Wednesday, December 3, 2014

He's Right...

It's not often that I agree with the Democrat mayor of Boston on anything...

Mayor Walsh, area police, offer mixed response to use of body cameras
Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh said Monday he is not ready to embrace the use of body cameras by Boston police, saying community outreach and improving job and educational opportunities are his primary focus to strengthen trust between police and the communities they serve.

“The body camera is a tool that can be used, [but] it goes a lot deeper than that,” Walsh said in an interview after attending a meeting of mayors, police chiefs, and civil rights activists with President Obama at the White House.
I agree with him on this regard, but for a completely different reason.

Cameras aren't going to make a lick of difference. Look at the Brown case. What is the one defining image, one that has made it to law school campuses and the US Congress? Yep, the "hands up" image. You know, the one that is a complete and utter media fabrication. Never happened. Oh, some claimed it did - but these are also people that claimed Brown was shot in the back, despite any evidence supporting that claim whatsoever.

Facts. Don't. Matter.

The media decided, for whatever reason, that this story was going to be big. They allowed untruths to fester and go viral and in no small part made the riots and unrest worse than it had any right to be. They elevated Brown to the status of martyr, crafting the narrative that this poor innocent unarmed teenager was brutally murdered by a racist police officer for no reason.

Honestly, what difference would a body camera have made? The plethora of cameras outside the Costco in Las Vegas where Erik Scott was gunned down by cops didn't bring about any outrage. Scott, by all objective accounts was not threatening officers in any way when they opened fire, yet because it was a concealed carry holder, the media was silent. Well, other than clucking their tongues about one of "those people" getting "what was coming to them"...

Here's the thing. We had a story in SC where a state cop opened fire on a motorist. The cop was white, the motorist was black. The cop told the motorist to provide ID, the motorist complied, but apparently he moved a little too quick, so the cop opened fire. It's all caught on camera - and not only was the cop fired, he's facing criminal charges. Why? Because it was an egregious mistake on his part that led to someone catching a bullet when they didn't deserve it.

There was no hay to be made of this case, no drum to beat, so the story went nowhere.

We can't - or won't - equip all police officers with cameras. There's no doubt that somewhere, somehow, there will be another situation like what happened in Ferguson that the media can exploit for huge ratings, consequences be damned. Even when presented with overwhelming proof that Officer Wilson was correct in his use of force; even when confronted with irrefutable evidence that Brown was NOT shot in the back with his hands up, the narrative just changed to "well, there's still racism".

And that's the thing. There *is* still racism, or, more semantically correct, racial prejudice. There are almost certainly cases in this country where black men are shot by police with little or no provocation. Why focus on these marginal cases, where there are so many conflicting accounts and the facts don't add up? Is it a rush to sensationalize? Quick, blow this story out of proportion before we learn the truth?

It sure seems like the media and the "professionals" did everything in their power to make sure that Ferguson burned.

That is all.

Another dispatch from...
(image courtesy of Robb Allen)


Jack'o'all Trades said...


There is also another downside to having body and dash cams everywhere by default... and it's a very expensive practical matter...

It won't be long before laws like this start proliferating around the country and our tax dollars start getting diverted from investigating (not preventing) crime to processing information requests.

my $.02
Jeff in MA

Armed Texan said...

It won't be long before laws like this start proliferating around the country and our tax dollars start getting diverted from investigating (not preventing) crime to processing information requests.

Or you could preƫmpt the problem by posting all video and audio publicly. They could even charge money for access to help defray expenses. Obviously, access to particular archived footage would be free upon presentation of a subpoena. I do not see how they could object while Cops is still on the air.

Ted said...

Posting everything violates lots of privacy and consent laws. ......... and removes any amount of discretion available to officers. Everything would be "by the book". no matter how ridiculous the situation. So say goodby to those warning tickets. Or the times when 23 over magicly became 9 over .

...... And a body cam on officer Wilson would have shown a nice video of the dashboard and the front of the cruiser and not big Mike at the side window

ASM826 said...

The local police here have all gone to body cameras. It records all interactions. Complaints about police behavior have dropped to almost zero.

