Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

This is why I'm so opposed to surveillance.

[Bauglir]

Eh? Not sure if sarcastic or not... That article makes a fairly good case for surveillance (of the police).

[SalmonGod]

I should say mass surveillance, as made possible by $billions in infrastructure that only military intelligence and law enforcement have access to.  Surveillance of police by citizens is awesome, but cannot compete in terms of scale and intrusiveness.

[Bauglir]

Ah. Yeah, okay, that's a fair point, and I probably should've interpreted it that way - though I'd say the issue there is liable to arise whenever the police are corrupt, provided they have access to even the modest level of surveillance ability they need to do their intended jobs. It's just too easy to bullshit charges long enough to have a good shot at wrecking somebody's life.

[Propman]

I will say that the US Police have to deal with things that Europe would have difficulty imagining are even factors, and that on a few occasions, well above (evidently, it would appear that the gun ownership community suffers from a similar predicament as they in regards to coverage: much like one bad policeman speaks for a thousand, the same could be said for gun holders, who are ironically lumped in the same group as said bad cops in the heads of those against them largely due to the "us versus them" mentality), objects such as armored cars and anti-materiel rifles are something justified to do their jobs, but they have actually become more restricted in theoretical procedure in spite of their more noticeable..."outbreaks"; This is all part of a rather vicious cycle where the trust between the police, or going further, the government and the people have grown to distrust each other, and as a result are in some sort of legal/arms race that could be described as follows:

-Police abuse their powers.
-Public treats them as subhumans as a result, leading to more hostility between the groups. The outcry causes as change in procedure, which leads to more work for the police, but does very little to actually make them as an entity any less corrupt.
-Feeling alienated by the public, the police return that hostility, and feel less obligated to defend the public.
-The police abuse their powers yet again, as they have little reason to work for a public that loathes them beyond what is needed for a paycheck.
-Police are hounded on once more, provided they're actually caught. Scolded by the judges, perhaps one or two loses their job, but nothing groundbreaking ever happens.
-To occasionally give spice to the cycle, police are given better equipment by "the Feds" in order to deal with the undoubtedly dangerous populace, in a world of "terrorism" and "violent religious zealots". Never mind that they're not actually authorized to use it half the time, but the public sees this as them becoming more militarized and a sign of their corruption, decrying them further.
-Police see little reason why they can't bend the rules one and a while, being the law after all, and use said equipment in order to spite and instil fear in the public.

And such a cycle will continue ad-infinitude until somebody changes both the relationship between the two groups, as well as the culture of the enforcers themselves. Unfortunately, I have no idea how such a thing could be accomplished without wiping the slate clean in some areas, which would result in a bunch of unemployed ex-officers unable to retain their jobs being treated like criminals (the fact they might only technically not be none-withstanding) by the public, reinforcing the negative mentality that caused the issue to rise in the first place.

[Glowcat]

This showed up in my twitter feed and I thought it was relevant (and not already posted, I think).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/ferguson-protesters-keep-walking_n_5942482.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Police overseeing security at protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in August violated the constitutional rights of demonstrators and journalists by forcing them to stay in constant motion and not stop walking, a federal judge ruled on Monday.

Chief U.S. District Judge Catherine D. Perry held that the "practice of requiring peaceful demonstrators and others to walk, rather than stand still, violates the Constitution." She issued a preliminary injunction banning St. Louis County Police and Missouri State Highway Patrol officers from using the tactic.

I wonder if I can still find that one where yet another cop was revealed to be a member of the KKK...

[SalmonGod]

Reminds me of Occupy Indianapolis, where no one was allowed to lay down or even sit after dark near the capitol building where the camp was.

[SalmonGod]

Arizona police are the classiest

[Xantalos]

Man, sure makes somebody feel safe if its legal for the police to pull you over if you're Latino they think you aren't legal.

[SalmonGod]

So... shit is likely to get very real around St Louis soon, as a decision is expected pretty soon on whether to indict Wilson or not in the Ferguson case.  Supposed leaks have already indicated he will not be indicted, and there's major predictions of violence if that happens.

[Baffler]

It's easy to see why. Hell, it's pretty near to the point of violence as it is from what I can see. Some small part of me wants to see the whole mess of an administration be swept away in a blaze of public anger and vitriol, but there's far more to be lost than gained with such an approach. That may not matter to the folks on the ground though...

[Baffler]

That they do.

[Glowcat]

Not like he needs a job's wage for a while, after white people paid him over $400,000 in donations for killing a black dude.

[SalmonGod]

KKK making things even worse in the Ferguson situation.

[Xantalos]

Man, them KKK.
'We're just gonna defend ourselves from these protesto- I mean terrorists here. Certainly not gonna incite anything.'