The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Syt]

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/09/north-carolina-body-camera-law/501617/?utm_source=atlfb

[...]

It's unclear, however, if future calls for the release of police footage will be heeded. That's because in June, North Carolina lawmakers overwhelmingly passed House Bill 972, which the governor signed into law the following month after saying dashboard and body-camera footage can "mislead and misinform."

A spokesman from the governor's office said: "North Carolina's new body camera bill sets up for the first time a legal process for the release of law enforcement video. It takes the decision out of the hands of politicians and puts it in the hands of an independent court system, which has been given wide latitude to make its determination."

The new law reclassifies dashboard and body-camera footage as a confidential personnel record, giving access only to those pictured or heard in footage, or their relatives. Starting next month, journalists or members of the public, who can view the footage because at present it's classified as public record, will need a court order to view it.

The law also bars police departments from releasing footage independently, because all requests go through a state superior court judge. It also gives police departments the right to refuse anyone access to footage if it could damage an officer's reputation, jeopardize someone's safety, or if it could harm an "active or inactive internal or criminal investigation."

Critics say North Carolina's law is at odds with the movement toward body cameras, because the footage is meant to hold police accountable to the public. This was certainly the case in Chicago, with the death of Laquan McDonald, when the government fought for a year to keep the video private, only to have politicians call it "chilling" after its release. That resulted in a murder charge for the officer accused of shooting McDonald.

[CountDeMoney]

A spokesman from the governor's office said: "North Carolina's new body camera bill sets up for the first time a legal process for the release of law enforcement video. It takes the decision out of the hands of politicians and puts it in the hands of an independent court system, which has been given wide latitude to make its determination."

lol, Evidence: No, It's Not What You Thought It Meant

[garbon]

It also gives police departments the right to refuse anyone access to footage if it could damage an officer's reputation, jeopardize someone's safety, or if it could harm an "active or inactive internal or criminal investigation.

So they are never getting released?

[CountDeMoney]

Filed under "I" for "Imagine That!"...

Charlotte officer did not activate body camera until after Keith Scott had been shot

[DGuller]

I would think it would be kind of obvious that there must be controls to require the cameras on at all times.  Otherwise, such footage will be used selectively, and "lost" one way or the other otherwise.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, one would think that.

[Martinus]

So, apparently the guy who was shot in Charlotte had a past conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon, and served 6 years in prison.

[11B4V]

So, apparently the guy who was shot in Charlotte had a past conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon, and served 6 years in prison.

Not relevant.

[Martinus]

So, apparently the guy who was shot in Charlotte had a past conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon, and served 6 years in prison.

No relevant.

Why not? The police are claiming that the guy was acting violently. The protesters are presenting a narrative that the police shot in cold blood an innocent, mentally challenged man.

I think the fact that he was in fact a low life criminal lends more credibility to the police's narrative.

[11B4V]

So, apparently the guy who was shot in Charlotte had a past conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon, and served 6 years in prison.

No relevant.

Why not? The police are claiming that the guy was acting violently. The protesters are presenting a narrative that the police shot in cold blood an innocent, mentally challenged man.

I think the fact that he was in fact a low life criminal lends more credibility to the police's narrative.

Just because your a felon, convicted as you say, served your time, does not give any cop the right to pull the trigger as a first resort.

[Martinus]

So, apparently the guy who was shot in Charlotte had a past conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon, and served 6 years in prison.

No relevant.

Why not? The police are claiming that the guy was acting violently. The protesters are presenting a narrative that the police shot in cold blood an innocent, mentally challenged man.

I think the fact that he was in fact a low life criminal lends more credibility to the police's narrative.

Just because your a felon, convicted as you say, served your time, does not give any cop the right to pull the trigger as a first resort.

That's not what I said.

Incidentally, it's always interesting that every time the American public freaks out over police shooting, it turns out in the end that the victim is not so innocent as people originally thought.

[11B4V]

So, apparently the guy who was shot in Charlotte had a past conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon, and served 6 years in prison.

No relevant.

Why not? The police are claiming that the guy was acting violently. The protesters are presenting a narrative that the police shot in cold blood an innocent, mentally challenged man.

I think the fact that he was in fact a low life criminal lends more credibility to the police's narrative.

Just because your a felon, convicted as you say, served your time, does not give any cop the right to pull the trigger as a first resort.

That's not what I said.

Incidentally, it's always interesting that every time the American public freaks out over police shooting, it turns out in the end that the victim is not so innocent as people originally thought.

I am directly calling you out on your statement. It is not relevant or justification to shoot someone.

[Martinus]

And my position is simply: if you want to protest something, there are hundreds of more worthy causes than the police shooting an armed violent convict.

[jimmy olsen]

So, apparently the guy who was shot in Charlotte had a past conviction for an assault with a deadly weapon, and served 6 years in prison.

No relevant.

Why not? The police are claiming that the guy was acting violently. The protesters are presenting a narrative that the police shot in cold blood an innocent, mentally challenged man.

I think the fact that he was in fact a low life criminal lends more credibility to the police's narrative.

Just because your a felon, convicted as you say, served your time, does not give any cop the right to pull the trigger as a first resort.

That's not what I said.

Incidentally, it's always interesting that every time the American public freaks out over police shooting, it turns out in the end that the victim is not so innocent as people originally thought.

Right, every time. 

If you would just hedge a bit, even a little, you'd look so much more reasonable. But like your ideal the Donald, you have to go full bore every time.

[garbon]

And my position is simply: if you want to protest something, there are hundreds of more worthy causes than the police shooting an armed violent convict.

Yep because people with a criminal record should be executed after serving their sentences with no one batting an eye.

Anyway all this outrage is about the volume/frequency of black people being killed. How would it help to weed out cases?