helped immensely to speed up the process (as I've said repeatedly) but without the video the truth would've been revealed in due time.

Try some decaf
Last edited by A-R on Tue Apr 14, 2015 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “2015 Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest