Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Certain videos — including ones showing the use of force, commission of a felony, events leading up to an arrest for a felony, or an encounter that resulted in a civilian complaint — would be retained for three years. Whether or not videos are available for public release is based on the same criteria.
So if, they show use of force, commission of a felony, an arrest and events leading up to an arrest for a felony or an encounter were there is a civilian complaint would be available for public release. Again. Public release.
Someone gets stopped for speeding, the encounter goes smooth, both parties leave the video can be deleted. O.K.
Someone gets stopped for speeding, the encounter does not go smooth. There is a violent encounter. That becomes available for public release.
Exactly as it should be.
Except that it is _exempt_ from public release if the subject of the video does not want it to be released.
This will be a very small percentage of all video, whereas you advocated all video being released to the public.
(Also, the criteria is not the same as in your first paragraph. The third category, encounters that result in a civilian complaint, are always exempt from public release even though retained 3 years.)
Except that it is _exempt_ from public release if the subject of the video does not want it to be released.
This will be a very small percentage of all video, whereas you advocated all video being released to the public.
(Also, the criteria is not the same as in your first paragraph. The third category, encounters that result in a civilian complaint, are always exempt from public release even though retained 3 years.)
Most Americans do not condone violence with the exception of our actions in other Countries. Then, apparently, it's alright because it's 'over there'. Wherever 'there' is as long as it's not here.
When it's here? It seems as if some feel it's best to ignore the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities.
I'm not saying we should do it over there. I was just talking about what happens here. What I'm saying is this. Rioting in Baltimore changed nothing. Rioting in Ferguson changed nothing. Rioting in Milwaukee isn't changing anything. They aren't working.
I'm not saying we should do it over there. I was just talking about what happens here. What I'm saying is this. Rioting in Baltimore changed nothing. Rioting in Ferguson changed nothing. Rioting in Milwaukee isn't changing anything. They aren't working.
What a load of crap. There were no riots in Chicago over the shooting. There was a protest. One very black protester was questioned on news and he rejected the Ferguson riots as an embarrassment. He did however protest this shooting which I also agreed was excessive force. I could not have agreed anymore. The cop who did the shooting should do time for it.
I'm not saying we should do it over there. I was just talking about what happens here. What I'm saying is this. Rioting in Baltimore changed nothing. Rioting in Ferguson changed nothing. Rioting in Milwaukee isn't changing anything. They aren't working.
I know you're not saying that, my friend. Why? Because I believe what you say & I trust you.
What I'm saying is the American Civil Rights movement & the (universal) Human Rights movement doesn't begin on a particularly date & then end on a particular date several months or years later, it's ongoing.
Re: particular protests, direct actions &/or riotous acts, how many took place during this one timeframe?
The point they make is do not invest here. Let this city rot, along with its people.
Very few cities ever return to pre riot economic power.
You are so wrong it's almost hard to find even where to start with my response. Almost every major metro in America has had some type of riot. LA, Chicago, etc., etc., and they have all bounced back. Some cities were even burned down in the past and returned. You sound like you have never invested or studied real estate trends before. Areas that experience strife and upheaval often return through gentrification or other means. The picture you're painting is one of false narrative.
As for the point a riot makes is simple to understand. It makes the point that you can't undervalue, oppress, disenfranchise, and violate the civil rights of an area's population without bottled up frustration blowing up...
Oh really? Then please explain statements made in Milwaukee and other riots about finding and assaulting whites?
How about comments made outside the GOP convention by BLM?
Sorry, your assertion rings a bit hollow as the rhetoric constantly blaming "white America" over the last several months from many black "experts" and "representatives" or "activists" says otherwise.
Maybe they're just using hyperbole and maybe not but the optics are what they are...
You are trying to use a false analogy for the purpose of misleading people. Why would the statements of a few angry BLM protesters indicate a racial war? Think about this for a second. If a private citizen attacks someone because of the color of their skin that would be considered a hate crime and prosecuted accordingly. Only a fool would consider something like that as the opening salvo of a race war. Crimes have been committed, including hate crimes, for many years and a race war hasn't broken out yet. That's because most people don't live on the fringes of society where they believe the nonsense you're posting...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.