B. Hussein Obama is looking to provide federal money (read taxpayer money) to equip police departments across the nation with body cameras that are worn by police officers so that everything they do (every encounter) is recorded.
It is not the place of the federal government to be doling out our money for things that affect state and local law enforcement. If individual states or localities want these cameras then they should pay for them. Federal tax dollars do not belong paying for these things but that is an issue for another day.
For today I am wondering how Obama or anyone else thinks cameras worn by police officers would make a difference. I have no issue with police officers wearing body cameras though I fail to see what value they have.
Let me explain. The body camera would record what the officer and the person with whom that officer interacted did. It would show who did what and it would either corroborate or refute the stories of the participants. So far that all seems good and who could argue with that? Hell, if Officer Wilson had been wearing a body camera we would know exactly what happened between him and Michael Brown.
But would it have mattered?
A camera in the Ferguson case might have shown Wilson to be lying but would it have resulted in an indictment? Given the evidence presented in the absence of a video I feel he should not have been indicted but I also know, based on cases where video IS available, he would likely not have been indicted even if the entire encounter had been recorded.
There are ample cases on the internet where police officers are recorded clearly violating the law and the rights of citizens. There are videos of officers shooting people (and dogs) for no reason. These police officers who are armed with batons, heavy flashlights (that can be used as a baton), Tasers, pepper spray and a firearm need only say they feared for their lives and they are deemed to have been justified in their actions even though these actions are taken against people who are UNARMED (since that seems to be a buzz word in the Brown case). I know I have said that unarmed does not mean harmless and I have seen plenty of videos where offices were perfectly justified in shooting unarmed people.
In those cases it is usually pretty clear. In those where the outrage is present it is usually obvious that the officer used excessive force. In these cases, where it is all caught in video, the officers are not indicted and are deemed to have acted appropriately and “within their training and department guidelines.”
So would a body camera make a difference?
The city of New York is having its turn at outrage over a Grand Jury decision. In this case an officer was not indicted for the death of a person who resisted arrest, was encountered by the officer and taken down. The guy ended up dying and it was all recorded. In the recording the person is taken to the ground and placed in some kind of choke hold and he is heard gasping and wheezing and saying that he can’t breathe. At what point does it become obvious the guy is in distress?
If this were a lone cop (the suspect was quite large) one might conclude that he did not let go because that could have been a ruse to attack the officer. But there are several other police officers present. All the cop on the ground has to say to his fellow officers is grab his arms guys, sir I am going to let you go so you can breathe but if you resist we will be right back where we started. With several other cops present there was no reason for this. [Please police officers save your righteous indignation and don’t waste my time telling me how tough it is on the street. Four or five armed to the teeth guys can handle a man who is having trouble breathing and who is NOT fighting. If not, turn in you badges.]
“All over America, cops are getting away with this,” added 22-year-old Demetri Green. “They’re the real gang in New York City. They’re the real gang in this county.” New York Daily News
In my opinion those who said Trayvon was shot for carrying Skillets (Skittles to the literate among us) and that Mike Brown was shot for walking in the street are idiots and ignored the facts in the case. Both of the people killed in these cases were VIOLENT. They were attacking someone. The guy in New York was not attacking anyone. He was selling an untaxed tobacco product.
The question should not be whether the officer followed procedure it should be was his response appropriate for the infraction and was the result of his actions an acceptable consequence of the person’s crime. In other words, was too much force used for a guy allegedly committing a non violent crime? Hell, they don’t treat people carrying small amounts of marijuana in New York the way they treated the victim here and he had a LEGAL product when the police killed him.
Given the video that shows the entire episode (the video came from a bystander) and given the reality that a lot of force was used for a non violent crime and given the man can be heard gasping and wheezing and saying he could not breathe and given the medical examiner ruled this a homicide a reasonable person could conclude that the officer went overboard and caused this man’s death. The Grand Jury did not see it that way and refused to indict.
It is rare for a police officer to go before the Grand Jury for these things and it is rare for any officer to be found guilty of a crime when he uses force while doing his job even if it is clear that what he did was wrong (and would be illegal if we did it). This is true even when video evidence is present.
So I ask, what good would body cameras do?
It will be interesting to see what happens in Ohio where it is obvious a cop murdered a child. The kid was playing with a toy gun and the police were called. When they arrive one of the Miami Vice wanna be cops shoots the kid dead seemingly before the police car comes to a stop. If this guy is found to have acted appropriately then maybe we really do need to burn the place to the ground and start over…
Obama Body Cam Request Takes a Hit
Never surrender, never submit.
Let me start off by saying I agree with bombing ISIS and any other terror group and I think the US should keep it up. I would say to bomb them back to the Stone Age but since they already live in that era I say bomb them back to before they existed. I have no problem with attacking them where they live rather than waiting for them to come here. I have no problem with preemptive strikes.
