Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dallas shootings | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 7 2016, 10:20 PM (556 Views) | |
| brumdog44 | Jul 11 2016, 02:30 PM Post #31 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
Any job with pay not commensurate with the importance of its service is going to bring a lack of quality workers, or at least a shortage. Throw in extra scrutiny and the numbers drop further. While there certainly aren't marches against bad math teachers like there are against policemen and the scrutiny isn't the same, there has been a pushback against education. I know Lars is against collective bargaining for teachers; Indiana has recently limited bargaining power and there is a HUGE shortage of teachers in Indiana. There are currently over 1,100 job openings posted on the Indiana department of education for Indiana teaching jobs.....and not every school posts there. A very interesting idea I read about is that when there is heavy military involvement overseas, we end up with a shortage of police officers. Our involvement in Iraq and then Afghanistan certainly probably eliminated some quality applicants as they were serving military duty. Gray is correct (I believe) in what dreach's feelings are.....the problem isn't that that 'bad cops' exist, but rather the system does nothing to change that and ends up protecting them. I know Lars feels this happens in education as well, but I can say there have at least been steps made to try to correct that in Indiana. It's also worth noting that if a bad quarterback doesn't do his job, a team might lose a game. If a bad policeman doesn't do his job, people's lives area at stake. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jul 11 2016, 02:40 PM Post #32 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
What does sicken me about some of the protests is that the right targets aren't being identified. The protests should be about getting police leadership and the district attorney's office to properly job delinquent officers. In Baton Rouge, where some protesters were throwing rocks and molotov cocktails from an overpass (CNN has a video of this), this will only accomplish the opposite effect. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 11 2016, 03:29 PM Post #33 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
You and Gray are right. I feel like it's the root of the problem that causes an increasing loop of all the other problems. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 12 2016, 06:43 AM Post #34 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
North Carolina Governor signs a new law that says police body cam footage is no longer public record and cannot be viewed without a court order. Sigh. http://abc11.com/politics/new-law-makes-police-cam-footage-off-limits-to-public/1422569/ |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jul 12 2016, 07:33 AM Post #35 |
![]()
Coach
|
Is it a privacy concern? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 12 2016, 08:59 AM Post #36 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Seems just like another measure to keep police from being held accountable to me. |
| |
![]() |
|
| rkl15 | Jul 12 2016, 09:44 AM Post #37 |
![]()
All-Star
|
More of a privacy concern if you ask me. Not of the officer, but of whoever they are "filming". If you had an encounter with an officer, would you really want "anybody" to obtain the officer's footage? |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | Jul 12 2016, 10:27 AM Post #38 |
![]()
Coach
|
depends on how difficult or simple it is to obtain it. I personally don't think that just anyone should be able to get it and see it....see RLK's comments. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 12 2016, 10:49 AM Post #39 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
There certainly are ways to protect someone's privacy while not sealing the video. Seems like a poor excuse. |
| |
![]() |
|
| sirbrianwilson | Jul 12 2016, 11:35 AM Post #40 |
![]()
Stemlerite
|
The difficulty is in the amount of administrative hours it takes to release even just one hour of footage. There are privacy and protection of minor issues that come into play when making police video public. Let's say you were concerned that a particular officer was abusing his powers and you wanted to look into how he conducts his business on a given shift. Each shift is 8 hours and in most bigger cities, those 8 hours consist of fielding calls most of the time. In order for the video records from that shift to be released, it has to be passed through a public records specialist who then has to review and edit the video to ensure that they aren't violating privacy policies (i.e. blurring out the faces of minors, etc). Video editing of this nature, on a shaky camera, takes time and typically a level of expertise police departments aren't already equipped with. Now consider the amount of record requests a police department receives in a given year. The department my father worked at for 36 years served an area with about 50,000 people. In his final year of working there, the department had received over 14,000 public records requests...in just a single year. The point of this is that it's easy to mistake a department's hesitance on this subject as trying to hide something rather than an administrative and cost concern. Once you open up that door, there's no stopping someone from requesting all footage for x amount of years for officers Q, R, & S. The cost of that can be huge....and, yes, every major city has watchdog citizens that do this all the time... That said, there has to be a way to make body cam footage more accessible to the public. For example, if use of force above a certain threshold was used during a call, that flags the video and makes it available.... br |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jul 12 2016, 11:37 AM Post #41 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
If the signed law was about privacy, it would require the person's consent for the public to view the video. Instead, it requires a court order. Which means that a court could make public a video of an individual who does not want it to be made public. It's not about privacy. |
| |
![]() |
|
| rkl15 | Jul 12 2016, 12:24 PM Post #42 |
![]()
All-Star
|
So you are ok with the "Public" being able to walk in and watch any officer's body cam footage? I'm sure you have cameras at school. Can the public come in and view it? There has to be some rules and guidelines when it comes to this information. |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | Jul 12 2016, 12:24 PM Post #43 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Good points Bri and Brum. Aren't these body cams only turned on when an officer is actually responding to a call? I suppose that would limit the amount of work, but not enough. |
| |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | Jul 12 2016, 12:52 PM Post #44 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
What you are saying literally has nothing to do with what I posted. You also ignored what I said about rules and guidelines -- if it's about privacy, then the guidelines START with the person being filmed -- not the court -- having the ability to release said film. You said that the 'released through court order' was a privacy issue. If it is released through court order as opposed to the person who is being filmed signing to release the information, that is the opposite of a privacy issue. If it is truly a privacy issue, it would be left up to the person being filmed whether or not it would be released. The law in question doesn't make that a condition -- it allows the courts to decide for the individual. You say 'if you were the person being filmed, would you want the filming to be made public'? That's a pretty easy question to answer if you feel that you have not been dealt with in a negligent manner. Most people in that situation WOULD want it to be made public. So why not leave it up to the individual being filmed if they want it released? If the point of the use of body cams is protection of both the police and the public, why would the public NOT have the right to make themselves being filmed public? The school cam issue you are talking about, I assume, you know is apples and oranges. We are talking about minors which basically ends that argument. |
| |
![]() |
|
| rkl15 | Jul 12 2016, 01:15 PM Post #45 |
![]()
All-Star
|
Missed the whole "You or your voice" line. If I am filmed, I would say yes, I should be able to obtain footage of "me". |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:54 PM Jul 10
|












7:54 PM Jul 10