Police Officer Misbehaving

Yeah but it wasn't on. It doesn't really do anyone any good if it's off. I see no reason why those body cams can't be active all the time, same for the dash cams. If the officer doesn't do anything wrong, that footage will exonerate them, if he does, we'll all know.

The technology exists, they should use it.

 

The camera is on a continuous loop that can capture the previous 30 seconds once turned on. If one of the officers had pushed a button on their body cam within 30 seconds after the incident started the entire episode would have been recorded.

If the officer is charged with something, and I think he will, then his defense will be that he thought they were being ambushed. There have been several incidents where cops were shot while they sat in their car. I'm sure police are extra jumpy right now.

 

Kind of funny. . . . .when the races are switched
Its the victims that need Cams to back them up . . .and even then it is not enough

Rocket River

 

Race has nothing to do with it, when an officer makes that kind of a claim, they need something to back it up. That's why body cams and dash cams should be on during the officer's entire shift, when it comes down to it, those cameras are there to protect the officer.

In this case, if we had dash cam footage, body cam footage, or something else we'd be able to say for sure if what the officer did was right or wrong and there would be very little question as to their guilt or innocence just like in other recent cases like the Alton Sterling shooting and the Terence Crutcher shooting. Other cases have no video evidence so they are forced to go off of eyewitness accounts and forensic data which is why the Micheal Brown case even went to trial, if there was footage of the incident, it's a no bill situation.

Other times, that footage will absolutely crush the officer's case and ensure he's sent to prison when he's guilty like in the Walter Scott shooting.

IMO it's best for everyone involved to just ensure those cameras are rolling at all times.

 

He should be found guilty because apparently he killed an innocent woman, not because he is black and the victim is white. C'mon guys, let's keep race out of this discussion.

Incompentcy is the issue here. The fact that, as of yesterday, Noor was not cooperating with the authorities or simply giving a statement is telling in this case.

 

Man...you guys need to take some sarcasm/irony lessons.

 

The problem is that there are people who say things like that and mean it.

 

The race difference absolutely matters, let's not lie to each other here.

When the guy in Minnesota was shot, Facebook, twitter, etc. devolved instantly into pro-cop groups exonerating the cop because the black dude probably was a criminal (go back and read the stuff they were putting out there). There were deep "social media" investigations (lol) that connected him to all kinds of gangs, etc. Within hours, seriously. The guy might as well have been a terrorist by the end of the first day.

With this woman the reaction is totally different.

Not to mention that this cop won't get to make the argument that her nose was shaped liked someone who robbed a store that day.

 

It's different because there is less information available. With the Castile situation, we heard the reason for the shooting almost instantly. Sure there are whack jobs that took to both extremes, but you can't base anything on that.

With this case, there's no video and I don't think they've even said what the officer's take on it was. We just know that an unarmed woman was shot.

 

Right, but no one is on Fox News saying we need to find out about the woman's tox screen, Sheriff David Clarke hasn't gone on Hannity to talk about why a cop would be jumpy in this situation, etc.

And again, the cop is screwed because it was a white woman. If it was a black dude he shot I promise we would have already heard about how he fit the description of someone or how the cop thought he smelled mar1juana lol.

 

Right. In this case it's incompetency, in every other case the person had it coming.

Odd that this white lady isn't being torn down and attacked the way most victims of police are treated. What drugs was she on? Was she drunk? Did she have a record? Where is the tear down?

 

I think that's a product of how little information is out there. Honestly there's not even enough information available to speculate.

The cop being "screwed" has nothing to do with the race he is or the race of the person he shot, if he ends up screwed, it's because of the facts of the case. Don't be "that guy", it's beneath you.

When the black cop in Alabama shot and killed an 18 year old unarmed white kid, was he "screwed"? Of course not, hell I doubt you even know the name Gilbert Collar, but you sure as hell know Micheal Brown's name. How about the case of the white kid in Utah that was shot by a Hispanic officer just 2 days after the Micheal Brown shooting, this kid was truly innocent of any crime and he was shot because the officer thought he was going for a gun when he went to pull up his sagging pants, the kid didn't hear the officer due to having headphones in his ears and had no idea the officer was even there. Due to the perception of a threat, the officer was no billed (which according to the law was the right result) and you've never even heard of Dillon Taylor before. Also, none of the assholes in Ferguson cared about this legitimately innocent kid who was killed, they were too busy rioting because a POS named Micheal Brown attacked a cop and got shot as a result.

Face it, given the political climate, it's MUCH better for an officer to shoot basically anyone other than a black person because just about any time a black person is shot by police it'll make national headlines and cause a lynch mob to form no matter what the circumstances are. When a person of any other race is shot by police, the circumstances will determine if anyone at all even hears about it.

 

You guys sure watch a lot of Fox News. I don't know how you do it. All of those 24hr news networks have become unwatchable. But, whatever makes you happy.

 

Strange, it's always seemed to me that, absent other info, an officer's claim was always upheld.

 

What is the officer's claim?

 

Fair enough. None so far, though i imagine at some point he'll have to state his justification for firing.

Whatever it may be, only he or his partner are alive to contradict it...barring any potential witnesses.

 

That's when the fun begins.

 

"Given the recent targeting of police, a loud noise alarmed me...i feared for my & my partner's lives."

Would that be sufficient justification?

 

Forgive the lack of nuance in my post, hopefully you get the gist.