Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[dice]

I too felt that in my gut at one point. But why? Why is the use of deadly force appropriate here?

You say there is no excuse with George Floyd. And your next sentence says Rayshard Brooks is different. Syntactically (and I don't want to assume so I am genuinely asking you to correct me if I am wrong), you are stating that the use of deadly force on Rayshard Brooks is excusable.

When deadly force was used on Rayshard Brooks was he a threat in any way? He had no weapons on him and he was running away.
- The taser had been discharged
- All the officers know how a taser gun works and that he could not fire it again
- They know he had no other instruments on his body from a thorough search

At the moment the officer decided to fire his gun, what he fired at was an unarmed black man running away. That much is a fact.

The officer did so KNOWINGLY. That much is clear and convincing from the evidence as well. And if the officer was so daft to not remember how a taser gun works (and think it was still fireable a second time?), or so dumb to not remember the 40 minute search of Mr. Brooks (with no weapons) ... then the only thing that could make this excusable is hisIGNORANCE.

An officer's utter and complete ignorance is still no excuse for murdering an unarmed black man.

even if the taser could be fired infinite times it still must be done at close range...and he was RUNNING AWAY

this is a pretty clear case of an officer being embarrassed by what has just transpired and using what power he has left (his gun) to end the frustration (which surely immediately shifted to a sense of terror due to the prospect of getting fired/charged with murder)

if the cops knew of the victim's history of resisting arrest, the procedure should have been clear: TELL him that you know his history and have your tasers at the ready to use if he puts up a fight. TELL him that they will be used if he puts up a fight

the other thing i didn't like about what transpired was that the cops put him through an excruciatingly long and repetitive sobriety test, all of which he complied with admirably and did well on, only to fail him based on the breathalyzer results. if he fails the breathalyzer, why the other tests? further evidence for the courts?

He was running away until he turned and pointed the taser at the officer and fired...

he was running away AS he fired. didn't hit the officer he fired it at. it's actually WORSE that they shot him given that he had already fired the taser and could no longer use it, making him even less a danger than he already was

the guy should have been ticketed for operating a vehicle under the influence, resisting arrest, theft and multiple counts of assaulting a police officer. the penalty for all of that combined is not death. it's not even close to what the cop who murdered him will now get

[dice]

So, we've talked about all the ways the police could have done things differently. But what about the victim? If internet chatter is to be believed, Brooks:

1). Committed felony child abuse- a pretty serious charge involving most likely violence against a defenseless child
2) Had a history of obstructing the police
3) Had been released from jail due to COVID 19 concerns and was on parole
4) But still decided to get behind the wheel of an automobile while drunk
5) Despite all of the above, compounded everything by resisting arrest, fleeing from police, stealing their weapon, and tried to use it against them.

That's a lot of bad decisions on his part, too. Again, not saying it justifies being gunned down by a cop. But he could have done things differently at any number of points, and this wouldn't have happened. So does he bear some responsibility for the course his life took?

Would seem to me he bears responsibility for everything he did up until he got shot in the back. He should be sitting in a jail cell right now...not laying in a morgue.

I don't agree 100% with that. I think he does bear some responsibility

i think you misread that

[Dresden]

Would seem to me he bears responsibility for everything he did up until he got shot in the back. He should be sitting in a jail cell right now...not laying in a morgue.

I don't agree 100% with that. I think he does bear some responsibility- he decided to tussle with the officers. He decided to take their weapon AND fire it at them. He decided to run. All bad decisions. And he wasn't that drunk- he blew 1.08 or something. That's not blind drunk. No, he shouldn't be dead, but he also had any number of points where he could have not done what he did, and still be alive.

Police officers should be above 'you get what you get' reactions and if they can't then they're in the wrong line of work. Period.

"To serve and protect"
not
"To serve and protect unless someone takes my taser"

Yes, they should be above that. But in this case, I can see why they acted the way they did, and if I was on a jury, I think I'd have trouble finding him guilty of murder or manslaughter. And, yeah, Brooks did contribute to his own demise by his actions. He should have known better than to grab an officer's weapon and fire it at him.

[Dresden]

Spoiler:

First, I really appreciate the way you are posing your thoughts and pushing the conversation. What you describe in the first part is very valid (and obviously I whole heartedly agree that something needs to be done).

My opinion, what you posit is exactly why we must require greater scrutiny for ARMED POSITION OF AUTHORITY. We give our officers weapons (sometimes military-grade weapons), and we give them a great amount of freedom in the way they use those weapons against civilians:
1) They know the way decades (centuries) have interpreted an officer's claim "I feared for their life." So whether a person has a knife or a bb gun or a squirt gun, or just their fists ... this totally subjective "feared for their life" analysis is has been a get-out-of-jail-free card. (Remember also, we live in a country where even current generations lived through a time where you could tell an all white jury that you feared for life and directly invoke the persons race, and that would serve as a good enough defense for your actions). In most states, this is not the same level of scrutiny a civilian would end up receiving in a criminal court proceeding.
2) They operate with full knowledge that their actions fall under qualified immunity. I just don't see how anyone can deny that that alters your psyche when you go into situations. They know they will face no civil court consequences, none!

So in criminal court, they know their actions will be judged with much greater leniency than a typical civilian. In civil court they know there will be absolutely no consequences.

We use "law and order" as a means of directing our civilians' actions. There are consequences that we apply to them when they do horrible things to others ... this is the element of "deterrence" sought in our criminal justice system (tbc, I'm giving a lot of deference to ideas of a system I have much stronger feelings about). The most renowned words in our Declaration are the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Our justice system as means of deterrence is sometimes a threat to take away YOUR LIFE (capital punishment), and many times a threat to take away you LIBERTY (incarceration/right to vote/etc). And beyond that, civil court offers another level of deterrence with harsh economic penalties even when it doesn't meet a criminal court burden. That is an extreme level of deterrence that we use as a society.

If we could simply "trust" that everyone would operate under the same moral codes and desire to keep neighbors and all communities safe, we wouldn't need to resort to this level of deterrence.

But we are arming people in a Police Force, and allowing them to operate without the same level of deterrence in place. They will not face the same level of scrutiny when using force that harms or kills someone. So without that, we have to just "trust" that they will wield that power safely and with responsibility.

WHY, and I do get worked up about this, WHY SHOULD I TRUST A POLICE OFFICER more than I trust my own neighbors? As a society, we've decided the community can't be trusted and so we need this level of deterrence, but why should I trust officers so much so that they don't need this? None of us voted on those officers. Here in NY, for decades, we've not been given ANY transparency about their actions (all internal records are shielded completely from public).

And here's my main point, for many departments the extent of education and training required is a HSD and couple months at a "police academy." (tbf, some departments require more, but it's still not enough imo). I'm supposed to trust this cop though, to make split second decisions that involve someone's life. I'm supposed to trust this cop to have the mental fortitude to THINK about how he just thoroughly searched someone, knows them to be unarmed, knows that the taser gun cannot be fired any more ... I'm supposed to trust that they won't murder a now unarmed black man in that moment.

I have always thought, why do our officers not have the same degree of training and education (classroom and practice) as doctors and lawyers? Why do we not have a P.O.D. (police officer doctorate) that is required for any and every cop. We require doctors to go through INTENSE levels of training and MULTIPLE, CONTINUED examinations/board certification, why? Because they hold someone's life and safety in their hands. We require lawyers to go through an intense level of training and THE HARDEST EXAM I COULD HAVE EVERY IMAGINED, why? Because they hold someone's liberty in their hands, someone's finances, or fiduciary duties.

If a doctor was on an operating table, and there was a a lot going on, a lot that I could not as a civilian reasonably manage, and he got mixed up or reacted in a way that caused the death of a patient ... a general civilian's ability to perform under those circumstances is not relevant and not an excuse. He will be held liable (sometimes criminally and civilly) based on what is reasonable for someone of his training and experience. And we as a society have set that bar, the required training and experience, VERY HIGH.

You may have seen the memes comparing other countries (tbf, memes don't get to nuance and often aren't accurate). But generally, you look at places like Norway, Finland, Germany or others: they require three-year degrees and multiple certifications that take years. Police Officers are required to get a similar level of robust training and education that teachers, doctors, and lawyers are. I dislike educational elitism, and the lack of affordability of our education model; that in itself needs to be overhauled ... I don't care that you didn't go to undergrad and study English Lit or Economics, but some police academies (since they are run by state regulations only) are only 2 WEEKS long. I want to know my Police Officers are best and brightest, that they've gone through programs that introduced them to many diverse settings (in terms of peoples AND ideas AND experiences).

All good points, IMO. I've heard the same thing about teachers in European countries- much more training/educ. required, also much higher pay. Here, we pay somebody that can program a computer 200K a year (that is about what the average pay is at big firms like Google and Apple these days), but someone who will be teaching our children less than half that.

I don't know if this is still true or not, but it used to be that in the UK, cops didn't even carry guns. Personally, I think that is a great idea. In general, you are much less likely to get shot if you don't have a gun on you, and the same would go for the police I believe. It's a whole different understanding what the police are for, and what their role is- not to be going to war on the streets with criminals, but to watch over and make sure laws are being followed. That gets into a whole other discussion about the prevalence of guns in our society, but I do think if cops didn't have guns at their disposal, it would necessitate them doing their job in a much different, and better, way.

Right on. (I do believe that is still the general basis in UK). I also think police officers on patrol should not have guns. That's a difficult proposition for many to consider because our society has developed with that relationship in place. How do you break it? I think a typical patrol officer even here in Brooklyn, or in Chicago, doesn't need a weapon with live ammunition. That certainly doesn't mean police departments don't have access to guns (in the UK during specific incidents cops may be armed to some degree).
But those that regularly carry them should have to have ANOTHER level of training and certification, and be a part of a very specific unit that has made a legal case to legislators/panel WHY the guns are required regularly.

All the people that talk about good apples and bad apples, there should be such a thorough vetting and education program that no "bad apple" is ever given a weapon BY THE STATE and given the license to murder people BY THE STATE. You absolutely should not be able to get couple weeks at police academy (or 6 months at most in the most serious departments) and be able to walk onto the street with a state provide weapon.

I'll also add: I want to see intense classroom and experiential education over many years for the people in charge of community safety; continued exams and recertification the same as we require teachers and doctors. But what I'll add, in the new world where we require that education up front of our officers, we pay them handsomely for the commitment they've made to that arduous training, we pay them handsomely for exercising the responsibility of that role with so much knowledge, compassion, and cross-cultural empathy.

I know doctors have to be continually re-certified. If police officers aren't, they should be. As part of their training, I wonder how much time is spent talking about what it's like to grow up in a crime infested neighborhood, and how best to relate to people from that experience. And something about the history of the relationship between people of color and the police, and how to improve.

I think non-stop body cams should be required as well, and those tapes should be posted on line for the public to view, except where it might reveal something about undercover operations, etc. But everything the police do should be on tape for everyone to view. I think that might stop a lot of the day to day intimidation and mistreatment that a lot of cops dish out. I mean, they're public servants, don't we have a right to see how they do their jobs?

[dice]

I don't agree 100% with that. I think he does bear some responsibility- he decided to tussle with the officers. He decided to take their weapon AND fire it at them. He decided to run. All bad decisions. And he wasn't that drunk- he blew 1.08 or something. That's not blind drunk. No, he shouldn't be dead, but he also had any number of points where he could have not done what he did, and still be alive.

Police officers should be above 'you get what you get' reactions and if they can't then they're in the wrong line of work. Period.

"To serve and protect"
not
"To serve and protect unless someone takes my taser"

Yes, they should be above that. But in this case, I can see why they acted the way they did, and [b]if I was on a jury, I think I'd have trouble finding him guilty of murder or manslaughter[/b]. And, yeah, Brooks did contribute to his own demise by his actions. He should have known better than to grab an officer's weapon and fire it at him.

so he loses his job and that's it? he shot a man in the back multiple times because he was embarrassed by what had transpired

[Dresden]

Police officers should be above 'you get what you get' reactions and if they can't then they're in the wrong line of work. Period.

"To serve and protect"
not
"To serve and protect unless someone takes my taser"

Yes, they should be above that. But in this case, I can see why they acted the way they did, and [b]if I was on a jury, I think I'd have trouble finding him guilty of murder or manslaughter[/b]. And, yeah, Brooks did contribute to his own demise by his actions. He should have known better than to grab an officer's weapon and fire it at him.

so he loses his job and that's it? he shot a man in the back multiple times because he was embarrassed by what had transpired

First of all, you're assuming you know what was going through his mind, which you don't. And secondly, there's a lot more to it than "he shot a man in the back", and you know that. And yes, based on what I've read (including that legal analysis that was posted here today, above), I think there's enough doubt as to whether or not the police officer was thinking he had to defend himself in the heat of battle to preclude any criminal wrongdoing on his part.

