No more "Cops" shows? "Police Activity" is where it's at.
 

Bodycam Footage Of Police Shooting Kidnapping Suspect in Richmond, California

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Yfj24jpWU

Its a jungle out there :yep:

That's my white van Tim :o

Looks like an insurance write-off !

Traffic stop, guy was drunk, resisted arrest, was tasered, helpless, still fighting, gets punched a few times, still resisting, and then ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQLOmfx8X_E

Cops know this happens. Tasering and beating did not compel this guy to submit. They should have opened fire
when he reached back into the vehicle, they were probably trained and expected to,
but for some reason they held their fire.

CNN: Soccer dad killed on his way to soccer practice. :har:

Another guy "just out jogging" (ahmaud arbery) and "he was running away" (rayshard brooks) has been shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOIvmOPUwAc

Oh? That's an actual quote?

I believe it is a joke/example of how CNN and the media sensationalize news stories.

Like,

CNN: Rayshard Brooks while asleep in his car after attending daughters birthday party shot by police.

The real story: Rayshard Brooks while passed out in drive thru, driving under the influence and on parole with record of felony child abuse shot by police after resisting arrest and firing a taser at an officers face.

-Tim

Ever heard of rubber bullets and such?
The media "sensationalize". Well it is the same posting such films here or on Youtube i guess.


edit: nothing wrong with making those videos and using them for evidence, in private, before court.

The video of the officer being fired upon through the windshields of the shooter's and officer's vehicle got wide play in the local LA news (Pasadena is a very adjacent city to LA) and a few of the TV stations actually ran the footage in slo-mo and froze the frame to show very clearly the shooter aiming his gun directly at the officer. there was the expected knee-jerk reaction from the usual anti-police media hounds, but it very quickly dissipated when the body-cam footage was made public...


When the idea of fitting the LAPD officers with body-cams first came out, the police union howled long and hard against the proposal; there were claims of invasion of privacy, lack of trust, etc., but the idea went through any way; I think a tipping point was when an LAPD officer was accused of misconduct and excessive force by a woman who was being detained on a charge of public lewdness wane she and her boyfriend were spied by nearby citizens having a bit of a "nooner" in their car; one of the the officers who responded had taken up the habit of carrying around a small audio recoder on him which he turned on before leaving his patrol unit; the recording showed very clearly the charges of misconduct and force were totally false and the officers acted in a thoroughly professional and respectful manner; the accuser wound being charged not only with the original lewd conduct, but also with failing a false report to the LAPD; the only downside for the officer was the fact the LAPD did not authorize the use of recording gear of any kind (the union was dead against it) and there is a CA state law prohibiting the recording of conversations unless both/all parties are aware of and consent to being recorded, so, technically, the officer was in violation of state law and acting contrary to Dept. policy and he caught a lot of falck from the higher ups in the LAPD; local news outlets made a big noise about the basic unfairness of trying to hold the officer guilty of any charges and/or discipline and public outcry fomented by the reports caused the officer to get just a bit of a slap on the wrist...

I think the body cams are a great idea and should be standard for all LEOs; this article from the LA Times from Oct 2019 shows that far more often than not body-cams work more in the officer's favor than against:


Complaints against LAPD rise as body-worn cameras help exonerate officers and prove misconduct --

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...omplaints-rise


One aspect of LAPD body-cams is that if an officer tries to shut off the camera, there is an automatic 'buffer' period of two (2) minutes where the cam continues to record before fully shutting off; this is to safeguard against the "accidental" shut down by an officer trying to cover up misconduct; this worked pretty well in one case:


LAPD officer charged after allegedly fondling a dead woman's breast --

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/13/us/la...man/index.html


The next device that should be required as standard LEO equipment is the gun-cam; this clip, by a manufacturer of one of the devices, shows how the angle of a body cam very often doesn't tell the entire story of OIS:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqsrWDYZdaU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W_L0TCsI30






<O>

That's one way to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzgEX2dBibk

Yes I have heard of rubber bullets.

I don't believe posting these videos is the same. I have double checked,

define sensationalize: "(especially of a newspaper) present information about (something) in a way that provokes public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy."

I don't believe what people do in public is private.

-Tim