Police Behaving Badly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buzzworthy

Your heart is definitely in the right place. I like these ideas and wouldn’t things be better if they were instituted. I’m certainly a victim of cynicism over these last few years so forgive me if I remain skeptical. I’ll still hold out some hope but it’s fading.

---

i would think that body/dash cams being mandatory would poll at like 90% approval rates for both GOP and Dems so i dont understand why that isnt being introduced as a law? The Fox News contingent thinks it will show the bad behavior of the perps and stop them crying wolf, and MSNBC viewers will think it will catch all the shady cops out there. this SHOULD play well to the antigovernment right wingers as well as the BLM supporting left. I dont understand why its not a law yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

And yet police kill more people than ever. A protest is an opportunity for the cops to knock heads, arrest "rioters" and maybe even kill someone. An editorial is something to wipe their asses with if the bathroom at the station has no tp.

---

Are they though?

Attachment 445321

https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-p...-are-way-down/

Things aren't going to go well for this guy if he ends up in prison. https://www.wcax.com/2023/01/30/form...exual-assault/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

I see an ass in sexy panties…

---

Maybe that's what Tyre saw too.

Quote:

---

Hey guys,







My name is Tyre D. Nichols. I am an aspiring photographer. Well I mostly do this stuff for fun but i enjoy it very much. Photography helps me look at the world in a more creative way. It expresses me in ways i cannot write down for people. I take different types of photograhy, anywhere from action sports to rural photos, to bodies of water and my favorite.. landscape photography. My vision is to bring my viewers deep into what i am seeing through my eye and out through my lens. People have a story to tell why not capture it instead of doing the "norm" and writing it down or speaking it. I hope to one day let people see what i see and to hopefully admire my work based on the quality and ideals of my work. So on that note enjoy my page and let me know what you think.







Your friend,







-Tyre D. Nichols

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser4

Things aren't going to go well for this guy if he ends up in prison. https://www.wcax.com/2023/01/30/form...exual-assault/

---

There is no way he'd be in general population with those charges and that career, either one of them would be a death sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

i would think that body/dash cams being mandatory would poll at like 90% approval rates for both GOP and Dems so i dont understand why that isnt being introduced as a law? The Fox News contingent thinks it will show the bad behavior of the perps and stop them crying wolf, and MSNBC viewers will think it will catch all the shady cops out there. this SHOULD play well to the antigovernment right wingers as well as the BLM supporting left. I dont understand why its not a law yet?

---

so who’s going to enforce police compliance with the law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dunfree

so who’s going to enforce police compliance with the law?

---

The dream police

They’re inside of my head

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dunfree

so who’s going to enforce police compliance with the law?

---

This - also unions and collective breaking of each others cameras because many departments act like spiteful toddlers at the whiff of any level of real accountability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

The dream police

They’re inside of my head

---

Lawyers. If the police cannot produce the video footage then it is assumed that the civilian acted within the law during the police encounter, and thus any physical injury sustained during the encounter would be charged as assault (or more). A lot of prosecutors offices have testy relationships with the PD, so it doubt they would have much problem "cleaning up the local police force".

LMAO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_VUMAFia5g

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Are they though? (M
Attachment 445321

https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-p...-are-way-down/

---

The same database shows that total killings are up. And not all police killings are shootings--see George Floyd, Tyre Nichols, Freddy Gray, Eric Garner., ad nauseum. Plus the listing of a victim as armed or unarmed depends on the police report of the incident, which time and time again has turned out to be a lie. A weapon is not necessarily a firearm. I forget the name of the guy who was stopped in his car, told the police he had a licensed, lawfully carried firearm, and was shot and killed for no other reason. He wouldn'tshow up as a killing of an unarmed subject.

