Mock

(04-29-2015, 02:19 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

I was thinking about Republicans on the drive home today. I think their brain is wildly different from everyone who isn't a Republican. There's some kind of disconnect going on where they hear one thing and everyone else hears something completely different.

I was thinking about Democrats on the drive home today. I think their brain is wildly different from everyone who isn't a Democrat. There's some kind of disconnect going on where they hear one thing and everyone else hears something completely different.

I was thinking about Communists on the drive home today. I think their brain is wildly different from everyone who isn't a Communist. There's some kind of disconnect going on where they hear one thing and everyone else hears something completely different.

I was thinking about Libertarians on the drive home today. I think their brain is wildly different from everyone who isn't a Libertarian. There's some kind of disconnect going on where they hear one thing and everyone else hears something completely different.

I was thinking about Green Party Members on the drive home today. I think their brain is wildly different from everyone who isn't a Green Party Member. There's some kind of disconnect going on where they hear one thing and everyone else hears something completely different.

I was thinking about extraterrestrials on the drive home today. I think their brain is wildly different from everyone who isn't an extraterrestrial. There's some kind of disconnect going on where they hear one thing and everyone else hears something completely different.

^ I can usually tell when you're fishing, but not always.

That line had a worm on it the size of Texas.

The size of Texas, I say.

Good luck solving that problem HillBill. Legalizing pot would go a long way to springing lots of people from jail if she can get support for it nationally... which might not be too hard.

The body cameras are a no-brainer, I'm with her on that. Any police force who isn't doing that on their own from a liability perspective is making a terrible business decision. It will cost them far more in the long run - in real dollars and ill will - without them.

(04-29-2015, 02:55 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]

Here fishy, fishy, fishy.

Well it was either going to be maggot, bg, or me... i happened to be online and hungry so I was happy to oblige.

I was reading today that the L.A. police force is going to get body cameras BUT some people are arguing that the police officers ought to be able to review footage before it's released...so they can formulate a narrative around the footage.

Makes total sense to me.

(04-29-2015, 01:51 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]If the current showcase was the trade embargo on lollipops and the imbalance she would have been talking about that. She always comments on the most popular topics. except when its about her or her scandals, but I suppose they all do that.

Actually, I wish they all did that, Mags.

I like candidates who are looking at societal problems happening now, including their historical contexts, and how those problems can truly be addressed. I don't want someone in the White House who won't touch the hot topics, or someone who is stuck on old conventional wisdom which often no longer applies.

Problems with the criminal justice system and police brutality have existed for decades. I want to see them seriously addressed. I think it's finally gonna happen; it has to.

I would like to hear what Rubio and Bush have to say on the topic as well. They should be addressing it too. If they don't, it's a sign of cowardice, denial, or blindness. IMO.

(04-29-2015, 04:14 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I was reading today that the L.A. police force is going to get body cameras BUT some people are arguing that the police officers ought to be able to review footage before it's released...so they can formulate a narrative around the footage.

Makes total sense to me.

I wonder how many videos will hit you tube and facebook. I bet there's a shit ton of urinal films and some really funny stuff. All the folks they could film and make fun of later at the coffee shop could be showing up on some 8pm show like Americas funniest videos.

Personally, I would rather not see all body cam video/audio posted for public perusal, for a variety of reasons.

Here's what I would rather see (or something like; thinking out loud):

1. All officers must wear body cams and have them turned on.
2. All footage must be streamed into and stored by an independent third party with all time accounted for.
3. When there is serious injury or death at the hands of police, that footage must be made available to to the family or an independent agency (where there is no known family or deceased's advocate).

Cops who have unaccounted-for gaps in footage (which can't be verified to be a result of technical issues beyond their control) get disciplined and fired for repeat offenses.

I don't want to see officers put in a fish bowl; I just want video/audio evidence and accountability when policies are broken and crimes are committed by police officers.

(04-29-2015, 04:37 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I would rather not see all body cam video/audio posted for public perusal, for a variety of reasons.

