Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Dallas shootings
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Dallas shootings
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 7 2016, 10:20 PM (554 Views)
Mr Gray Jul 12 2016, 01:44 PM Post #46
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 11:37 AM


Which means that a court could make public a video of an individual who does not want it to be made public.
Not necessarily....see brian's post. the faces and other forms of identification are often needed to be blurred out...etc.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 12 2016, 02:47 PM Post #47
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jul 12 2016, 01:44 PM
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 11:37 AM


Which means that a court could make public a video of an individual who does not want it to be made public.
Not necessarily....see brian's post. the faces and other forms of identification are often needed to be blurred out...etc.
If charges are filed, that's public record. It doesn't take much to connect the dots with the released film. The point is that if the ruling is truly about privacy, then it seems pretty obvious that privacy starts with individual permission. And if a person is okay with the release of the information to the public, then exactly why is a court order needed to release it? Seems like a lack of transparency. It certainly would seem to exonerate police officers who were acting correctly....currently we are seeing a lot of person filmed cell phone footage that can give incomplete information and a biased approach.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Jul 12 2016, 03:13 PM Post #48
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
I don't think the court order route is the way to go, although I can see a role for the courts in records requests if an objection is made.

But in many cases obtaining individual permission of everyone on film is nearly impossible...or potentially in conflict with victim protection laws/children's protection law/witness protection. Anyone at any time can request any public record....whether they have involvement with the record or not. The administrative work required to ensure that everyone's privacy is protected is enormous. And if it's violated, it's the city getting sued, not the person doing the records request.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 12 2016, 03:35 PM Post #49
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Jul 12 2016, 03:13 PM
I don't think the court order route is the way to go, although I can see a role for the courts in records requests if an objection is made.

But in many cases obtaining individual permission of everyone on film is nearly impossible...or potentially in conflict with victim protection laws/children's protection law/witness protection. Anyone at any time can request any public record....whether they have involvement with the record or not. The administrative work required to ensure that everyone's privacy is protected is enormous. And if it's violated, it's the city getting sued, not the person doing the records request.
Any public records request not directly related to a trial has to be paid for by the requester? Is that fair? Would that solve the work/administrative issue?
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Jul 12 2016, 04:05 PM Post #50
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
dreachon
Jul 12 2016, 03:35 PM
sirbrianwilson
Jul 12 2016, 03:13 PM
I don't think the court order route is the way to go, although I can see a role for the courts in records requests if an objection is made.

But in many cases obtaining individual permission of everyone on film is nearly impossible...or potentially in conflict with victim protection laws/children's protection law/witness protection. Anyone at any time can request any public record....whether they have involvement with the record or not. The administrative work required to ensure that everyone's privacy is protected is enormous. And if it's violated, it's the city getting sued, not the person doing the records request.
Any public records request not directly related to a trial has to be paid for by the requester? Is that fair? Would that solve the work/administrative issue?
Well, all records requests could arguably be used in a trial...and they typically are placed prior to an actual trial.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 12 2016, 04:22 PM Post #51
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jul 12 2016, 01:44 PM
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 11:37 AM


Which means that a court could make public a video of an individual who does not want it to be made public.
Not necessarily....see brian's post. the faces and other forms of identification are often needed to be blurred out...etc.
That doesn't change if they are released by court record, though. I think that in a lot of cases that lack of video evidence also results in a situation where cities end up paying out more money than is warranted in negligence lawsuits. IMO, the amount of distrust -- some founded, some not -- in cases against the police has lead to so many suits being settled to avoid going to court.

The 10 largest cities police departments paid out $248 million in settlements and court judgements in 2014. In the period from 2010 to 2014, those departments paid out over $1 billion -- which goes up to $1.4 billion when car collisions and property damage is included.

