'Hey Siri, I'm Getting Pulled Over': iPhone Feature Will Record Police Interaction, Send Location (fox29.com) 253
An iPhone user created a shortcut that prompts an iPhone to begin recording police interactions by the user simply uttering the phrase: "Hey Siri, I'm getting pulled over." The task utilizes Apple's relatively new "Shortcuts" feature, which allows users to conduct tasks on their phones with a single voice command using Siri. From a report: Twitter user Robert Petersen posted a link to the shortcut and an explanation of what it does. Users can download the police shortcut, but must make sure to have the Shortcuts app installed.
Upon saying "Hey Siri, I'm getting pulled over," any music that may be playing is paused and the screen's brightness is dimmed while the phone's "do not disturb" capability is turned on. The phone then automatically sends a message to a contact the user sets up, letting that person know that the user is being stopped by police, along with providing the user's location. The front camera is then turned on and the phone begins to record video of what is happening. "Once you stop the recording it sends a copy of the video to a contact you specify, puts volume and brightness back to where they were, turns off Do Not Disturb, and gives you the option to send to iCloud Drive or Dropbox," according to a Reddit post by Petersen. There are apps with similar functions available for Android, including one called "Stop and Frisk Watch," which is designed to record incidents by "simply pushing a trigger on the phone's frame."
Upon saying "Hey Siri, I'm getting pulled over," any music that may be playing is paused and the screen's brightness is dimmed while the phone's "do not disturb" capability is turned on. The phone then automatically sends a message to a contact the user sets up, letting that person know that the user is being stopped by police, along with providing the user's location. The front camera is then turned on and the phone begins to record video of what is happening. "Once you stop the recording it sends a copy of the video to a contact you specify, puts volume and brightness back to where they were, turns off Do Not Disturb, and gives you the option to send to iCloud Drive or Dropbox," according to a Reddit post by Petersen. There are apps with similar functions available for Android, including one called "Stop and Frisk Watch," which is designed to record incidents by "simply pushing a trigger on the phone's frame."
Shame it doesn't stream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shame it doesn't stream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
^ this. and ^ grandparent this
Re: (Score:3)
A handy sister app might contact health insurance and medical personnel upon hearing the verbal prompt, "Stop resisting!".
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Ok, NO ONE likes being pulled over by the cops.
But, if you have not committed a crime, or have warrants out on you...99.999% of time, if you do not act like a fool, running your mouth, shouting and generally acting an ass....you will leave the encounter just fine in a few minutes.
I mean, is it that hard to keep quite, only answer questions posed (that are necessary per law), hand your DL and insurance to the cop when they ask....etc?
I mean, the people that get busted and especially almost all of
Re: (Score:2)
People get drunk (Score:4, Insightful)
Black folks are 2.5 times more likely to be shot for disorderly conduct and several times more likely to be stopped (7x IIRC). They're no more likely to commit crimes if you adjust for income levels.
It's not hard to understand why. Studies show about 15% of the population is definable as racist (e.g. they are more likely to think that skin color affects thought processes). So it's easy to get a jury with at least 1 person who won't convict if a black is the victim.
As a result Cops learn that there are less consequences for going after black folk. The reverse is also true, they get a higher conviction rate by going after black folk. It's a win-win.
This is what happens when the violent parts of policing become, for lack of a better phrase, "Jobified". e.g. we track the most basic statistics cops generate and score them based on those, encouraging bad behavior all around.
Mix in the fact that we're using armed, militarized police for all public safety & social issues because there was a huge funding push in the 90s while we were simultaneously cutting back social service funding and you're in for a world of hurt.
Re: (Score:3)
> If the cops are trying to wrongly arrest you,
> etc....comply....the time to fight this is in court with a
> lawyer, not at the scene where they can charge you
> with resisting and get physical with you.
Yeah... that one needs to go away. If the cops are trying to frame and arrest you for a crime you didn't commit; that's the worst abuse of government power short of summarily murdering you. When they break the public trust this severely they goddamned well need to lose all authority and protect
Re: (Score:3)
It may be rare. But it has, in fact, happened to me. I was too drunk and startled to do much of anything; much less resist. And hell... a charge of public intoxication would actually have been legitimate, if dickish... I had just left 1015 Folsom (a nightclub in San Francisco), and was at the corner working on hailing a cab (This was pre-Uber.) and not bothering anyone. But they did not even try for public intoxication. They invented from whole cloth this narrative that I was a notorious drug dealer and ha
Re: (Score:2)
A handy sister app ...upon hearing the verbal prompt, "Stop resisting!".