[dice]

Yes, they should be above that. But in this case, I can see why they acted the way they did, and [b]if I was on a jury, I think I'd have trouble finding him guilty of murder or manslaughter[/b]. And, yeah, Brooks did contribute to his own demise by his actions. He should have known better than to grab an officer's weapon and fire it at him.

so he loses his job and that's it? he shot a man in the back multiple times because he was embarrassed by what had transpired

First of all, you're assuming you know what was going through his mind, which you don't.

i think it's fairly obvious that i'm speculating. it's also pretty obvious that there's no better explanation. overheated from the scuffle, his partner has his taser wrestled from him and then attempted to use against him, after shooting officer pridefully says "i got him", as in "he won't be pulling that **** again, partner." not a hint of regret or uncertainty about the appropriateness of what he had just done. as further evidenced by the failure to attempt to help a victim whose life might yet still be salvageable

And secondly, there's a lot more to it than "he shot a man in the back", and you know that.

i do know that. i also know that it's the bottom line. and i think you know that too. because nobody that is unarmed and shot in the back while fleeing is remotely a threat to the safety of someone who is armed. not in any conceivable taffy stretch of a mind pretzel

And yes, based on what I've read (including that legal analysis that was posted here today, above), I think there's enough doubt as to whether or not the police officer was thinking he had to defend himself in the heat of battle to preclude any criminal wrongdoing on his part.

if he was deranged enough in that moment to think he had to defend himself from an unarmed guy twenty yards ahead of him and fleeing FROM him, he never belonged in the line of duty. and frankly should never again be permitted to own a gun. astonishingly inept judgment. if you want to say that he was not in control of his faculties and thought that his PARTNER was somehow still at grave risk by an unarmed man who was fleeing from him rather than moving toward him, that's at least remotely plausible. and i'm sure it'll be his defense

[Bluewaterheaven]

I am sorry, but there is a lot of bull in this thread. Brooks was shot in the back, immediately after turning his body, while running, to shoot the taser as seen here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3202332001

Sounds like we agree mate. Didn't realize you also acknowledged how horrible it was to shot a man AFTER the threat had ceased as you point out there.

I take it you have never fired a gun, or had one pointed at you.

[dice]

I am sorry, but there is a lot of bull in this thread. Brooks was shot in the back, immediately after turning his body, while running, to shoot the taser as seen here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3202332001

Sounds like we agree mate. Didn't realize you also acknowledged how horrible it was to shot a man AFTER the threat had ceased as you point out there.

I take it you have never fired a gun, or had one pointed at you.

how many people have had a gun pointed at them (white people, anyway)? jesus christ. it's certainly not a prerequisite for the ability to apply common sense. and nobody pointed a gun at the officer. and the officer KNEW he didn't have a gun

please explain how experience firing guns has anything to do with the decision TO fire a gun and kill an unarmed man. if anything, experience with guns should make a person more aware of when it is appropriate to use, not less. and there is not any significant lag time between when a gun is fired and the object is hit. it's virtually instantaneous. it's not like he fired the gun while the victim was firing the taser and the bullet only got there after he had turned around and continued to flee. we ALL know how bullets work

[musiqsoulchild]

I want to make this clear again:

A drunk man is shot dead by a trained cop.

If the Taser is LETHAL, then there is no justification for using it to begin with from the Cops. Why use LETHAL force to subdue a drunk person resisting arrest?

If its NON-LETHAL, then it doesnt justify escalation to using a LETHAL Gun.

I expect this kind of buffoonery in India - where there is no rule of law and cops do whatever they want.

I do not expect this in my country now - the US. This needs to change. Immediately.

[Dresden]

I want to make this clear again:

A drunk man is shot dead by a trained cop.

If the Taser is LETHAL, then there is no justification for using it to begin with from the Cops. Why use LETHAL force to subdue a drunk person resisting arrest?

If its NON-LETHAL, then it doesnt justify escalation to using a LETHAL Gun.

I expect this kind of buffoonery in India - where there is no rule of law and cops do whatever they want.

I do not expect this in my country now - the US. This needs to change. Immediately.

