Black Vs White: Oppression Or Master Plan?
|
Black vs White: Oppression or Master Plan?
That cop who shot that Utah kid was wearing a body cam. Would help solve a lot of the uncertainty and go a long ways towards accountability.
A good cop would even like the idea of the recordings as it could be used on his/her defence in case stuff goes wrong and it's not their fault.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » What was in question was if the police were justified in their actions. Seeing how a cop can't review a suspect's Twitter history in the few seconds they have to make a judgement call, I would say that makes it pretty irrelevant. Only reason to drag this ***out is to muddy the waters. No, it's brought up for a rebuttal against the stupid and even more so irrelevant arguments by family of them being "good children" and the like. If their child was so good, then they wouldn't have been busted for drugs. People don't like being called out on it is all. That's not even getting into showing a pattern of disrespect for the law and officers of it. I got the accountability part down, it's the typical banter that goes on between things that I'm sure the union is worried about.
You know, like the excessive swearing, guytalk, commentary on situation X and daily ranting that can be taken out of context and used against you at any given time.
[+]
like we dont have enough camera spying on us all the time, now we want mobile cameras?
It also might not be as effective as one would think. What would likely result is a nation of cops that are afraid to act because of this. That can lead to a lot of negative repercussions. Odin.Godofgods said: » like we dont have enough camera spying on us all the time, now we want mobile cameras? It also might not be as effective as one would think. What would likely result is a nation of cops that are afraid to act because of this. That can lead to a lot of negative repercussions. Then you will get a lot of "activists" who will demand specific behavior from officers in hopes to get away with a crime because they didn't do things exactly by the book, because there are 50 things you have to do before you even approach a suspect... Odin.Godofgods said: » like we dont have enough camera spying on us all the time, now we want mobile cameras? It also might not be as effective as one would think. What would likely result is a nation of cops that are afraid to act because of this. That can lead to a lot of negative repercussions. I mean as long as I'm doing my job correctly why would I be afriad to act if there is a camera recording the whole activity. Do cops need to act under the shadow of darkness to feel safe doing their jobs? If a shooting is justified then it's justified and you have nothing to worry about. As I said before, its more likely a concern that little innocuous things could be misconstrued as police misconduct and subsequently get you into hot water.
That or lawyers going on fishing expeditions to look for any way to get their client off the hook. Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » That or lawyers going on fishing expeditions to look for any way to get their client off the hook.  Good ones, court appointed ones usually just strike deals instead of actually fighting your case.
Odin.Godofgods said: » like we dont have enough camera spying on us all the time, now we want mobile cameras? It also might not be as effective as one would think. What would likely result is a nation of cops that are afraid to act because of this. That can lead to a lot of negative repercussions. Did we decide who is racially superior yet or do we need to reach page 9 ?
[+]
Fenrir.Mariane said: » A good cop would even like the idea of the recordings as it could be used on his/her defence in case stuff goes wrong and it's not their fault. My mental checklist when I get dressed before work: Vest: check Uniform: check Gun: check Body cam/mic: check I activate the body cam and mic before I exit my vehicle. I have audio and visual and it's recorded to a thumb drive. I download each contact to my computer immediately and email it to our I.T. guy to be stored on our server. It's saved my skin many of times over. Any cop who doesn't want to be taped needs to GTFO, you're shady as hell and doing shady stuff. This also makes sure that I have the entire story and not just what the public wants to see/hear from a third party that gets to the scene when I've got someone prone at gun point. The entire set up cost me $400 and was worth every penny. Only thing I regret is not spending another $200 for the night time set up, but that'll come soon enough. Not to mention the gear is tax detectable, so yeah no reason not to have one.
[+]
Odin.Godofgods said: » like we dont have enough camera spying on us all the time, now we want mobile cameras? It also might not be as effective as one would think. What would likely result is a nation of cops that are afraid to act because of this. That can lead to a lot of negative repercussions. I've never had any problems doing my job because I know the law, I know procedure, and I know policy. So long as I follow all of that which I know then no matter the outcome of a situation I'm fine. If a cop is afraid to act because of a video camera then do we really want that cop entrusted with ensuring the public safety? I for one don't want that officer standing next to me, responding to assist me, or anywhere near me for that matter.