But I am not the problem here because I never held the view that we should not attack them.
Barack Obama and ALL the Democrats who opposed George Bush did though. They derided Bush for waging war in Iraq when they claimed Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never attacked us. Afghanistan was the good war, they said.
So during Bush’s terms we had Code Pink and the rest of the anti war crowd along with the Democrats screaming about Bush’s War and George Bush attacking a nation that never attacked us, blah, blah.
Barack Obama arrived on the scene fresh from his community organizing state and US Senate gigs to claim the mantle of anti war hero and to stop George Bush’s illegal wars.
The US, along with coalition partners, has begun bombing ISIS and other terror groups in Syria. Syria has never attacked us and ISIS has never attacked out country. Yes, they murdered some Americans but they did not come to our home nation and attack us. Do I think we should avenge their deaths? Certainly but then again, I am not the problem.
The problem lies with those who were so vocal in their opposition to George Bush who now remain silent as their messiah attacks an enemy in a sovereign nation, one that did not attack us. The problem lies with those very groups who said we should not be at war and who told us to try and understand the other guy’s side of things.
Where are these groups now? Where is Nancy Pelosi? Where is Harry Reid? Where are the protest groups that were so up in arms about the Iraq war? Where are these people when Barack Obama is basically doing the same thing they attacked Bush for?
They are curiously silent on the matter.
George Bush got Congressional approval before he waged war and Barack Obama did not. George Bush told us exactly what would happen if we announced the date we were leaving and pulled completely out of the region and what he said would happen, did.
Barack Obama was against the war in Iraq and he campaigned on ending it. Barack Obama campaigned on what he perceived to be the lawless and unconstitutional acts of Bush and now he is doing the very things he campaigned against.
These people are hypocrites and it would do the nation well for them to lose their jobs in November (for those up for reelection). Barack Obama is a disgrace to this nation. Is he doing the right thing now? I think it is right to attack the enemy but I always did.
He did not. This is what happens when you have a progressive Alinskyite with no work experience, no military experience (and who actually loathes the military) and no real life experience running things.
Community organizers are rabble rousers, not leaders.
The left remains silent because it is their messiah who is doing the things they previously opposed.
We need to rally as a nation while we are at war but that does not mean we can’t question the integrity of the leader who took us to war.
If the nation had questioned that integrity during the campaign we might not have a hypocrite and first class amateur running things now.
And in all likeliness there would be no need for more war because the enemies would fear us.
No one fears Obama because he lacks anything resembling manhood and he is certainly not a warrior.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 15, 2011 Political
The Occupy crowd around the country is full of filthy people who are disrupting life for those who work and pay taxes to support this country. They have had a number of crimes including rape occur at their camps and there are outbreaks of communicable diseases including sexually transmitted diseases and drug resistant Tuberculosis.
We have already seen pictures of people who have defecated on police cars and we know these “people” are using public places to relieve themselves. Breitbart has posted a video of a protester who squats and defecates on the sidewalk.
This is the movement that Obama and the Democrats support.
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin and a slew of other liberals (many of them wealthy and who have made money off Wall Street or through capitalism) have publicly expressed their support for these people.
The occupy protests have been going on for about two months and police around the country are starting to clear these people out.
Unfortunately, they are about two months too late.
Never surrender, never submit.
Nov 2, 2011 Political
Looks like the Occupy Wall Street folks are getting their (in the words of the NYP) “freak on” in the style of their 1960s ancestors and their free love protests. The nasty OWS law breakers have been having a lot of sex and there has been a run on the STD clinic. The OWS love machines have been getting handouts of money so they can clog up the local clinic that is in place to help the poor (or underserved, as they are called).
Imagine that. A bunch of poor people have to stand outside and wait forever to be seen for their illnesses because the OWS mob is clogging up the clinic to be seen for the STDs they contracted through lifestyle choices.
The OWS crowd that has been complaining about the homeless and other poor people infiltrating them and eating their food should remember this the next time they want to complain. Their life choices are not only hurting them but others as well.
Wait a minute…
Can’t we apply this on a larger scale? These folks are protesting because there are wealthy people and they are not part of that group. They want to take what others have. They want free education and debt forgiven. They want others to be responsible for them. They want the property of other people and they want to live off the government (the people who pay taxes). They claim that they want those who allegedly broke the law leading to the economic collapse to be prosecuted and they will demonstrate their distaste for the lawbreakers by…wait for it…breaking the law themselves.
They basically are unhappy with their lives and want to be taken care of no matter who else it bothers.
Kind of like engaging in casual, unprotected sex with strangers and getting a disease and then inconveniencing others because of it. I wonder if taxpayer dollars support that clinic and if so, how much is wasted because of this.
Personally, I don’t care if consenting adults want to engage in sex. That is their business. So long as they are not out raping people (as has been reported quite a bit) and so long as they are not doing it in public then they can do what they want.
