There was no video recording of the incident. The police car had no dash-cam. There were no hidden camera on the police officer's uniform. In a world where nearly every cell phone has video-recording capabilities, it is unacceptable for any police department to send its officers in cars or uniforms without hidden video-recorders!
from Mona Charen's article
Beyond that, a technical solution is readily available: cameras, cameras and more cameras. I wrote last year that cameras should be ubiquitous in prisons because the temptation for brutality by prison guards who are unobserved is tremendous. The same is true of police.
The Wall Street Journal reports that in Rialto, California, the number of citizen complaints against police declined from 24 to 3 in the first year officers began wearing cameras on their chests. Use of force incidents dropped from 61 to 25.
why is that ?
Wearable cameras are being tested in New Orleans, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. As Rialto's police chief explained: "When you talk about putting a camera on somebody, human nature is going to dictate that you're going to mind your p's and q's and you're going to be on the best behavior. At the same time, I think it's had an impact on citizens. If they know you're wearing a camera, they too will be on their best behavior."
So why would the Ferguson Police Department not have cameras on every police car and on every officer?
Is it because they got something to hide?
Apparently they do, because they banned media companies have flying helicopters over riot scenes, because they worry that helicopter cameras would catch the militarized officers abusing their power.
Last week, when the protests began, the Federal Aviation Administration banned low-flying vehicles—vehicles like news helicopters—below 3,000 feet over Ferguson airspace, in order “to provide a safe environment for law enforcement activities.” The no-fly-zone was created at the request of local law enforcement, following a police report that a police chopper had been shot at. Yesterday, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixonrenewed the ban, citing the same police-safety justification.The police safety justification is hard to buy. What possible threat could a news helicopter, circling hundreds or thousands of feet above the scene, be to the activities on the ground? If anything, helicopters, which would not block emergency vehicles, which would not get in the way of cops or crowds, which would remain at a remove from the action, would be safer than the rest of the media.No, safety isn't the issue. That's not what this is about. It’s about local law enforcement not wanting to be watched—and not wanting media to capture a complete picture of the scene.
-----
Another use if the use of military equipment by the police.
While there was looting (much of it done by criminals who took advantage of a tense atmosphere..............I mean how is running with a whole bunch of shoes an act of "promoting social justice") much of the police officers were using their big weapons against peaceful protesters.
Mark Steyn
As for what's happened in the days since the shooting, I've written a lot in recent months about the appalling militarization of the police in America, and I don't have much to add. But I did get a mordant chuckle out of this line from Kathy Shaidle on the green-camouflaged officers pictured above:
Shouldn't a 'Ferguson' camo pattern be, like, 7/11 & Kool-Aid logos?
Indeed. To camouflage oneself in the jungles of suburban America, one should be clothed in Dunkin' Donuts and Taco Bell packaging. A soldier wears green camo in Vietnam to blend in. A policeman wears green camo in Ferguson to stand out - to let you guys know: We're here, we're severe, get used to it.
Back to the Mona Charen article
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen081914.php3
Actors often say that they can't get into character until they don the costume — attach the fake nose or moustache. It's easy to believe that something of the same effect happens when police gear up in opaque helmets, gas masks, body armor and heavy weaponry. If you're dressed and equipped like a special ops combat soldier, you're more inclined to behave like one. But against whom?
It's like all those commemorative images you see on TV about "a devoted father, loving husband, true gentleman and ................... a war hero".
I mean, you can truly be a devoted father, loving husband, a true gentleman ...................but once the combat uniforms and equipment is on, don't tell me you're not ready to be a vicious warrior out to damage the living crap out of your enemy!
Now, that is necessary to fight insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.................but not against protesters armed only with a loud mouth!
But with riot gear on, you're so ready for battle that you treat any loudmouth as if he/she is an insurgent!
With riot gear on, you're so ready for battle that you start treat anyone armed only with a video-recorder as an enemy!
With riot gear on, you're so ready for battle, that you will to crack heads and shot tear gas at anyone without riot gear!
-------------
What is a small town like Ferguson doing with so much military equipment anyways.
In the name of "homeland security", the military has been giving out surplus equipment to police departments nationwide.
The original plan was to give such equipment to areas vulnerable to terrorist attacks (ie. Washington DC, New York, etc)!
But Congress being what it is (filled with people representing states and specific districts), everyone wanted a piece of the action, so even remote small towns got militarized equipment.
--------
going back to the fear of looting ---- while much of that was going on ...................... there were also many who were BOTH outraged at the police AND the looters, as you could see from this video
https://vine.co/v/M3aJDOgX7xg
and the Huffington Post article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html
Protecting a beauty shop from looters
Twitter/HuffingtonPost
------------------------------------
Of course, since the Ferguson case started out with an incident of European-American cop killing an African-American suspect, this brings up the race relations issue.
And when that happens, everyone relives their bad memories of dealing with someone of a different race.
Of course, people fear being attacked (and killed) by someone different more than someone similar.
There has been talk by many right-wing conservatives about "why are African-Americans more worried about white police when they're more likely to be victimized by black-on-black crimes".
But it is many right-wing conservatives who promote the fear of the "Central American illegal" or the "Muslim terrorist" when they don't even pose the level of threat to an average European-American that another European-American does.
I mean, a daughter of a Euro-American conservative is much, much, much, much, much more likely to get drugged and raped by a European-American frat boy than she would by some Central American, African-American or Middle Eastern person!
I wrote about the issue on my 2013 blog post "Fear of the Other"
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-fear-of-other.html
As for the conservative correctness slander that Sharpton/Obama/etc don't pay attention to "black on black crime"?
http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/21/what-about-black-on-black-crime
"What about black-on-black violence?" demanded Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum, who is white. "Where is Al Sharpton on that? Where is the president on that?"Funny you should ask. Sharpton made a publicized trip to Chicago in November to focus attention on the city's chronic violence. Last year, Michelle Obama attended the funeral of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old black honor student who was shot, allegedly by a black gang member.The first lady later returned to Chicago to converse with students at a school that is nearly 100 percent African-American. "In choosing Harper High School for the visit, the White House noted that 29 current or former students there had been shot in the last year, eight of them fatally," reported the Chicago Tribune.The president also traveled to Chicago, meeting with kids involved in a mentoring program for at-risk adolescent boys, bemoaning gun violence and telling a crowd on the South Side, "Our streets will only be as safe as our schools are strong and our families are sound."Doesn't sound like they've been ignoring or excusing this sort of violence. Plenty of black leaders and organizations in Chicago and elsewhere spend a lot of time and energy trying to prevent crime in their communities. There are rallies, conferences, prayer vigils and gun turn-in days. Last year, thousands of volunteers manned "Safe Passage" routes to get children to school unharmed.
--------------
In a blog post that was posted on the George Zimmerman verdict (http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2013/07/after-trial-george-zimmerman-and.html), I mentioned that massive urban racial riots are a thing of the past. I spoke too soon.