It takes to process all that though. You know a suspect just hit you, he grabbed your (non lethal) weapon, and now he's pointing something at you as he runs away. How long does it take you to go through the checklist in your mind: 1). He's pointing a weapon at me, ok, I know it can only be my taser because we searched him before, 2) ok, it's a non lethal weapon he's pointing at me, I don't have to worry, at most I'm going to get tased, I can survive that. I have my partner here to back me up in case I am knocked out by the taser and he tries to get at my gun, 3) oh, he already fired the taser anyway, so he can't even hit me with that. So I'm not going to fire back at him as he points that weapon at me and tries to discharge it.

All of this happens in a split second or two. Are you going to take the time to mentally go through this checklist before firing your weapon, or does self preservation take over and when you see a suspect who just assaulted you aim a weapon at you, you fire at him? I don't care how much training you have, you can't process all that so quickly.

I'm not saying it was justified. I'm just saying I can see how it happened. The office made a mistake in judgement. But as that legal argument posted earlier points out, cops are allowed to make mistakes in judgement- they can't do it right every time. Yes, it's a tragedy the guy was killed, but that doesn't mean the cop is guilty of murder.

[dice]

I want to make this clear again:

A drunk man is shot dead by a trained cop.

If the Taser is LETHAL, then there is no justification for using it to begin with from the Cops. Why use LETHAL force to subdue a drunk person resisting arrest?

If its NON-LETHAL, then it doesnt justify escalation to using a LETHAL Gun.

I expect this kind of buffoonery in India - where there is no rule of law and cops do whatever they want.

I do not expect this in my country now - the US. This needs to change. Immediately.

i'm not sure that his state of intoxication changes anything with how he should be dealt with after the scuffle begins. and it's certainly reasonable to have tasers at hand given that (presumably) they are trained how to use them in a non-lethal manner. but the use of a gun here should have been more or less off the table as soon as the subject had been determined not to be armed. even a warning shot would have been overreacting, though it sure as hell would have put the fear of god into the victim. and yes, i understand that they're trained to shoot to kill only

what hasn't been mentioned is that the closest officer in pursuit (the one who had his own taser fired at him!) never went to his gun

[League Circles]

All good points, IMO. I've heard the same thing about teachers in European countries- much more training/educ. required, also much higher pay. Here, we pay somebody that can program a computer 200K a year (that is about what the average pay is at big firms like Google and Apple these days), but someone who will be teaching our children less than half that.

I don't know if this is still true or not, but it used to be that in the UK, cops didn't even carry guns. Personally, I think that is a great idea. In general, you are much less likely to get shot if you don't have a gun on you, and the same would go for the police I believe. It's a whole different understanding what the police are for, and what their role is- not to be going to war on the streets with criminals, but to watch over and make sure laws are being followed. That gets into a whole other discussion about the prevalence of guns in our society, but I do think if cops didn't have guns at their disposal, it would necessitate them doing their job in a much different, and better, way.

Right on. (I do believe that is still the general basis in UK). I also think police officers on patrol should not have guns. That's a difficult proposition for many to consider because our society has developed with that relationship in place. How do you break it? I think a typical patrol officer even here in Brooklyn, or in Chicago, doesn't need a weapon with live ammunition. That certainly doesn't mean police departments don't have access to guns (in the UK during specific incidents cops may be armed to some degree).
But those that regularly carry them should have to have ANOTHER level of training and certification, and be a part of a very specific unit that has made a legal case to legislators/panel WHY the guns are required regularly.

All the people that talk about good apples and bad apples, there should be such a thorough vetting and education program that no "bad apple" is ever given a weapon BY THE STATE and given the license to murder people BY THE STATE. You absolutely should not be able to get couple weeks at police academy (or 6 months at most in the most serious departments) and be able to walk onto the street with a state provide weapon.

I'll also add: I want to see intense classroom and experiential education over many years for the people in charge of community safety; continued exams and recertification the same as we require teachers and doctors. But what I'll add, in the new world where we require that education up front of our officers, we pay them handsomely for the commitment they've made to that arduous training, we pay them handsomely for exercising the responsibility of that role with so much knowledge, compassion, and cross-cultural empathy.

I know doctors have to be continually re-certified. If police officers aren't, they should be. As part of their training, I wonder how much time is spent talking about what it's like to grow up in a crime infested neighborhood, and how best to relate to people from that experience. And something about the history of the relationship between people of color and the police, and how to improve.

I think non-stop body cams should be required as well, and those tapes should be posted on line for the public to view, except where it might reveal something about undercover operations, etc. But everything the police do should be on tape for everyone to view. I think that might stop a lot of the day to day intimidation and mistreatment that a lot of cops dish out. I mean, they're public servants, don't we have a right to see how they do their jobs?

Amen on recertification and non stop body cams.

[Dresden]

Fired Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe charged with felony murder in shooting death of Rayshard Brooks

[musiqsoulchild]

Spoiler:

Fired Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe charged with felony murder in shooting death of Rayshard Brooks

I beleive he can get the death penalty for this.

He wont.

This is obvious pandering by the state.

[Dresden]

Spoiler:

Fired Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe charged with felony murder in shooting death of Rayshard Brooks

I beleive he can get the death penalty for this.

He wont.

This is obvious pandering by the state.

If you mean that the DA did this for political reasons, I think you're right. I believe it will be hard to get a conviction on murder, but they did charge him with 11 crimes, so maybe he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. On the other hand, maybe it is a good thing in that is sends a message to police officers everywhere that they better be prepared for harsh consequences if they use excessive force.

It will be interesting to see what the police force's reaction to this will be- I expect there will be some strong pushback.

[Bluewaterheaven]

GBI hadn’t even finished their investigation yet. Same DA who said a taser is a deadly weapon 2 weeks ago.

This is going to end in a non-conviction and a possible disbarment of the DA. No matter what you think the out come of this case should be, charges at this time was the wrong choice.

[Bluewaterheaven]

Spoiler:

Fired Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe charged with felony murder in shooting death of Rayshard Brooks

I beleive he can get the death penalty for this.

He wont.

This is obvious pandering by the state.

If you mean that the DA did this for political reasons, I think you're right. I believe it will be hard to get a conviction on murder, but they did charge him with 11 crimes, so maybe he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. On the other hand, maybe it is a good thing in that is sends a message to police officers everywhere that they better be prepared for harsh consequences if they use excessive force.

It will be interesting to see what the police force's reaction to this will be- I expect there will be some strong pushback.

The police force walked out last night in protest.

[dougthonus]

Spoiler:

I beleive he can get the death penalty for this.

He wont.

This is obvious pandering by the state.

If you mean that the DA did this for political reasons, I think you're right. I believe it will be hard to get a conviction on murder, but they did charge him with 11 crimes, so maybe he will be found guilty of a lesser charge. On the other hand, maybe it is a good thing in that is sends a message to police officers everywhere that they better be prepared for harsh consequences if they use excessive force.

It will be interesting to see what the police force's reaction to this will be- I expect there will be some strong pushback.

The police force walked out last night in protest.

Maybe as they should.

There clearly needs to be systemic change in the way police operate if we want to stop situations like this. As in, maybe cops shouldn't be carrying around guns all the time where we are giving them the power to unleash lethal force at any moment?

Maybe instead we need to give them much better armor to withstand attempted lethal force against them and then bring in help if required or some other solution. A question in general would be whether or not we're getting more positive or negative out of cops having the ability to choose whether to use lethal force at any instant and if this is really a choice we want them to have.

If you give them that choice though and put them in these situations which are probably really scary for anyone, then you are going to get some people who make bad decisions occasionally. If everyone who makes a bad decision then gets charged with murder, you're also going to make it so its insane to ever want to be a cop to begin with and significantly lower the quality of candidates willing to take the job.

In the end, you need to find a win/win here where people aren't being subjected to excessive force but police are protected both physically and legally. The answer sure isn't charge every cop with murder who is in a violent confrontation that initiates when someone attacks them first. I mean if someone is attacking me, steals a weapon, and I have a weapon, I sure would be tempted to fire it, that's a high adrenaline, instantaneous type of situation there.

I'm not saying everything here was entirely above board or done the best it could be. I don't think that's true at all, but I think you're putting everyone in a real bad state with the rules as they exist and the current political climate of demonizing police isn't going to make things better for anyone.

[Dresden]

I wonder how it would work if, say, Officer X was one of the patrolmen in your neighborhood who was known to rough up people, etc. Once he gets more than 2 complaints about him, he's required to keep his body cam on at all times that he's out of the squad car, and it's put on a live feed on You Tube or some other station. I have to think that would put an end to any misbehavior by Office X.

That's not going to prevent situations like we've had with Brooks and Floyd. But it would be a good tool to prevent the daily harassment a lot of officers dish out to certain people.