It could be a combination of things, perhaps police behave better when the cameras are running and they know it. But it also the case that when people come in to file a complaint, they now get to sit down and review the video with an investigator. If the behavior and language of the officer doesn't match up with their memory of the event and they decide that the officer really didn't say or do the things they are accusing them of, there is no case, no further investigation, and no lawsuit.

It more than pays for the cost of the cameras and recordings.

Bubblehead Les. said...

I respectfully disagree, Jay. I think that as much as Humanly Possible, every LEO (unless working Undercover) including the FEDERALES should be wearing Body Cams.

Not to see if THEY are "Crossing the Line.

But to Cover THEIR Asses when the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Black Panthers, ACLU, SEIU, "Occupy Wall St," and any other "Friends of Obama" tries to RAILROAD THEM because they weren't "Politically Correct" enough to not be so "Hateing" on the THUGS that are Committing Crimes.

And we know the FACTS doesn't matter with THAT bunch. But it's hard to start a Revolution when the Masses look at the Vids and say "What Crime? The Cop didn't do no wrong."

It's not the 90's and Rodney King anymore. The Lamestream Media can't spin the Story to fit the Agenda like they did with King by playing only the last 10 seconds. Too Much Interwebs out there.

Old NFO said...

Key point- FACTS never matter to the SJWs...

SteveG said...

I find it interesting that the same lawyer who was involved with the PR campaign surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin almost immediately joined up with Michael Brown's family after his death.

A paranoid person might think there was an agenda at work here. ;)

MrGarabaldi said...

Hey Jay,

I almost would want the PoPo to have body cams, it would totally knock out the "cops be racist" rants that is prevalent in the social media. it also would force certain cops to "behave" better rather than be badge heavy. it would actually be a win....and I would love to buy stock in the bodycam business;)

Jay G said...

I guess I didn't make my point clear. Personally, I have nothing against cops wearing cameras. I think it should be standard equipment. Were I a police captain, and one of my men was uncomfortable wearing a camera, I'd take a good long look at his record, because there is no reason a police officer who is following procedure would be against a camera, IMHO.

Point is, this still would have happened even with a camera. Look at what happened: Brown attacked Wilson, got shot for it, then attacked him again. He wasn't deterred by a gun; he's certainly not going to be deterred by a camera.

The media and the SJW haven't let the facts (read: multiple autopsies) get in the way of their narrative (ZOMG! Racist cop executed unarmed black teenager). They wouldn't let something as simple as video footage stop them, either.

They'd simply do like they did with the Rodney King video, and pick the worst 10 seconds and broadcast it over and over.

In fact, I daresay cameras would have made this situation WORSE, because you know there would have been 5-10 seconds they could use against Wilson.

I mean, hell, these people deliberately edited George Zimmerman's video to be something it's not...

ScribblersDad said...

Double dog dare me, eh? Fine!

Hey, Jay. ScribblersDad here. let me just forward and exchange from LD's blog, re: willing accomplices in the press:

ScribblersDad said...
The press spent the months prior to the No Bill breathlessly inciting the populace of Ferguson, both local and imported, to uncivil disobedience should the Grand Jury not see things their way. They practically promised it. Then they wring their hands about how horrible the ensuing riots were, whilst making much hay over coverage on the nightly news. As you might gather, the press makes me ill.
5:33 PM

 Unknown said...
Hey LawDog - care to comment on this statement? "Widespread gun ownership creates a systematic climate of fear on the part of the police." Reference:
10:09 PM

ScribblersDad said...
OK, I'll reply to "Unknown." Interesting that your basic troll never wants to identify himself (and yes, a great number of LawDogs readers know exactly who I am.)

You know what the police fear? Getting shot. Does widespread gun ownership cause that fear? Hmmm. Lemme think. Does widespread car ownership make police fear being randomly run over?

 Police fear gun use BY CRIMINALS. I do not know a single criminal who owns a gun, and I know a lot of gunny types.

You are either falling into the trap of, or deliberately making the intellectual mistake of, confusing the application of a tool with the tool itself. Given that, I assume you are in favor of draconian restrictions on baseball bats and swimming pools as well.
12:53 PM