And an even better app would immediately blast a loud concussive sound thru the iAirPods to disable that resisting offender. It's for their own protection, after all -- if they're unconscious they won't resist or be killed.
Jesus Chris, what is wrong with you people? The cops are normal people. PEOPLE. They interact with their environment and respond to it, just like EVERYONE. They are the local authority at that particular point in time. That means you temporary lose your local authority and autonomy.
Re: (Score:3)
in china they have an GOV login that apple gives out on reuqest
Re: (Score:3)
It should also turn off fingerprint/face/other biometric login.
This is part of the plan for Android's Identity Credential / Mobile Driver's License infrastructure. The "lockdown mode" might not make it in to the Android R release, but if it doesn't I intend to get it into the S release. The idea is that you initiate the transfer with an NFC tap or a QR code, which doesn't transfer data but only does key exchange (for an ECDHE AES-GCM secure channel) and communications channel (Bluetooth or Wifi) selection, then the reader sends a request specifying what data elements i
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, FYI, lockdown mode was added in Pie: https://www.androidauthority.c... [androidauthority.com]. It's normally activated at user request, but it should be automatically activated by the credential presentation flow.
If I was high risk (Score:2)
Also, apropos of nothing, black groundhog day [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is just Apple's v1.0 take. It's not as though we know someone else's implementation (or Apple's next) won't do that.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Did you just come out of a 10 year coma or something? Here's one. You can Google the rest yourself
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blot... [findlaw.com]
Re: (Score:2)
3. Uses sources that have credibility. You may think 'blogs.findlaw.com' is a reliable source, but most likely won't.
Sorry, I'm gonna need a citation on that.
Hey Siri, I'm getting pulled over and I'm black (Score:2)
"Internal error - shutting down"
Lawyer (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's ok, I'm sure somebody could program "Hey Siri, could you get me a PayDay loan?" The entire system is messed up and only helps the rich. Poor people can't afford justice, white or black.
Re: (Score:3)
By the time your lawyer gets on the line they will probably already have tazed you and got a knee to your neck.
It needs to record, lock itself down and upload to iCloud in real-time.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need a lawyer just to answer the cops request to see your license or whatever, then you've got one seriously fucked up police force.
Re: (Score:3)
''One option would be that the phone connects with your lawyer's office, which can then interact with the LEO. Letting the lawyers office advise you on how and wether you answer the questions.''
It's rather simple. Provide your licensing, registration and proof of insurance. Be polite and answer NO QUESTIONS. [where are you going, where are you coming from, do you have any contraband etc]. Comply, but never consent to a search.
There's basically nothing an attorney can do on a vehicle stop that's not covered
Re: (Score:3)
That's great for folks who can afford a lawyer (Score:2)
A black guy in a Bentley is still a guy in a Bentley.
This is sad. (Score:3)
The police are so unreliable that now people are forced to protect themselves by secretly recording even minor interactions with officers police.
Don't tell me it's "just a few bad apples" because nobody reports them and when they do, nothing is done about it. This is why people graffiti ACAB/All Cops Are Bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is sad. (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't a case of a few bad apples. But a flawed system that will support and embolden these bad apples, while the good ones are placed in a situation where trying to self regulate their department is a massive uphill battle.
This is a system that is similar to the Catholic Priests, and Boy Scout Leaders. Where the organization has a reputation of being better than everyone else. People who fail to meet the organization public reputation was quietly moved around or allowed to function hoping no one else will notice.
If you want to find corruption look towards your roll-models and heroes. Their status as such gives them a lot of leeway to get away with a lot of bad thing because no one will believe the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
"Now?" This would have been cool idea even decades ago. It's just that now we actually have networked PCs in our pockets. The only difference between police brutality in the past and now, is that we're catching them more often.
And the basic application generalizes. Think of it as "witness mode" and it's just that it finally took the cops in 2020 to turn people onto the idea. Even if The People succeed in subjugating the cops so that government becomes Our bitch rather than the other way around, it will stil
I'm all for defunding police (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the eyes of the police most civilians are just criminals who haven't been caught yet and the divide is growing.
Re:I'm all for defunding police (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Having you "lawyer's" direct line on speed dial is another good one. When your "lawyer" picks up call them by their first name.