IMO, in the time and money needed to blur out items and people in requested videos would be a huge money saving for the cities as I feel it would exonerate a large number of incidents that do not deserve settlement or judgments.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Jul 12 2016, 04:49 PM Post #52
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 04:22 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 12 2016, 01:44 PM
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 11:37 AM


Which means that a court could make public a video of an individual who does not want it to be made public.
Not necessarily....see brian's post. the faces and other forms of identification are often needed to be blurred out...etc.
That doesn't change if they are released by court record, though. I think that in a lot of cases that lack of video evidence also results in a situation where cities end up paying out more money than is warranted in negligence lawsuits. IMO, the amount of distrust -- some founded, some not -- in cases against the police has lead to so many suits being settled to avoid going to court.

The 10 largest cities police departments paid out $248 million in settlements and court judgements in 2014. In the period from 2010 to 2014, those departments paid out over $1 billion -- which goes up to $1.4 billion when car collisions and property damage is included.

IMO, in the time and money needed to blur out items and people in requested videos would be a huge money saving for the cities as I feel it would exonerate a large number of incidents that do not deserve settlement or judgments.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834
I agree that the cost savings is big and would outweigh the money paid in misconduct settlements. Although, for most municipalities, that settlement money comes from alternative funding streams (insurance) whereas the FTEs needed for records requests come out of general fund or other appropriations. It's unrealistic for most mid-sized cities to make this investment out of their operating budget, which may lead to third party companies providing the service....which can open up a whole other can of worms.

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 12 2016, 06:06 PM Post #53
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
sirbrianwilson
Jul 12 2016, 04:49 PM
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 04:22 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 12 2016, 01:44 PM
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 11:37 AM


Which means that a court could make public a video of an individual who does not want it to be made public.
Not necessarily....see brian's post. the faces and other forms of identification are often needed to be blurred out...etc.
That doesn't change if they are released by court record, though. I think that in a lot of cases that lack of video evidence also results in a situation where cities end up paying out more money than is warranted in negligence lawsuits. IMO, the amount of distrust -- some founded, some not -- in cases against the police has lead to so many suits being settled to avoid going to court.

The 10 largest cities police departments paid out $248 million in settlements and court judgements in 2014. In the period from 2010 to 2014, those departments paid out over $1 billion -- which goes up to $1.4 billion when car collisions and property damage is included.

IMO, in the time and money needed to blur out items and people in requested videos would be a huge money saving for the cities as I feel it would exonerate a large number of incidents that do not deserve settlement or judgments.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834
I agree that the cost savings is big and would outweigh the money paid in misconduct settlements. Although, for most municipalities, that settlement money comes from alternative funding streams (insurance) whereas the FTEs needed for records requests come out of general fund or other appropriations. It's unrealistic for most mid-sized cities to make this investment out of their operating budget, which may lead to third party companies providing the service....which can open up a whole other can of worms.

br
Insurance premiums are based on insurance claims. The 'alternative funding streams' you are talking about are real costs to the city and in order for the insurance to work, it has to be funded by more than it pays out.

Here is an interesting through: doctors are required to carry medical malpractice insurance. Those rates increase when there are a lot of claims that have to be paid out.

It's estimated that nationally (by policemisconduct.net) that there is around $350,000,000+ paid out per year in police misconduct settlements and judgments. If the insurance premiums on those were $450,000,000, that would average out to about $1000 per policemen in premiums. If policemen had to buy their own premiums (and were compensated that additional money to neutralize this cost), then it would seem to me that misconduct would probably decrease as it affects the policeman personally in terms of premium costs.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
rkl15 Jul 13 2016, 07:16 AM Post #54
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,970
Group:
Members
Member
#460
Joined:
December 24, 2013
Say what you want about Barkley, but sometimes he is right.

Barkley weighs in

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 13 2016, 08:14 AM Post #55
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 06:06 PM
sirbrianwilson
Jul 12 2016, 04:49 PM
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 04:22 PM
Mr Gray
Jul 12 2016, 01:44 PM
brumdog44
Jul 12 2016, 11:37 AM


Which means that a court could make public a video of an individual who does not want it to be made public.
Not necessarily....see brian's post. the faces and other forms of identification are often needed to be blurred out...etc.
That doesn't change if they are released by court record, though. I think that in a lot of cases that lack of video evidence also results in a situation where cities end up paying out more money than is warranted in negligence lawsuits. IMO, the amount of distrust -- some founded, some not -- in cases against the police has lead to so many suits being settled to avoid going to court.

