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.
I oppose such laws. The videos should be treated as practically any other government document and accessible to the public with some exceptions.
Here is a question I have for you. Should the public have access to them when they show a rape victim?
A police officer raping a victim? A rape victim being interviewed? I'm not sure that anyone is asking for interviews to be released unless a crime occurs in them.
A police officer raping a victim? A rape victim being interviewed? I'm not sure that anyone is asking for interviews to be released unless a crime occurs in them.
I'm talking about when a cop responds to a rape call and the victim is shown in the videos.
That is one of the exceptions I could support.
My point is that not everything is absolute or black and white.
I'd guess 99% of police footage should be open to the public.
It would be difficult to think of any situations where a physical confrontation involving police shouldn't be open to public scrutiny by the release of videos.
I'm talking about when a cop responds to a rape call and the victim is shown in the videos.
First we will note that this generally isn't what is in question but let's agree that it's possible that the cops could get a call where someone is being raped. The cops arrive and mistake the assaulted for someone else and shoots them. People should be able to get the video. You could address this by blurring out the assaulted person.
Quote:
That is one of the exceptions I could support.
My point is that not everything is absolute or black and white.
I'd guess 99% of police footage should be open to the public.
It would be difficult to think of any situations where a physical confrontation involving police shouldn't be open to public scrutiny by the release of videos.
Those in charge will always be allowed to argue an exemption for a truly rare occasion.
As a senior with more then one handicap.....one being partially deaf (thankyou Korea) sometimes traffic noise bothers me so I press the button that cuts off the aid to a quiet mode.
It is difficult to have the eyes looking in all directions at once so I'm bound to miss some things...am sure it happens to others......try reading 3-4 signs at a intersection when doing the LEGAL speed or slower with cars on your rear bumper.
Not sure of the entire story so cannot answer any true opinions.
Bound to be a whitewash......happens too many times.
First we will note that this generally isn't what is in question but let's agree that it's possible that the cops could get a call where someone is being raped. The cops arrive and mistake the assaulted for someone else and shoots them. People should be able to get the video. You could address this by blurring out the assaulted person.
What on God's green earth are you rambling on about?
A 911 calls in about a rape occurring in a park. Police respond to investigate. As the officers roll up to the scene, a rape victim is cowering behind a park bench. The officers assist her by getting her a blanket and helping her up and over to the patrol car. This is all caught by the body cameras and the squad car video. Should this be public record where the video images of the rape victim is open to public viewing?
What on God's green earth are you rambling on about?
A 911 calls in about a rape occurring in a park. Police respond to investigate. As the officers roll up to the scene, a rape victim is cowering behind a park bench. The officers assist her by getting her a blanket and helping her up and over to the patrol car. This is all caught by the body cameras and the squad car video. Should this be public record where the video images of the rape victim is open to public viewing?
If need be. As I said, you could blur out the victim. But NO ONE is asking to see a video like this. In the discussion about North Carolina's law part of it was after a certain time the video would get wiped out. No one had a problem with that as long as nothing questionable was in it.
How about waiting for the investigation police report? Those who jump to conclusions are bigots pushing an agenda.
I haven't tried to hide the agenda. I've noted many times it is not about any one instance. I've even made the point in earlier threads that while it is largely a problem towards blacks it's not just a problem for blacks.
Why should the subject being armed be any justification? Do we the people have 2nd Amendment protections, or do we the people ain't got no 2nd Amendment protections? Police are going to return to the practice of planting burner guns on subjects they have just killed to justify murder. And they are increasingly going to make sure that it is indeed murder, so there will be no complications of conflicting stories later on. Sleight of hand magicians will be openly recruited by urban police departments. "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a Glock 17 out of this perp's pocket". "Again?"...
Just being armed shouldn't be. But after a high speed pursuit, if the subject got out of his car and a firearm was visible in his waistband, I can see how that might be a red flag to the cop. Or even worse, if the subject had a firearm in his hand.
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.
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.