And BTW--calling the victim of a police shooting a "suspect" spins the data in favor of the police. Many of these people had commited no crime(see Brionna Taylor) or done nothng more than driving with a bad taillight. (Malcolm Williams)

MF -

is that fake?
if not, are city payouts from lawsuits taxable?


k fake whoah

Black and hispanic are more likely to be killed by the police than white people... More white people are killed by the police than black or hispanic people. Both can be 100% true... because there are more white people total.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

I forget the name of the guy who was stopped in his car, told the police he had a licensed, lawfully carried firearm, and was shot and killed for no other reason. He wouldn'tshow up as a killing of an unarmed subject.

---

Philando Castile. Say what you want about the NRA but at least they backed him as a responsible gun owner in that time of crisis.

Wait.

No, they didn't. The NRA didn't say shit about him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

The same database shows that total killings are up. And not all police killings are shootings--see George Floyd, Tyre Nichols, Freddy Gray, Eric Garner., ad nauseum. Plus the listing of a victim as armed or unarmed depends on the police report of the incident, which time and time again has turned out to be a lie. A weapon is not necessarily a firearm. I forget the name of the guy who was stopped in his car, told the police he had a licensed, lawfully carried firearm, and was shot and killed for no other reason. He wouldn'tshow up as a killing of an unarmed subject.

And BTW--calling the victim of a police shooting a "suspect" spins the data in favor of the police. Many of these people had commited no crime(see Brionna Taylor) or done nothng more than driving with a bad taillight. (Malcolm Williams)

---

If total killing are up, then that does change things… Can’t get to the linked database since no WaPo subscription.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldnew_guy

Except these are the same police who vote in their union reps who perpetuate this stuff.

---

There's a lot to unpack here. I'm going to keep my comments narrow. The Union's can not stop departments from assigning Body Cameras in New York State. Body Cameras are considered equipment and, and it is managements right to determine what equipment is required. Thus, the Department assigns equipment - full stop. While a Union may fight the issuance of Body cameras they cannot stop it in NYS. It is well settled law that equipment is determined by the employer.

The Union can demand to bargain over the "impact" of the assignment of body cameras - but cannot stop the issuance. "Impact" bargaining is limited to issues such as when do the cameras need to be on (variations of "from moment officer leaves the precinct or whenever having contact with public"), when they can be off (restroom visits, etc.), how the data will be stored and safe guarded, what the data can be used for, etc. The "impact" bargaining is required and useful for setting up procedures that make sense - but in no way can the Union prevent the issuance of the cameras. They may fight it in the press or political arena, but that's a different issue.

In NYS, if the parties are unable to resolve the impact bargaining issues they can declare impasse and have a mediator assigned to help end the impasse. If the impasse remains unresolved after mediation either party can petition for interest arbitration wherein a neutral arbitrator is selected and resolves (along with one management and one Union assigned panel member) the open issues through an arbitration award.

I am not up to date on every states public sector collective bargaining laws, but New York's (The Taylor Law) is considered to be one of the most expansive in the country.

So, in one sentence - in NYS, unless a PD negotiates away their right to assign equipment, it remains their management right.

I won't get into the reasons why Union's fight Body cameras (not all do) and why some departments don't require them. I will tell you that many police Union attorneys speak in favor of Body cameras to their leadership as long as the video data is limited to legitimate purposes including serious misconduct. They understand the camera will more often protect the police officers from frivolous complaints.

This is a horrible, soul crushing issue. Those that commit these horrendous acts need to be prosecuted. The widespread adoption of Body cameras is in the interest of police officers and the public.

I wanted to share the above information so this conversation can stay focused and not chase the "Union won't allow it" red herring that is commonly shared without knowledge of its falsity.



Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC13

There's a lot to unpack here. I'm going to keep my comments narrow. The Union's can not stop departments from assigning Body Cameras in New York State. Body Cameras are considered equipment and, and it is managements right to determine what equipment is required. Thus, the Department assigns equipment - full stop. While a Union may fight the issuance of Body cameras they cannot stop it in NYS. It is well settled law that equipment is determined by the employer.