The 10 largest cities police departments paid out $248 million in settlements and court judgements in 2014. In the period from 2010 to 2014, those departments paid out over $1 billion -- which goes up to $1.4 billion when car collisions and property damage is included.

IMO, in the time and money needed to blur out items and people in requested videos would be a huge money saving for the cities as I feel it would exonerate a large number of incidents that do not deserve settlement or judgments.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834
I agree that the cost savings is big and would outweigh the money paid in misconduct settlements. Although, for most municipalities, that settlement money comes from alternative funding streams (insurance) whereas the FTEs needed for records requests come out of general fund or other appropriations. It's unrealistic for most mid-sized cities to make this investment out of their operating budget, which may lead to third party companies providing the service....which can open up a whole other can of worms.

br
Insurance premiums are based on insurance claims. The 'alternative funding streams' you are talking about are real costs to the city and in order for the insurance to work, it has to be funded by more than it pays out.

Here is an interesting through: doctors are required to carry medical malpractice insurance. Those rates increase when there are a lot of claims that have to be paid out.

It's estimated that nationally (by policemisconduct.net) that there is around $350,000,000+ paid out per year in police misconduct settlements and judgments. If the insurance premiums on those were $450,000,000, that would average out to about $1000 per policemen in premiums. If policemen had to buy their own premiums (and were compensated that additional money to neutralize this cost), then it would seem to me that misconduct would probably decrease as it affects the policeman personally in terms of premium costs.
If police had to carry their own malpractice insurance they might also be too hesitant to use proper force, resulting in increased danger to society.

I don't think individual doctors have to buy their own malpractice insurance unless they own their own practice.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 13 2016, 12:12 PM Post #56
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
rkl15
Jul 13 2016, 07:16 AM
Say what you want about Barkley, but sometimes he is right.

Barkley weighs in

His statement that 'as black people, we never get mad when black people kill each other' is a patently false statement.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 13 2016, 02:51 PM Post #57
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jul 13 2016, 12:12 PM
rkl15
Jul 13 2016, 07:16 AM
Say what you want about Barkley, but sometimes he is right.

Barkley weighs in

His statement that 'as black people, we never get mad when black people kill each other' is a patently false statement.
It's Charles language for "there isn't enough public outrage for situations of black on black crime". I agree with the sentiment, but I wish Charles would be more careful with his words.
Posted Image
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 13 2016, 04:22 PM Post #58
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jul 13 2016, 02:51 PM
brumdog44
Jul 13 2016, 12:12 PM
rkl15
Jul 13 2016, 07:16 AM
Say what you want about Barkley, but sometimes he is right.

Barkley weighs in

His statement that 'as black people, we never get mad when black people kill each other' is a patently false statement.
It's Charles language for "there isn't enough public outrage for situations of black on black crime". I agree with the sentiment, but I wish Charles would be more careful with his words.
Yes, Barkley tends to speak in absolutes. It's the type of thing that he is accusing others of doing -- as if everyone is saying that 'all cops are bad'.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dreachon Jul 14 2016, 09:03 AM Post #59
Member Avatar
Creative Title Here
Posts:
24,067
Group:
Members
Member
#148
Joined:
February 10, 2008
Here's an instance where protests over the shooting of an unarmed man will now likely be put to rest. A cell phone video of the incident only caught the final two shots from the incident. Fresno police released the body cam footage and it shows officers giving him numerous commands without him complying. Situations like this help people understand what it's like from the officer's perspective and they help tell the WHOLE story of what happened. I'm fairly confident that more body cam footage will help restore our faith in the police, and not the other way around.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-fresno-police-shooting-video-20160713-snap-story.html
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:53 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy