More money doesn't mean better officers. And they know the pay when they sign up.

 

What's your suggested solution and how would you implement it?

I'd really like to see some of you in the shoes of the police in some of these issues dealing with what they have to deal with. Somehow I think it would shed a different light on things.

#1 - 50 feet is enough that you can't get audio. What good is video without audio (unless the PDs would budge some on the camera issues)?

 

#2 - What about citizen's safety? The public-at-large would be far safer if every car leaving work was stopped and searched for illegal activity. However, at the same time, that's not very convenient for the public and counter to the Constitution. Could you be more specific about what you suggest aside from a citizen being far enough outside of range to get audio (or even close-up video)? How does an officer determine 49 versus 51 feet? How would you prove that up at trial? Would a better solution not be to just not interfere with the crime scene [or yourself commit a crime]? Is the way 'disorderly conduct' is legally construed to give deference to the officer to make an arrest not liberally construed enough for you?

 

#3 - What happens to someone who doesn't have the requisite intent to be within 50 feet of an officer conducting an arrest? If someone is pulled over, does a driver need to swerve outside a 50 foot radius from them? What if an unruly sports fan is arrested at a game and someone happens to be on their phone? Should the officer be able to check and make sure they aren't filming so not to violate any laws? If not, what becomes apparent enough for an investigative detention?

 

Sorry if any of these waste your time, so just give me your analysis on whatever you wish.

 

On #1 , 50 feet is probably a pipe dream but 20 to 25 feet sounds about right. But more to your point, the Supreme Court says video, correct? Nothing about audio in there that I am aware of. And at some point the Supreme Court will probably have to take up the audio issue too. I see this one as a loser for 1st Amendment and a winner for Police safety. I just don't see any competent court ruling anyone is entitled to audio of third party police actions if it potentially jeopardizes the safety of the officers. If you want that kind of audio you will need to invest in professional equipment to eavesdrop from a distance.

 

On #2 any officer that tries to make a case that is in the 45 to 50 range needs his head examined. Think of it like speeding, the speed limit may be 65 but most officers give you until 75 (or more) before they ticket you. In this case the rule may be something like 50 feet but you wouldn't be charged until you came close to 20 feet away, this would be pretty clear to everyone in a trial.

 

On #3 (and I realize this is getting above some of you for good reason) mental state would have to be a part of the law. If you are knowingly taking video then you need to know to back the you know what up.

 

Finally, I am all for citizens videoing everything that happens (the government is sure working on that) but an officer's right to be safe trumps a citizens right to video every time.

What's your suggested solution and how would you implement it?

 

I'm certainly not against paying police more, I think they deserve it. But that doesn't completely fix the issues we are dealing with. I think better/more training is a start. I don't know what the hiring process is for police departments, but I'd hope there is some sort of behavioral assessment. Be more "picky" about who is hired on, increase the training, get better candidates, and then pay those candidates more. Cops aren't in it for the paycheck, and bad cops certainly aren't. They are there to flex their muscles and pound their chests. Those are the kind we need to get rid of.

On #1 , 50 feet is probably a pipe dream but 20 to 25 feet sounds about right. But more to your point, the Supreme Court says video, correct? Nothing about audio in there that I am aware of. And at some point the Supreme Court will probably have to take up the audio issue too I see this one as a loser for 1st Amendment and a winner for Police safety. I just don't see any competent court ruling anyone is entitled to audio of third party police actions if it potentially jeopardizes the safety of the officers. If you want that kind of audio you will need to invest in professional equipment to eavesdrop from a distance.

 

On #2 any officer that tries to make a case that is in the 45 to 50 range needs his head examined. Think of it like speeding, the speed limit may be 65 but most officers give you until 75 (or more) before they ticket you. In this case the rule may be something like 50 feet but you wouldn't be charged until you came close to 20 feet away, this would be pretty clear to everyone in a trial.

 

On #3 (and I realize this is getting above some of you for good reason) mental state would have to be a part of the law. If you are knowingly taking video then you need to know to back the you know what up.

 

Finally, I am all for citizens videoing everything that happens (the government is sure working on that) but an officer's right to be safe trumps a citizens right to video every time.

 

 

This! Every time - this!

I'm certainly not against paying police more, I think they deserve it. But that doesn't completely fix the issues we are dealing with. I think better/more training is a start. I don't know what the hiring process is for police departments, but I'd hope there is some sort of behavioral assessment. Be more "picky" about who is hired on, increase the training, get better candidates, and then pay those candidates more. Cops aren't in it for the paycheck, and bad cops certainly aren't. They are there to flex their muscles and pound their chests. Those are the kind we need to get rid of.

 

Are you familiar with what training police departments get now? If not, how can you say they need more/better training?

 

More/better training in what, specifically?

 

I'm pretty sure Kentucky has pretty good training academies for all police in the state right now.

Are you familiar with what training police departments get now? If not, how can you say they need more/better training?

 

More/better training in what, specifically?

 

I'm pretty sure Kentucky has pretty good training academies for all police in the state right now.

 

Here you go again with your "I know more than everybody" attitude. You don't have to be an expert to realize that there is a reason this stuff is going on. Is it training, bad individuals, a mixture of both? Who knows, but we need to start somewhere.

 

Better training in what? I don't know, there have been several different situations where police didn't handle it the best way they could. It's too tough (and broad) to pick specific areas of training. Every department might not need the same training as the next.

 

Here you go again with your "I know more than everybody" attitude. You don't have to be an expert to realize that there is a reason this stuff is going on. Is it training, bad individuals, a mixture of both? Who knows, but we need to start somewhere.

 

Better training in what? I don't know, there have been several different situations where police didn't handle it the best way they could. It's too tough (and broad) to pick specific areas of training. Every department might not need the same training as the next.

 

So instead of answering my question, you insult me? I'm still curious what you know about police training? I never said, or even insinuated I know more than anyone. I asked you a question. Are questions not allowed?

 

People have this perception that things are worse than they are because of the media. Heck, this big anti police push stayed with a story that was pretty much completely false...

 

Fwiw, I'm all for police getting as much training as they can possibly get. I'm just not convinced there's a problem with police (in general) in our country.

So instead of answering my question, you insult me? I'm still curious what you know about police training? I never said, or even insinuated I know more than anyone. I asked you a question. Are questions not allowed?

 

People have this perception that things are worse than they are because of the media. Heck, this big anti police push stayed with a story that was pretty much completely false...

 

Fwiw, I'm all for police getting as much training as they can possibly get. I'm just not convinced there's a problem with police (in general) in our country.

 

I don't know anything about police training. I thought that should have been evident when I didn't give specific points on where more training should be utilized.

 

AGAIN, you can be mad at the media for the "anti-police push" all you want. Are more of these instances brought to light because of the media? Absolutely, and they should be. Without media (news, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc) these things happen and VERY few people would know what is going on. Media has enabled this problem to be brought into the spotlight and I am glad it has. I completely understand your disgust for anything false that the media runs with, that is no good for anybody involved. The good guys shouldn't get a bad rap for what the bad guys are doing, but at the same time, what the bad guys are doing shouldn't just be swept under the rug because they are the minority.

To show the problem with stats:

 

What % of people who were unhappy with how they were treated by an officer actually filed a complaint?

What's the % that filed an unwarranted complaint, because they didn't like the outcome?

 

I don't know anything about police training. I thought that should have been evident when I didn't give specific points on where more training should be utilized.

 

AGAIN, you can be mad at the media for the "anti-police push" all you want. Are more of these instances brought to light because of the media? Absolutely, and they should be. Without media (news, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc) these things happen and VERY few people would know what is going on. Media has enabled this problem to be brought into the spotlight and I am glad it has. I completely understand your disgust for anything false that the media runs with, that is no good for anybody involved. The good guys shouldn't get a bad rap for what the bad guys are doing, but at the same time, what the bad guys are doing shouldn't just be swept under the rug because they are the minority.

 

I don't have a problem with the bad ones being exposed and fired/prosecuted.

 

I have a problem with people jumping top conclusions with limited information and the media running with false narratives. That's what has happened in many cases.

 

I have a problem with people jumping top conclusions with limited information and the media running with false narratives. That's what has happened in many cases.

 

Everyone, yourself included, jumps to conclusions every time one of these incidents come to light.

Fact is, one incident is too many. Obviously, cops are just like everyone else and we can't expect them to be perfect or all be good guys, but I also don't think it's unrealistic to want these incidents brought to light, and when they do occur, for us to examine what can be done (more training, etc) to make sure that type of thing doesn't happen again or how to better handle that type of situation.

 

Everyone, yourself included, jumps to conclusions every time one of these incidents come to light.

 

Im not perfect by any means, but I try to wait before making any definitive statements. I've been accused of supporting police at every turn because of that.

Fact is' date=' one incident is too many. Obviously, cops are just like everyone else and we can't expect them to be perfect or all be good guys, but I also don't think it's unrealistic to want these incidents brought to light, and when they do occur, for us to examine what can be done (more training, etc) to make sure that type of thing doesn't happen again or how to better handle that type of situation.[/quote']

 

One murder is too many.

 

One teacher touching kids is too many.

 

I agree that one is too many, my entire argument is that it's not as bad as many people claim.