Re: (Score:3)
You ever notice how Batman will cripple an endless stream of mooks, for life, then tell the 'super' villain that they're sick, and need help, and take them to Arkham for treatment?
Riddler can blow up a bunch of random people and get the help and support he needs, but random henchman number five, who's just trying to feed his family and has poor options in life gets his jaw shattered, his knee destroyed, and will never walk again.
It's an interesting class dynamic, to be sure.
Don't tase me bro! (Score:2)
Would have been better.
This is quite useless (Score:3)
If there's something we learned in recent days, is that even when recorded, they don't give a fuck, and when the video is used as evidence for conviction, not only they are not convicted, but a large portion of americans seem to be fine with the concept that police can use deadly force whenever they please.
What a fucked up nation the USA is. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both cams? (Score:2)
Is a wonderfull Idea, and thanks for guiding me to Stop and Frisk App. Will be very handy in Venezuela.
Having said that, Why not use BOTH cams to record at the same time (hardware permitting)?
Stop and frisk tend to be messy, Is better if you have as much info as possible...
How do I get it? (Score:2)
Not that I expect to need it because I haven't driven any further than 3K miles over the past 5 years. I work completely at home and that quite much exempts me from "meeting" the police. But it's still a very nice "shortcut" to have.
Android "Stop and Frisk Watch" is 404 (Score:2)
The Google Play link for Android, "Stop and Frisk Watch" is 404. Did this just happen in the past two hours, or was including it in the summary a bit of non-verifying?
https://play.google.com/store/... [google.com]
Isn't the NJ ACLU app good enough? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or autistic (Score:4, Insightful)
How about the cop who pulled over the autistic kid who was coming back from a scifi convention? The cop did his best to try and make the kid admit he had drugs based on zero evidence. We'd never know the coercion that tried to take place unless it was on video.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
89% of black people who are murdered were killed by another black person. Around 50% of the murders in the USA are committed by black men (who are 7% of the population). A white male is most likely to be murdered by a black male than any other demographic. (source, FBI 2018 stats).
There is not a problem with black people being killed or targeted by whites or police. The problem is there is an extreme amount of black on black violence, primarily in large cities and primarily gang related. Due to that extreme
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this? It's not because black people are just naturally more homicidal. Fortunately it's been studied in depth.
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitst... [harvard.edu]
What it boils down to is systemic discrimination. Poverty, lack of education, poor life chances, lack of social services, harsher treatment by the police and judicial system, difficulty getting jobs even when qualified etc.
A great example is how white people are rarely prosecuted for many minor offences that black people end up with a criminal record for.
The murder rate has been falling for decades and for white people it's way down on where it used to be, in great part due to white people fixing problems for white people. During the same time black folk have not benefited nearly as much.
By the way, when you think that "left-leaning media" don't report this it's a mistake. They report it but they are careful to do it with context and proportionally to how they report crimes by white people. What you perceive as bias is actually just a lack of bias but the origin of your coordinate system is out of whack.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What it boils down to is systemic discrimination.
Um, from the very first line of the document you linked:
Although racial discrimination emerges some of the time at some stages
of criminal justice processing-such as juvenile justice- there is little
evidence that racial disparities result from systematic, overt bias.
You literally said the EXACT OPPOSITE.
I'm sorry, I will not believe that black people kill each other because they think white people discriminate against them. The US has a history of underdogs - immigrants coming in and being shunned or otherwise pushed down economically and withheld from opportunities (Chinese, Irish, Hispanic, on and on and on) and these groups do not end up murdering each other at such insane rates that it exceeds that of any oth
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Informative)
The very next sentence:
Discrimination appears to be indirect, stemming from the amplification of initial disadvantages over time, along with the social construction of "moral panics" and associated political responses. The "drug war" of the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated the disproportionate representation of blacks in state and federal prisons. Race and ethnic disparities in violent offending and victimization are pronounced and long-standing. Blacks, and to a lesser extent Hispanics, suffer much higher rates of robbery and homicide victimization than do whites. Homicide is the leading cause of death among young black males and females. These differences result in part from social forces that ecologically concentrate race with poverty and other social dislocations.
It's saying that it doesn't think there is overt bias in the criminal justice system. That's not all that surprising, if a judge said that black people should get longer sentences they would be in trouble.
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of the discrimination is systemic, not individual. A black kid gets charged instead of being let go with a warning, that's potentially a racist cop/DA/whatever. Redlining contributing to black people holding a fraction of the wealth that white people do is systemic. That's then amplified by poor social programs, poor or no levelling of funding for education, and things like the war on drugs.