[+]
Voren said: » Odin.Godofgods said: » like we dont have enough camera spying on us all the time, now we want mobile cameras? It also might not be as effective as one would think. What would likely result is a nation of cops that are afraid to act because of this. That can lead to a lot of negative repercussions. I've never had any problems doing my job because I know the law, I know procedure, and I know policy. So long as I follow all of that which I know then no matter the outcome of a situation I'm fine. If a cop is afraid to act because of a video camera then do we really want that cop entrusted with ensuring the public safety? I for one don't want that officer standing next to me, responding to assist me, or anywhere near me for that matter. This is standard issue in the UK. Get used to it people, because you're all lieing *** and don't like being filmed as a lieing *** you can't get butthurt over being caught. It's like speed cameras... did you break said Law? Yes? Even though you know it's there..... well who's the idiot now really. EDIT:** Speed camera locations are posted online in the UK, and linked into Phones / Sat Navs. yet people still get caught. Tax detectable?
:P You wear your vest daily? Jetackuu said: » Tax detectable? :P You wear your vest daily? The day he doesn't he gets shot................... I'd wear mine too, but I'd also have a Chain Gun due to the (5th?) amendment right to bare arms, and claim it as "penial measures" against rising gang culture for a tax right off. (I'm semi trolling I approve of these cameras). I am one who despises video cameras all over the place. So hopefully what I have to say means something.
A police officers job is difficult to say the least. I am a law abiding citizen and if a police officer is polite I'm polite back. When a officer gives me attitude I give it right back because I know my rights. As long as the officer is polite and keeps your rights in mind things tend to go more smoothly. Tragically, not every police officer is good honest person.. Shocking I know! What exactly do we have keeping these officers from ignoring your rights and treating the citizens under their jurisdiction properly? In the shitty world we live in keeping a check on the people that police us is quite rational and would make everyone safer. Not to mention some of the people that the police deal with are total POS that more than likely deserve what they get. Having a camera and mic would only help the officers in those situations as well. It don't get much more win/win than that. Also! It's BS you had to buy your own equipment Voren! Cerberus.Conagh said: » Voren said: » Odin.Godofgods said: » like we dont have enough camera spying on us all the time, now we want mobile cameras? It also might not be as effective as one would think. What would likely result is a nation of cops that are afraid to act because of this. That can lead to a lot of negative repercussions. I've never had any problems doing my job because I know the law, I know procedure, and I know policy. So long as I follow all of that which I know then no matter the outcome of a situation I'm fine. If a cop is afraid to act because of a video camera then do we really want that cop entrusted with ensuring the public safety? I for one don't want that officer standing next to me, responding to assist me, or anywhere near me for that matter. This is standard issue in the UK. Get used to it people, because you're all lieing *** and don't like being filmed as a lieing *** you can't get butthurt over being caught. It's like speed cameras... did you break said Law? Yes? Even though you know it's there..... well who's the idiot now really. EDIT:** Speed camera locations are posted online in the UK, and linked into Phones / Sat Navs. yet people still get caught. Speed cameras are BS! Cannot be proven I am driving my car at that time, and I do not have to incriminate the person who was. So how exactly is a judge who is suppose to find me guilty or innocent suppose to respond to a ticket with they only evidence being my car was speeding? It's called freedom, I know its getting harder to come by nowadays but we still have it! Jetackuu said: » Tax detectable? LOL, oops, deductible, damn fat fingers. I wear my vest every day I work, period. Altimaomega said: » When a officer gives me attitude I give it right back because I know my rights. As long as the officer is polite and keeps your rights in mind things tend to go more smoothly. I wish more cops would go to a professionalism course or two. Things happen and we're human, but just because I've had a crappy day and the knucklehead I pulled over before you decided to crap all over my day isn't an excuse to be anything less than professional. Quote: Also! It's BS you had to buy your own equipment Voren! Yeah, rural department. At one time all gear except uniforms and vest were purchased by deputies. In the 80's deputies drove their own personal vehicles for patrol cars.
[+]
Odd, don't see too many wearing their vests.
