News New Cops Told To Go Out And Cause Ptsd

[Stickler]

@ Joey...a taser might have killed Garner too, he had heart trouble already.

Tasers are less-lethal, not nonlethal.
The police regularly use tasers in situations and in ways that are not ok.
For instance, in jail. If someone's already in custody, shooting them with something that might kill them's almost certainly not justified.
Yes, they may be psychotic and slinging poop. All that shit-slinging goodness doesn't justify tasing prisoners, despite how much NOBODY wants to clean turds stuck to the walls and ceiling.
( yes, they do stick well)

( Really, we shouldn't be putting mentally ill people in jail. We should be putting them in proper, effective treatment facilities, but ANYWAY...)

Sorry, pet peeve.

Tasers are GREAT if used instead of a gun.
If used at any other time, it's not appropriate, it can cause heart fibrillation and death. Especially if you keep tasing the person in question.

I agree they did not try to de-escalate with Garner.

Sandra Bland case...the DPS officer willfully escalated, for no discernible reason. Just felt like it, I guess?
Police can kill you and get away with it much of the time? So you hope they are not inclined to abuse that when you encounter one.

 

[joeylittle]

Tasers are less-lethal, not nonlethal.

This is true, very - I really don't know what the alternatives are, that are non-lethal, to gain control of a person if they need to be subdued and are extraordinarily tall and heavy, as Eric G was. But maybe someone else could say - did four guys need to jump on him at the same time?

It just didn't need to get to that point, I really don't think.

 

[Tanishq]

@Ed Norton Sorry? What are you trying to question?

 

[Ed Norton]

@Tanishq ... watch the above video. It may change your mind about cameras.


G'day

 

[Fadeaway]

I am conflicted about the camera issue. I don't like living in this culture where everyone records everything and anything people do. You really have zero privacy one you walk out your front door. At the same time, video has helped convict criminals and exonerated the innocent. It's a tough one.

 

[Friday]

. At the same time, video has helped convict criminals and exonerated the innocent. It's a tough one.

I live in a "consent state"... Which means that a person has to give consent to being recorded (video or audio), or the person capturing their image is committing a crime. It sounds good to millions of voters.

It has killed DV & child abuse cases in my state. Kids film dad beating up mom whilst hiding in the closet on their phones? Kids leave phone on record & capture their mom brutally abusing them, or their dad raping them, etc.?

- The recording cannot be used in court, & worse, "fruit of the poison tree" because the recording proved the abuse happened? Legally the abuse now didn't happen. :banghead:Because it's been proven to happen by something illegal.

- The kids aren't charged (unless they're teens) for filming themselves be raped or mom be beaten and raped... Mom is. Or dad if mom is the abuser. Because "clearly" the abused spouse put the kids up to it :rolleyes: to try and get around the law. FFS of all bass ackwards, mtherfking stupid, asinine... Argh.

It just pisses me off no end. In a consent state? People are so worried about being embarrassed on Facebook, that they'd rather kids get beaten, raped, & killed... than suck it up and deal with maaaaaybe not getting drunk with someone who would post selfies of their ass in public. At first I thought the "even if committing a crime" was a loophole that was missed. Nope. Come to find ...People are so pansy ass scared of being "caught" or thought to be committing some no count misdemeanor that they'd rather real f*cking spouse beating, child abusing f*cks go free.

I hope everyone who voted for these stupid laws manages to film their own rape and ends up going to jail for illegally filming their rapist, while their rapist walks. Self centered SOBs.

 

[Fadeaway]

I used to live in one too. It is pretty easy to by pass that though, as long as you say you are recording at anytime, if it is an audio device. For a camera if it is fairly obvious that the person being recorded would be able to see the camera and did not ask you to turn it off. That is implied consent. I have been to court over the second one. Saying "For the record" helps too.

 

[Deleted member 29961]

He was over 400lbs

Let me see if I can shed some light on what may have lead to the Eric Garner situation. Many people want to claim it was racism, it very well might have been, but I believe it was more do to psychology. you see, we still have some of these primal, instinctive bits of wiring in us, and one of these, especially in males, is; Bigger is Better. The reaction to this seems to be more prolific in your alpha type personalities. So,Eric Garner's only fault was he was larger than the officer, because the officer, to me, seemed to be an alpha.

So the officer arrives on the scene and sees that he has to deal with this big man, the primal instinctive part of his brain goes DIng! ding! ding! ding! warning! warning! warning! Size, danger! size threat! so the officer feels threated (No consiuous thought, just emotion) and goes into the situation having predetermined that Mr. Garner is a threat do to his size alone. Mr Garner attempts to be assertive but the officer's already distorted perception of the situation sees the assertiveness as aggression and reacts in kind. because he (the officer) is smaller, he feels needs to be more aggressive to compinsate, he feels the need to subdue Mr Garner, take him to the ground and cuff his hands behind his back, therefore reducing his perceived threat level. So, in essence, the officer killed a man to gain a level of comfort over the discomfort of having to control his own fear. Sound like a fair trade?

 

[Ed Norton]

As in any other profession, if you can't take the heat get the f*ck out of the kitchen!!!

 

[Tanishq]

@Ed Norton I will try to verbalize some things.

My point in thread was to spread the awareness while being careful. You have issued this thread because it is related with PTSD. You know how big this is.

You have to see the pros and cons of the situation. You have to take it into consideration. Recently @Fadeaway and @FridayJones shared the information and see how scary it is. You can see there are more negatives about having more cameras.

Now you go back to the video and tell me how many people have joined in that cause? 3-4 max right? The guy who is sharing the video, news channel and the victim. Right?

If you still think everyone needs to be a photographer, then I don't know what to say. I am sure it will cause more trouble rather than any good.

Yes thank goodness that everyone is a photographer.

The question you asked me:

Here's one example and Link Removed
doesn't want cameras,?

You have phrased this question as if I have said no cameras allowed which is why I asked you clarify what are you asking, to avoid the confusing or mistaking. I have not said that. I said this.

We don't need everyone to become photographer. Just few good people. That's all, all can be done peacefully.

 

[Ed Norton]

Where @Tanishq are these few good professionals when crimes are being committed. But everyone has a cellphone camera now. Read Friday's post just above and see the
damage that not allowing cameras causes. Just don't jerk off on the subway and you have little to worry about!

 

[joeylittle]

Not liking your post because I think the cop was justified, @Jigsaw Puzzle - liking your post because it is very astute.