Black people aren't inherently more violent than white people, just like white Americans aren't inherently more violent than Germans. Differences in violent crime rates are due to the structure of their societies. And when you're talking about societies, decisions have long lasting, and expensive, consequences. America, white and black, is currently paying for the overt racism from the last century.
Re: (Score:2)
In that context "systemic" means they are systematically being overtly racist. It doesn't refer to structural/institutional racism.
Unfortunately we use the word systemic for both contexts so I usually try to use structural or institutional.
Re: (Score:3)
So you think white people need to save black people from their "poor life choices?" Why is it up to white people to fix problems for black people? Shouldn't each individual be trying to fix their own problems for themselves? Should the government really be getting involved in telling black people specifically what life choices they should make? How will that be enforced? What will the punishment be for not complying?
The media don't report anything with care or context. And not proportionaly. What you percie
Re: (Score:3)
So you think white people need to save black people from their "poor life choices?"
No. But please explain why you got that misconception so I can try to account for the possibility next time.
Re: (Score:2)
"What it boils down to is systemic discrimination."
This is a lie!
"Poverty, lack of education, poor life chances, lack of social services, harsher treatment by the police and judicial system, difficulty getting jobs even when qualified etc."
Yea, and when you remove all the rich white folks in the equation and you compare only poor white folks with poor black folks you get the same results.
Face it... your drivel requires that other richer races to be part of the message so you can sell a narrative that is loa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, and when you remove all the rich white folks in the equation and you compare only poor white folks with poor black folks you get the same results.
That what I said last time and was modded troll with demands for evidence. Actually I'd be much obliged if you could provide a good study backing that one up so I can use it myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Here let me link you to something someone else here has already done do they can get the credit as far as the kill rates adjusted for arrests rather than using population only. Remember statistics can be used to tell just about any story! And it is heavily being used to make racism exist where it does not exist.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
PERSONS AT OR BELOW THE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL HAD HIGHEST RATES OF VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION FOR THE PERIOD 2008â"12
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu... [bjs.gov]
The Police Wer
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that citizen on citizen crime (regardless of color) is a totally different animal than police on citizen crime, right? When a white person kills a white person, it doesn't get much coverage. When a black person kills a black person, it doesn't get much coverage. When a white person kills a black person, it doesn't get much coverage. When a black person kills a white person, it doesn't get much coverage. The exception to this is if it is a racist killing, it is mishandled, or both (see Ahmaud Arbery). If will also get bigger coverage if someone involved has a high profile or there is something salacious about the case.
When police officers kill someone, especially when they act inappropriately, use excessive force, or the person is unarmed, it is bigger news because they are the authority and they are seemingly abusing that authority. When the police abuse their authority, there is no one to call because they have shown they cannot police themselves, so it is bigger news. This is true for both black and white victims (and especially true for white victims, for example Justine Damond), although their appears to be more black victims than white (since none of this is officially tracked, we can't say for certain, but it certainly appears that way). So yes, police killing an unarmed black man will get more coverage than one random person killing another. And that is the way it should be because the police should be held to a higher standard than the average criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
And you do realise that more white people are killed by cops, both armed and unarmed, than black people? But it's not reported on with as much fervor and furor as when a black person dies. Despite black people in the USA making up a massively disproportionate percentage of the dangerous criminal population.
You can say "it certainly appears that way" and pretend it's not officially tracked. But it is. And the reality of the situation is that there are less black victims. Appearences not withstanding.
Re: (Score:2)
And you do realise that more white people are killed by cops, both armed and unarmed, than black people? ...the reality of the situation is that there are less black victims.
Are you talking absolute numbers, or percentages? If the number of black victims as a percentage of black citizens, is significantly higher than the equivalent stat for whites, then that part of your argument doesn't hold any water.
Re: (Score:2)
When a white person kills a white person, it doesn't get much coverage.
Well to be clear that is a really bizarre thing Americans have normalised. I was absolutely amazed when I visited to find a list of shooting deaths in the city as a foot note at the end of the news report. That sort of thing makes state if not national headlines in many western countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Informative)
89% of black people who are murdered were killed by another black person. Around 50% of the murders in the USA are committed by black men (who are 7% of the population). A white male is most likely to be murdered by a black male than any other demographic. (source, FBI 2018 stats).
This is a straw man. Stop using black on black crime to deflect away from police brutality [cleveland.com]
There is not a problem with black people being killed or targeted by whites or police.
False, a lie. Black Americans 250% More Likely Than Whites to Be Killed By Police [statista.com]. Police killing Black people is a public health crisis [washingtonpost.com]. The increased use of police force against Blacks has in fact been empirically proven [yale.edu], and fundamentally increased police violence against Blacks is factual. In places, the lopsided inequality of use of force is far greater. Minneapolis Police Use Force Against Black People at 7 Times the Rate of Whites [nytimes.com]. Black people more likely than white people to face arrest, use of force by Portland police [pressherald.com]. SDPD Uses Force on Black Suspects 8 Times More Often Than Other Races [nbcsandiego.com]. Black people in California are stopped far more often by police, major study proves [theguardian.com].
The problem is there is an extreme amount of black on black violence, primarily in large cities and primarily gang related.
This is verifiably false. The majority of violent crimes against Blacks is due to crime, such as such as robbery and assault. [bjs.gov]
Due to that extreme amount of violence in that segment of the population, they have more interactions with police, and those interactions tend to go bad more often.
This is false, unsupportably so, and is also a racist statement.
What is happening is, through mainstream media, politicians, and some large corporations, there is an unrealistic and unbalanced narrative of the facts. This is causing more racial tension and anger, because all that is being reported are police or white violence against blacks.
citation needed
Here is an example. A prominent 19 year old black woman, who was a Black Lives Matter activist and was interviewed on TV, etc, disappeared about a week ago (along with an elderly white woman activist). Their bodies were discovered two days ago. The 19 year old was raped and murdered. They have arrested a suspect (before the bodies were even recovered) who they have extremely high certainty is the murderer (he confessed to his mother). Now here is where the media bias is overwhelmingly obvious. CNN, The New York Times and People (just to name three) reported this, and indicated that 49 year old Aaron Glee was arrested. However that is ALL the information they included - his name and age. Look at other news sources and you will see that.... he is a black man. He was also out on bail for other offenses.
You are employing the fallacy of inappropriate g [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Your 250% black Americans link, how do they arrive to that conclusion? A nice person on slashdot ended up with different numbers: https://mobile.slashdot.org/co... [slashdot.org] I am too lazy to check who is right, could you look into that?
Yeah, right. Source is linked in the article. They analyzed the raw data from all police killings in 2019. [mappingpol...olence.org], that's how they arrived at that conclusion.
Anything else, gumdrop?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The FBI stats are consistent for decades, and Obama was president for 8 years and the FBI answered directly to Obama. Obama chose the head of the FBI, James Comey, as well. If the FBI or police were hiding anything, then Obama had the power and influence to expose it. I believe the FBI stats are highly accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is akin to saying if Donald Trump
Re: (Score:2)
The literal job of the Executive branch is law enforcement. The idea that a branch of law enforcement should operate with independence is a telling statement of both your intelligence and your wisdom. No one cares when their "favorite" candidates write EO's that they like. No president has law making power and EO's are not codified in the Constitution anywhere. Their job is to execute on the laws Congress made and NOT on the laws the Executive makes.
The shame should be on you creating racism out of thin
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Informative)
While at the moment we are focused on how cops target people of African decent. They are not the only people where they may abuse or treat unfairly.
I had a friend who got pulled over once for having a bumper sticker that said "Bad Cop no Doughnuts" and was asked to remove it (a clear violation of his rights). Also people get pulled over because say a young adult is driving an expensive car, or you are driving a crappy car in a fancy neighborhood.
Cops don't need a reason to pull you over. They can pull you over and wish you a happy day if they felt like it. However normally if they do pull you over, they will try to find something to ticket you for. So in general it is good to get a recording, in case you need to defend yourself to the judge. While in theory innocent until proven guilty. Solidly showing your innocence really does help, speed up the case. As the courts are in the game as well. Oh you passed a yellow light, and the police said it was red. Well I will reduce your ticket to parking on pavement so you don't get criminal record, but you still have to pay $100 to the town.
Re: (Score:2)
They do need a reason in some states, and sometimes making up a reason is illegal.
It's called a, "pretextual stop", when they do it. It used to be a no-no in WA, at least a couple decades ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Cops don't need a reason to pull you over.
Yes. They. Fucking. Do.