Cerberus.Conagh said: » Jetackuu said: » Tax detectable? :P You wear your vest daily? The day he doesn't he gets shot................... I'd wear mine too, but I'd also have a Chain Gun due to the (5th?) amendment right to bare arms, and claim it as "penial measures" against rising gang culture for a tax right off. (I'm semi trolling I approve of these cameras). 2nd amendment Voren said: » The entire set up cost me $400 and was worth every penny. Only thing I regret is not spending another $200 for the night time set up, but that'll come soon enough. Not to mention the gear is tax detectable, so yeah no reason not to have one. Also, it is a very bad deduction on your part. This is part of the 2% AGI limitation, meaning that you can only deduct this if the total cost is over 2% AGI, and even then, you can only deduct the amount that exceeded your 2% limit. To clarify: If your AGI (not taxable income, but Adjusted Gross Income) is $50,000, and you spent $400 on that vest and camera out of your own money, you cannot deduct any of it because 2% of $50,000 is $1,000, and you have to spend more than $1,000 to start deducting it. So, that $400 gives you $0 tax savings. Example 2: If the vest/camera cost you $1,200, then you can only deduct $200 of it, and even then, that's part of your itemized deductions, which if you don't have enough over the standard, you get no tax benefit from it. So, that $1,200 gives you $0 tax savings if you use the standard deduction. If you itemize, you only get a tax savings at your actual tax rate (not your tax bracket, but your actual tax rate). Assuming that a single cop making $50,000 AGI spent $1,200 on a vest/camera and he can itemize, his deductibility is only $200, of which (in real world scenario) only ~13% of that is deductible. So, that $1,200 gives you $26 tax savings in that case. And before anyone can say that this is a "rich-only" deduction (I'm looking at you Jet and Ramyrez), remember that this deduction is only on the amount over the 2% limitation, and thanks to the Pease limitation rules, the amount that is deductible is limited by as much as 80%. Meaning, a person who makes $1,000,000 of AGI, they would have to have qualified deductions of over $20,000. Any dollar over that, it is further limited by their tax rate and 80%. Using the above information, assume that a person had a $1,000,000 AGI and $30,000 of qualified 2% limitation deductions. Only $10,000 of it is deductible, and it further gets limited by the Pease limitation, so from there, only $2,000 of it is deductable, which leads to a tax savings (assuming ~35% realized tax rate, which is average for a person making $1,000,000 in AGI), the tax savings is only $700. An expense of $30,000 only gives a tax benefit of $700. And people still don't think that the rich doesn't pay their fair share? /rant Saw this picture today'
[+]
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Voren said: » The entire set up cost me $400 and was worth every penny. Only thing I regret is not spending another $200 for the night time set up, but that'll come soon enough. Not to mention the gear is tax detectable, so yeah no reason not to have one. Also, it is a very bad deduction on your part. This is part of the 2% AGI limitation, meaning that you can only deduct this if the total cost is over 2% AGI, and even then, you can only deduct the amount that exceeded your 2% limit. To clarify: If your AGI (not taxable income, but Adjusted Gross Income) is $50,000, and you spent $400 on that vest and camera out of your own money, you cannot deduct any of it because 2% of $50,000 is $1,000, and you have to spend more than $1,000 to start deducting it. So, that $400 gives you $0 tax savings. Example 2: If the vest/camera cost you $1,200, then you can only deduct $200 of it, and even then, that's part of your itemized deductions, which if you don't have enough over the standard, you get no tax benefit from it. So, that $1,200 gives you $0 tax savings if you use the standard deduction. If you itemize, you only get a tax savings at your actual tax rate (not your tax bracket, but your actual tax rate). Assuming that a single cop making $50,000 AGI spent $1,200 on a vest/camera and he can itemize, his deductibility is only $200, of which (in real world scenario) only ~13% of that is deductible. So, that $1,200 gives you $26 tax savings in that case. And before anyone can say that this is a "rich-only" deduction (I'm looking at you Jet and Ramyrez), remember that this deduction is only on the amount over the 2% limitation, and thanks to the Pease limitation rules, the amount that is deductible is limited by as much as 80%. Meaning, a person who makes $1,000,000 of AGI, they would have to have qualified deductions of over $20,000. Any dollar over that, it is further limited by their tax rate and 80%. Using the above information, assume that a person had a $1,000,000 AGI and $30,000 of qualified 2% limitation deductions. Only $10,000 of it is deductible, and it further gets limited by the Pease limitation, so from there, only $2,000 of it is deductable, which leads to a tax savings (assuming ~35% realized tax rate, which is average for a person making $1,000,000 in AGI), the tax savings is only $700. An expense of $30,000 only gives a tax benefit of $700. And people still don't think that the rich doesn't pay their fair share? /rant I have a CPA do my taxes, haven't gotten with him yet. And yeah, had to buy it, rural dept. I got it because I wanted to have that little extra bit of back-up for when things go side ways. I love cameras and audio, but I want to make sure the whole incident is on there and not just the last part. If Wilson would have had a camera on the entire Ferguson incident would have been a lot smoother to deal with assuming the powers that be didn't redact and edit evidence. Voren said: » If Wilson would have had a camera on the entire Ferguson incident would have been a lot smoother to deal with assuming the powers that be didn't redact and edit evidence. Asura.Kingnobody said: » Voren said: » If Wilson would have had a camera on the entire Ferguson incident would have been a lot smoother to deal with assuming the powers that be didn't redact and edit evidence. Camera is usually front facing from chest level. There's also a mic for audio and if it's like what I've got then it's clear and doesn't pick up a lot of wind. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.