Here's what I would rather see (or something like; thinking out loud):

1. All officers must wear body cams and have them turned on.
2. All footage must be stored by an independent third party with all time accounted for.3. When there is serious injury or death at the hands of police, that footage must be made available to to the family or an independent agency (where there is no known family or deceased's advocate).

Cops who have unaccounted-for gaps in footage which can't be verified to be a result of technical issues beyond their control get disciplined and fired for repeat offenses.

I don't want to see officers put in a fish bowl; I just want video/audio evidence and accountability when policies are broken and crimes are committed by police officers.

Who? That cost money. And would you trust a third party. IDK but I think they should be reusable and only utilized when an issue comes about. Maybe just storing the info in a time stamped device would work with no review until something happens. Then destroyed at the end of say 100 days. Getting rid of a daily review committee.

I had a feeling the first response would be "cost". It's a cost we need to bear, period, as far as I'm concerned.

Body cam manufacturers have already donated thousands of cameras to many departments and offered to donate more. Plus, the savings in settlements from complaints for police brutality and wrong-doing might well exceed the costs.

Who the independent third party should be, I don't know. It's an option; one which I certainly think makes more sense and would ensure more trustworthiness than having the function handled by the police themselves. But, there are better minds than mine with much greater expertise and I'd be surprised if there isn't already an organized group brainstorming away.

Anyway, I don't have a thought-out plan or logistical details, as I said. Just tossing out a baseline concept that might accomplish the goal of much greater police transparency when it matters, without putting cops' every pick and scratch on display when it doesn't.

ETA: You might be right about destroying reviewed uncontested footage after a certain amount of time. Electronic storage is pretty advanced and efficient these days though, so I'm not sure how much time or cost would be saved by destroying old footage so quickly.

Cost really should be negligible. Data storage is cheap, and is only getting cheaper. Between on-board and cloud storage, they could have a years worth of footage per cam easily. And if it would only need to be accessed during inquiries, the administrative cost to doing that is minimal as well.

The upfront cost of acquiring and maintaining them is no different than an other operational cost they can shoehorn in their budgets. If they can find room for military MRAP maintenance costs, they damn well can find room for body cams.

Thanks for that info, Jimbone. It's encouraging.

I really hope the recent high-profile incidents will be the catalyst to get body cams made mandatory across the country within the next couple of years, if not sooner.

As far as I can see, there's really no reason that shouldn't be a bi-partisan agreement - so long as the process surrounding their usage balances the need for public transparency with the need for officers to be able to function like normal human beings when they're not interfacing with residents and suspects.

If it takes a couple of years for them to become mandatory that would be a travesty.

I don't know how long it would take to get every department in all 50 states set up and rolling, and some might resist without a law requiring it, I expect.

But, the sooner the better, I agree.

I was thinking about Webb on the drive home today. He's actually a candidate that could steal my vote from the family dog this year. That being said, he doesn't have a vagina so he probably won't make the ticket.

(04-29-2015, 05:57 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]he doesn't have a vagina

Well, we know that you have a 25% chance of being wrong about that. So, Webb might stand a chance of making the Democratic ticket!

(04-29-2015, 06:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2015, 05:57 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]he doesn't have a vagina

Well, we know that you have a 25% chance of being wrong about that. So, Webb might stand a chance of making the Democratic ticket!

If he wasn't a Marine, I'd say maybe you're right.

(04-29-2015, 06:51 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2015, 06:21 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-29-2015, 05:57 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]he doesn't have a vagina

Well, we know that you have a 25% chance of being wrong about that. So, Webb might stand a chance of making the Democratic ticket!

If he wasn't a Marine, I'd say maybe you're right.

Well, he still has 18 months. You never know.

He could be the next Elizabeth Tremblay (ex-Marine, top pic below) or Kristen Beck (ex-Navy Seal, bottom pics below) by the time November 2016 rolls around, if he gets crackin'.





They have vaginas now, but I bet Webb has a better chance of making the ticket because, among other things, he's more qualified.

Just like Hillary Clinton is on the ticket because she's more qualified than a lot of other politicians, regardless of the vagina.

I don't doubt that some people will vote for Hillary partly because she's a woman though.