But I would expect that these folks who are so smart mind you, that they have all the answers to our problems, would have the sense to use a condom. I mean, if you want to be where the rubber meets the road….
Here is a capitalist idea for someone in the OWS crowd. I know you won’t want to do it because it involves working and making money (and capitalism), but I will throw it out there.
You can order a box of 1000 condoms for anywhere between $70 and $200. If you order a few boxes and sell the condoms for 50 cents each you will make a very good profit.
If you OWS folks intend to stay there until things go your way (and you really mean it) then you are going to be there a very long time. A lot of bored hippies taking drugs leads to a lot of hippies having sex.
An enterprising OWS person can make a fortune if he tries.
You will make money and the poor will not be forced out of their clinic so OWS folks can be seen for STDs.
The rest of us will benefit because you will be preventing these people from reproducing…
UPDATE: The Daily Caller has a slideshow of homes. The addresses of the homes were obtained from some of the records of OWS protesters who were arrested. Look at these very expensive and beautiful homes and decide if these people are really part of the 99%. Are they really poor people who have nothing or are they posers who actually have it pretty good. The only other thing we could ask is if they are people who bought homes they could not afford under the CRA and are unable to pay for them. If this is the case, then why are WE supposed to be concerned with their bad decisions? You signed the contract and if you can’t pay, too bad. Blame your Democrat supporters for their social justice schemes. In either case, these people are not really what they claim to be.
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 19, 2011 Political
When the TEA Party arrived on the scene a few years ago the progressives and their media wing made the claim that the Party was all white, a bunch of redneck racists. Chris Matthews of MSNBC made the false accusation that “All of them, every single one of them is white.” when referring to the TEA Party. This, of course, is demonstrably false but Matthews had his marching orders from the Democrats and he had to paint the TEA Party as a non diverse group of racists. Matthews has no obligation to report the truth because he told us that it is his job to make sure Obama succeeds. Keep in mind that he will approach every task with that as his goal. What he says or does is designed to fulfill his job of ensuring Obama succeeds.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post reported on a question being asked about the Tea Party and an upcoming rally (from September 2010) being another event distinguished by a sea of white faces. This prompted groups to go to efforts to highlight those who attended who were not part of the white sea. I have been to a number of TEA Party events and there is diversity. It does not look like a rainbow and the math suggests that it never could.
The American population is overwhelmingly white. About 70% of the population is white and 12% is black. The rest are other ethnicities. 95% of all blacks are aligned with the Democrat party. The TEA Party is not a political party but it is based on conservative principles. While many blacks are conservative in their lives they are unlikely to attend an event reported to them by the media wing as being a Republican event. They are unlikely to attend something that they perceive as being against the black man they voted for. They are unlikely to attend something their Democrat leaders have told them is bad.
So mathematically, there are not going to be a lot of faces that are not white in any random crowd, much less a TEA Party crowd.
But this does not stop the media wing of the Democrat party from calling the TEA Party racists and suggesting that there is no diversity or that only white people are allowed. Those talking heads in the Democrat media have no clue about the math or what any given crowd would look like.
One only needs to look at the Occupy Wall Street movement to see the math play out. Those groups, all across the country, are awash in a sea of white, to borrow from Milbank’s piece. There are no black faces to be found. The white light failed to hit the prism. If Chris Matthews’ job was not to ensure Obama succeeded he might say; All of them, every single one of them is white.
The left is no more diverse than the right.
The OWS movement has been orchestrated by the left. It is supported by the left and its backers in labor. One would think that with all the diversity the left allegedly has the protests it has organized would contain more colors than white.
You won’t hear about this in the news and you won’t read about it in any of the print papers. You will not hear the very people who bashed the TEA Party say anything about the lack of diversity on the left.
It does not fit the narrative. It does not fit with what they preach. It does not support their claims.
So they have to ignore it. Just like the OWS protesters ignore reality while they demand the rich pay more in taxes and that debt be forgiven. They ignore the truth about taxes while demanding the wealthy give their money away (to the OWS folks, of course).
Dick Morris recently reported:
Here are the facts according to the IRS:
- Those making more than $1 million pay 24% of income in taxes
- Those making $200,000 to $300,000 pay 17.5%
- Those making $100,000 to $125,000 pay 9.9%
- Those making $50,000 to $60,000 pay 6.3%
- Those making $20,000 to $30,000 pay 2.5%
What level of income do you think the OWS (those poor WHITE) folks are in? Many, by their own admission, are not working so they pay no taxes (and will undoubtedly get money back in the IRS redistribution scheme) and they are protesting for the 1% (the wealthy) to pay their fair share.
The numbers do not lie. The wealthy are paying most of the taxes in this country and certainly more than their fair share.
Big Dog salute to:
Never surrender, never submit.