See, this is why police brutality is such an issue today. It's because people like you allow them to reach in up your asshole as far as they want, for however long they want. They get used to it, and they forget the fucking law, and begin doing as they please, seeing how far they can push the envelope. I'm not in favor of looking at this problem from the standpoint of race, but I do have to stand up and take my hat off to the black people that have simply had enough of this shit, a
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear! This is a perfect example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most states have laws about how far over or under you need to be in order to be pulled over, not to avoid pretextual stops, but because the speedometers on most cars aren't accurate down to 1 mph. I know that my corolla, stock, has a 4 mph difference between the ECU and the dashboard, and it is a further 2 mph off from my GPS, on average, over hundreds of miles of driving (granted the GPS isn't all that accurate).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama was bi-racial, with a white middle-class upbringing, and a masters degree from Harvard. :-(
America is a long way from electing someone like Jesse Jackson as president.
Unless he was a in a reality TV show
Re: (Score:3)
Part of America's problem with race, is the melting pot idea. Where all minorities cultures will become generic Middle Class White American, While Middle Class White American culture will get a few bonuses from the other cultures, like new food options, or musical beats.
Other countries that handle diversity better take the approach of Multi-Cultural where people are free to follow their cultures and not be judged as much for it.
White Americans in general was OK with Obama, sure he was Black and Identified a
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:4, Insightful)
This must be the stupidest thing yet in 2020 ...
What do you think the police have to hide?* If there was no problem with the police then surely they would welcome this since it would just show that they were doing their job well and give the citizens the confidence to go through their joyful interaction with the police with confidence and a feeling of security. Surely you aren't implying that you think the police are a bunch of criminals too?
* of course, we're talking when the cops are on duty and excluding relaxation / doughnut stops when they have just as much right to privacy as anyone else, including hiding the number of doughnuts they ate from their chief.
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course when the iPhone recording will provide information favorable to police, like showing the driver pull a gun on the cop and then get ventilated, Apple will refuse to unlock the phone and provide that video evidence.
Don't worry, the police will suddenly find they had their bodycam turned on for the first time in six months and for the first time in court in about a decade it will turn out that the camera was fully operational and all the footage was downloaded successfully without being lost in on the wrong server. Seriously, though, I think it's best if both sides have a strong incentive to be recording; especially if they know the other side might be recording. Not only will it mean that there's a chance of actual justice in the case where there's a dispute, it also means that both sides will be on their best behaviour and may well end up with everybody being polite and going home to their families in the evening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Insightful)
If only the cops were professional and acting in such a manner that they wouldn't care they're being recorded, like most of the developed world's policing, and where literally they should be bodycamming everything they do anyway.
This is similar to child protection laws - if you work in a school, it shouldn't be necessary to have to avoid being alone in a room with a child, even for a moment. But it is. And the reason is: Your own career.
If you avoid all doubt, by saying you're happy for everyone to know how you're policing (which does not need include every gory / secret detail, and certainly shouldn't in many cases), then you avoid all possible instances of people making unfounded complaints.
You're a police officer. Therefore you have a duty to act in certain ways. If you don't want to be recorded because you're NOT acting in those ways, the problem is not the law on recording.
We put the ultimate trust in the police force.
They have to be worthy of that trust, precisely because we're putting that trust in them. They are dealing with lone rape victims, vulnerable women, mentally-ill people... and we have to know that they are acting in the right manner and not taking advantage, or literally murdering people on a whim.
And I tell you now - I'm often berated for being 100% behind the police in my country. There are only two categories of people who are LEGALLY REQUIRED to run towards danger in order to help people. Police, and military. That's it. Even firefighters can say "No, too dangerous" and back off. Police can't, without being dragged through the courts. They have to approach, confront and subdue the nutter with the gun no matter what (though, obviously, in as safe a way as possible for everyone else, and themselves).
I love my country's police force. They are basically unarmed, and deal with all the modern shit that is thrown at them, and every interaction I've ever had has been pleasant.
But that happens because I trust them, and the systems in places behind them. If I could not trust them, that wouldn't happen.
And the greatest way to gain trust, is to demonstrate your abilities in a public manner. Literally do what you're supposed to, openly, willingly, and visibly.
Police should have mandatory bodycams. Cam not working... you're not on duty. Simple as that. Return to the station and get one that works.
It's the only way that they can be "policed" themselves, whether by themselves, their internal affairs, etc. or by the general public.
