Popular Posts

Wednesday, December 03, 2014

Will Body Cameras Solve the Ferguson Problem?

In the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown’s shooting, before we learned that he had not been shot in the back, that he had not had his hands up, that he had, in fact, attempted to grab Officer Wilson’s gun, I wrote in favor of requiring more police to wear body cameras. Assuming nothing about Wilson’s guilt or innocence, I wrote, “Cameras cannot repeal aggression, bias, rage or stupidity — but they can certainly diminish them. And with cameras, justice for the guilty — cop or civilian — is more attainable.”

In the wake of the grand jury’s decision not to indict Wilson, Brown’s parents have called for police to wear body cameras. I remain in favor, but the outright denial displayed by so many opinion leaders in this case makes me doubtful that even video evidence would be enough to calm the next storm if the victim of violence is black and the perpetrator white.

There was video evidence in this case: the convenience store robbery and strong-arming of the owner. Any fair-minded person would concede that while the footage didn’t prove that Brown attacked Wilson a few minutes later, it did severely undermine the legend that was being spun of Brown as a “gentle giant.” Yet most commentators on the left either ignored the store footage or suggested it was irrelevant. Missouri’s governor denounced the release of the video as a form of character assassination.

For reasons best known to themselves, Ferguson authorities chose to withhold Wilson’s account of the fatal encounter for many weeks. Arguably, this silence permitted the legend of a brutal, unprovoked attack on an “unarmed black man” to proliferate more than it otherwise might have.

More

9 comments:

  1. Apparently cameras do not matter.
    Historically it seems that cops get off no matter what.
    And this is not solely in reference to Ferguson, this is a comment based on many many other instances of citizens with cameras, filming cops bad behavior and cops getting off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Cops get off"? No they stop CRIMINALS! They're doing their JOB! Cut the CRAP already you MORONS!

      Delete
  2. Short answer is NO. Eric Garner was killed by an ILLEGAL chokehold on camera. This country is getting out of control to the point of zero return to normalcy.

    Time for a #Revolution folks

    ReplyDelete
  3. "ILLEGAL" chokehold 10:23? There is nothing legal or illegal about chokeholds. It's a matter of a police department's policy.
    I've noticed some of the media outlets are starting to issue corrections on this misnomer and/or are now just starting to say chokehold and/or neck restraint.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous said...
    "ILLEGAL" chokehold 10:23? There is nothing legal or illegal about chokeholds. It's a matter of a police department's policy.
    I've noticed some of the media outlets are starting to issue corrections on this misnomer and/or are now just starting to say chokehold and/or neck restraint.


    December 3, 2014 at 10:48 PM

    The chokehold was banned in 1993 by the NYPD. It is against their policy.

    If one violates that banned policy which is also against the dept.'s policy, one opens themselves up for disciplinary action(s).

    Which DID NOT happen in this case. In my view, this kop used a lethal chokehold on an unarmed person, ( such brave folks these kops are), who was NOT being combative.

    Since said chokehold is banned and against their policy, it cannot under any circumstances be considered 'justifiable' use of force.

    Now we have entered into the area of assault and possibly murder/attempted murder. Eric would have been well within his rights to defend himself from this 'illegal' use of force and use any means to repel it.

    Which even then, he did not.

    Now some wish to nitpick and pull out dictionaries to try to defend this kop from his own VIDEO TAPED BANNED actions.

    They are fine with Eric being killed because he did not immediately follow a kops demands. They are fine with a kop killing a man who posed no real threat to him, just because he could. They are fine with a kop NOT following his own rule of law to bring a man into submission at any and all costs, which in this case the costs were Eric's life.

    But that is ok as he has been arrested 31 times before for SELLING INDIVIDUAL UNTAXED CIGARETTES.

    Sorry this has gotten so long Joe but I am really trying to remove the scales from some people's eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've noticed some of the media outlets are starting to issue corrections on this misnomer and/or are now just starting to say chokehold and/or neck restraint.


    December 3, 2014 at 10:48 PM

    You get all your legal advice from the media?!

    I guess that is much easier than to think for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cameras on cops will keep everybody a little more honest.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous said...
    Cameras on cops will keep everybody a little more honest.

    December 4, 2014 at 11:30 AM

    Yeah, it worked so well for Eric didn't it? Kops were recorded by a camera and it didn't stop them from killing this guy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 11:30 I said a little not completely. If it wasn't for the video the cops story would have been completely different than what really happened trust me.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.