The Union can demand to bargain over the "impact" of the assignment of body cameras - but cannot stop the issuance. "Impact" bargaining is limited to issues such as when do the cameras need to be on (variations of "from moment officer leaves the precinct or whenever having contact with public"), when they can be off (restroom visits, etc.), how the data will be stored and safe guarded, what the data can be used for, etc. The "impact" bargaining is required and useful for setting up procedures that make sense - but in no way can the Union prevent the issuance of the cameras. They may fight it in the press or political arena, but that's a different issue.

In NYS, if the parties are unable to resolve the impact bargaining issues they can declare impasse and have a mediator assigned to help end the impasse. If the impasse remains unresolved after mediation either party can petition for interest arbitration wherein a neutral arbitrator is selected and resolves (along with one management and one Union assigned panel member) the open issues through an arbitration award.

I am not up to date on every states public sector collective bargaining laws, but New York's (The Taylor Law) is considered to be one of the most expansive in the country.

So, in one sentence - in NYS, unless a PD negotiates away their right to assign equipment, it remains their management right.

I won't get into the reasons why Union's fight Body cameras (not all do) and why some departments don't require them. I will tell you that many police Union attorneys speak in favor of Body cameras to their leadership as long as the video data is limited to legitimate purposes including serious misconduct. They understand the camera will more often protect the police officers from frivolous complaints.

This is a horrible, soul crushing issue. Those that commit these horrendous acts need to be prosecuted. The widespread adoption of Body cameras is in the interest of police officers and the public.

I wanted to share the above information so this conversation can stay focused and not chase the "Union won't allow it" red herring that is commonly shared without knowledge of its falsity.



Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

---

Please don’t mistake my comment as being limited to “body cameras”.

If the unions and police organizations wanted to root out these bad actors they would.

Yet here we are.

I thought we'd moved past the "it's a few bad apples" phase.

I didn’t want to watch the footage. Waited a few days to really think about it and decided that it’s important.

With his love of skateboarding and photography I feel like Tyre was one of us, not that it should matter, but it does. A guy who shares your same passions is more relatable. There’s obviously a major disconnect, repressed anger, and nihilism that cops with cameras everywhere would behave this way. Good to see Memphis handling it.

agree on all. how many maggots have come through hoping to be photogs? memphis is handling the cop situation much better (lessons learned) while gearing up for the worst. i hope turnout exceeds all expectations while keeping just as peaceful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BC13

The widespread adoption of Body cameras is in the interest of police officers and the public.

---

I completely agree. In your opinion (or apparent experience), why are body cameras not ubiquitous/mandatory? what are the spoken reasons, and what are the unspoken reasons? And can it be legislated into law to require the use of body cameras for all police, for every civilian interaction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by californiagrown

I completely agree. In your opinion (or apparent experience), why are body cameras not ubiquitous/mandatory? what are the spoken reasons, and what are the unspoken reasons? And can it be legislated into law to require the use of body cameras for all police, for every civilian interaction?

---

There has to be political will within each department and or jurisdiction to issue body cameras. That is what it comes down to at the end of the day.

I am not aware of State or federal legislation requiring body cams, but I would only need to be aware if such legislation passed.

The attitudes of police union leadership run the gamut. You have to remember their 1st duty is the well being of their members. There are real ongoing discussions as to what is "best" for police within unions.

Its very difficult for police union leaders to openly "agree" to the utilization of body cams even if they think it is a good decision. Behind the scene the message is often sent to management to "do what they have to do" and then the union will respond accordingly, which usually means demanding impact bargaining as discussed above.

Sent from my SM-G981U1 using Tapatalk

There will never be political will within the departments unless they are forced and or have something to lose. Instead of cities paying for lawsuit losses, put that shit on police unions. Even Serpico was despised. It won’t happen without cops getting hits to their pockets. Tossing a few bad cops in prison ain’t gonna be enough for the message to get through.

I think i'll try this

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CoK1W...d=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

How the fuck is someone with no legs and no gun a threat to cops?