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:5, Informative)
There are only two categories of people who are LEGALLY REQUIRED to run towards danger in order to help people. Police, and military. That's it. Even firefighters can say "No, too dangerous" and back off. Police can't, without being dragged through the courts.
wrong https://www.nytimes.com/2005/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
... in his country. He clearly wasn’t speaking of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
He said the police in his country are unarmed, and you thought he was referring to the United States?!
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:4, Informative)
Police should have mandatory bodycams. Cam not working... you're not on duty. Simple as that. Return to the station and get one that works.
It's the only way that they can be "policed" themselves, whether by themselves, their internal affairs, etc. or by the general public.
What's ironic is that it's been shown that, in areas where police wear body cams, complaints of police misconduct go down. This has been contributed in part to a reduction in false complaints against police. So, following the argument that most police are good, one would think that most police would support bodycams, when in fact it tends to be the opposite.
And I tell you now - I'm often berated for being 100% behind the police in my country. There are only two categories of people who are LEGALLY REQUIRED to run towards danger in order to help people. Police, and military. That's it. Even firefighters can say "No, too dangerous" and back off. Police can't, without being dragged through the courts. They have to approach, confront and subdue the nutter with the gun no matter what (though, obviously, in as safe a way as possible for everyone else, and themselves).
That must be nice. It seems the police here in the US are driven more by fear than anything else. You often hear in police shootings that the officer "feared for their life" or "thought they saw a gun" even in cases where there is no clear immediate threat (the SWATting case Slashdot covered the other year, or the shooting a year or so ago where cops outside a residence doing a welfare check failed to ID themselves as cops and shot and killed a lady , who did have a gun, through a door/window. If I saw people prowling around outside my house at 3am I'd grab a gun too). Yes, policing is dangerous, but they know the risk joining the force and should realize that, while their safety is important, the safety of the public at large (including potential subjects) is paramount.
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:4, Insightful)
That must be nice. It seems the police here in the US are driven more by fear than anything else. You often hear in police shootings that the officer "feared for their life" or "thought they saw a gun" even in cases where there is no clear immediate threat
That's because they're all coached for the courts, and after all, it's the police, they have lots of experience with the process; they know what they need to get a conviction, so it's only logical that they know what to say which can punch holes in a prosecution. But with that said, I think they conspire to cover each other in the first place.
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:4, Insightful)
But with that said, I think they conspire to cover each other in the first place.
Oh, they definitely do, it's that whole "blue wall" thing. Which of course only hurts their image more. If you want people to trust you call out the bad ones among you, don't stand behind them. That's the one nice thing about all those cops resigning right now: they are basically shouting out "you can't trust me".
Re:"Sends message" .... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I tell you now - I'm often berated for being 100% behind the police in my country.
I'm not surprised, to be behind them 100% is wilful blindness. So when the police fabricate evidence about someone or flat out murder someone, you're 100% behind them. When the take kickbacks from criminals, you're 100% behind them. That's insane, frankly.
How about strongly supporting them while conceding they are not perfect and must be held to the highest of standards?
There are only two categories of people who are LEGALLY REQUIRED to run towards danger in order to help people. Police, and military. That's it.
Citation needed: have the police ever been convicted for not doing something they considered too dangerous?
They have to approach, confront and subdue the nutter with the gun no matter what (though, obviously, in as safe a way as possible for everyone else, and themselves).
Or they can wait until the sharpshooters arrive. Which is also a thing that happens.
Even firefighters can say "No, too dangerous" and back off.
Except they usually don't. In fact neither do most people in most dangerous professions. Sure the police very occasionally get dangerous situations, but being a dustman is more dangerous over all. Sure a dustman can refuse a particularly aggressive dustbin, but simply the act of working on the side of roads is much more likely to get you killed. And yet rubbish needs collecting, and we don't overlook dustmen murdering people.
I love my country's police force.
Her Majesty's finest, eh?
They are as police forces pretty good and yet they keep doing stupid shit which makes the public not trust them for entirely good reasons. For example:
Suppressing democracy. They claimed kettling was necessary. When the riots hit later it proved beyond any doubt that kettling was utterly useless at controlling an aggressive mob and was only effective at suppressing the rights of peaceful demonstrators. The
Speaking of the demonstrations, around that time, a policeman murdered a newspaper seller. He attacked him utterly unprovoked and he dies shortly afterwards. The police response was to lie about it. The only reason they stopped lying is an American who filmed the event posted it on youtube from the safety of America. Lying seems to be the default state of the police when it comes to misconduct.
And that's the problem, I accept the police force is large and it's impossible to not have the odd bad egg. To think otherwise would be foolish. But that wasn't just one bad egg, that was an enitre carton and all the way to the top. And what happened when they got caught? Absolutely nothing. No one involved in the coverup was censured in any way. Now that is a problem and does engender mistrust.
When the police killed Jean Charles de Menzes, sure it could have been a tragic case of mistaken identity. Shit happens as do accidents. So of course the police first started telling lies trying to smear the guy, then tried to block an investigation into the incident and suppressed evidence, trying to hide CCTV footage and so on. So why did they do that and why was there no censure for all of that?
The problem is that the police protect the police first and the public second, and they have strong record of doing so. whenever these things hit the news the reaction is always the same, the police try to shift the blame, and no one in the misinformation campaigns ever sees consequences.
That's why people don't trust the police. Frankly they bring this on themselves. They have people to deal with the press and public, and they ought to be a good deal more circumspect when publicly accusing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Your premise is demonstrably false (Score:4, Insightful)
A black pastor in SC tried to pull a fast one claiming he was a victim of a racist cop. The cop had his bodycam visible. Black media was outraged [theroot.com] when the body cam came out and showed that the officer was polite and professional.
Nothing in that article talks about black media freaking out. In fact, even the title of the article basically says the pastor lied. And this is why body cams are good, and all uniformed police or those undertaking overt police business should wear them (plainclothes serving warrants, for example)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard because it deals
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely. It's easy for people to ask for no law enforcement without thinking of the consequences. Most people live very sheltered lives and never see how bad criminals can be.... because of the police! Just knowing they are patrolling keeps criminals at bay.
Good thing, beside the fringe people that no one really listens to (but that Fox News likes to talk up as representative of the entire left) "defunding" does not mean "abolishing". We need police to continue to patrol our streets. We don't need them riding around in military surplus vehicles carrying automatic weapons. Police in America have become almost military in nature (and are often staffed with veterans) but here's the problem: militaries in general suck at policing. We are going the wrong way if
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell do you think "defunding" means? Do you think the police will work for free? That they'll happily pay to keep their cruisers in working order? That they'll pay for gas, for ammunition, for their own protective gear? Defunding may not "mean" abolishing, but if you defund the police, no one is going to work for the police, and since you've gotten rid of the only force that might be capable of enforcing that law, you can't just force people to work for the police either. You may be technically correct, "defund != abolishing," but the effect is the same.
Defund means reduce funding. It does NOT mean remove all funding. It means diverting funds that would go towards things like buying MRAPs for your SWAT team and tactical military gear for patrol officers and diverting it to things like community outreach, mental health/addiction initiatives, and homelessness reduction. You know, things that actually HELP reduce crime.
Police in America have become almost military in nature (and are often staffed with veterans) but here's the problem: militaries in general suck at policing. We are going the wrong way if we want effective policing, they need to become less militarized, not more.
I used to think that, but after seeing the absolute lawlessness and destruction that these rioters have brought to our cities, I'm starting
Re: (Score:2)
I once saw a camouflaged, milsurp Hummer with State Patrol markings doing a traffic stop on an interstate. THAT. SHOULD. NOT. HAPPEN.
And why not? What do you want them to do with extra Hummers once the army is done with them?
Uhh, keep using them? We spend way too much money on the military too as it is, why are they getting rid of perfectly servicable vehicles? Worst case, give them to our allies. Police should not drive military vehicles. Full stop.
And all reports of the CHOP describe it as more of a festival or Burning Man lite. The only people who think it's full of violent thugs are people who only watch those false photo mashups on Fox News.
Or, you know, the people who own businesses there, who have watched their stores be looted and destroyed, with the police held at bay by violent "protestors." No one cares what a politician who is desperately trying to be reelected says.
Most of those "businessmen" have been found to not even live/work near the CHOP.
Re: (Score:2)
I find this very odd. Slashdot is full of libertarians who go on about "the state monopoly on force," but when someone suggests that the state should spend less money sending armed men to do things that can be done better by others, they go ballistic.
That's what defund the police means. Fewer gun and tank toting state strongmen, the remainder to be used only when necessary. It really is quite ridiculous that dudes with guns have become the de facto method for things like checking up on Grandma and teaching
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really literally mean the same people? (Who?) I'm pretty skeptical that libertarians are complaining about reducing the police's role to dealing with actual crimes. You made the libertarian case yourself, with the absurdity of the Grandma and drugs examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It pleases you to imagine women and children being raped?