TexasCHLforum.com

Good for you. I'm sure the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division's top priority is producing proof that satisfies your biased mind within your arbitrary timeframe that they were in fact already investigating Slager. They'll produce all the evidence they've collected if /when this goes to trial - same as every other case.

And thats the problem. Without the video nothing would have been done and both these guys would have gotten off scott free.

And again, there is no cause to suspend an officer until you have probable cause to believe they have violated policy or broken the law.

Lying in your report about attempting CPR is not cause to suspend them? is that the standard you want the public to expect from the police? You're digging a hole thats mighty deep.

Mighty petty gripes mean that call for DOJ oversight nationally is growing.

A-R wrote: You're trying to justify this immoral stance (placing officer oversight ahead of officer safety) by stating an officer can just easily purchase his own vest (and gun). Let them eat cake, right? Maybe vestless cops should just contact OSHA and force you, the employer, to pony up for necessary safety equipment.

Correction. Placing the Constitution over officer safety.

Frankly why aren't the police unions working for this?

I think departments should issue body armor and provide a stipend for purchasing a handgun (which I think should, within certain needs dictated by department policy be a personal choice)...or a least a stipend for an officer to purchase his own body armor. Policing is one of the only legitimate functions of government so I have no problem with getting the funds from some other part of whatever budget.

Agreed. Why is this even an issue? Given the last few years the level of Homeland Security grants and surplus military hardware, why isn't body armor and sidearms easily available. To see Strykers piratically given away and officers having to buy their own armor and pistols is unacceptable.

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote: PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And he wasn't fired, nor charged until the video came out with what actually happened.
How about the other officer? Has he been fired yet?
How about the San Bernardino sheriffs who beat that guy up on video? Have they been fired yet?

You're not helping your argument.

I'm going to regret answering this, but your assertions are so devoid of reality that I can't allow them to stand.

Of course he wasn't charged nor fired. State police had suspicions, not probable cause. They planned to investigate the inconsistencies. The video helped immensely and sped up the process of establishing probable cause. Without the video they still could've established PC with evidence, ballistics etc. Doing so just takes longer. Is your attention span so short that you're demanding video of all police critical incidents just so charges will be filed in an hour like a "Law & Order" episode?

I don't believe them. Since nothing was public before the video hit, the burden is on them to produce proof they were doing something. Was the cop suspended? Was the other cop suspended? Has the other cop been suspended even now?

Since you're being pithy about timelines, here's one back for you. Justice delayed is justice denied.

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants

You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If appreciating the Bill of Rights as a priority over "safety" then color me guilty, and gladly.

A-R wrote: PS: and for the record, state police were investigating the Slager-Scot case before the cell phone video was released. See there are other investigative tactics (evidence, ballistics etc) used by real police who better understand such things than keyboard warriors who speculate, pontificate, and claim only video can prove the truth. But again, feel free to spout off about how you know he woulda gotten away with it if not for the video, which doesn't even reveal the full story. That said, Slager screwed up huge, deserves to and will be punished severely.

http://m.chronicle.augusta.com/news/cri ... #gsc.tab=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And he wasn't fired, nor charged until the video came out with what actually happened.
How about the other officer? Has he been fired yet?
How about the San Bernardino sheriffs who beat that guy up on video? Have they been fired yet?

You're not helping your argument.

A-R wrote:Whether or not cops are recorded is not the issue that reveals your anti-cop bias (most already are - dash cams). The issue I have with BOTH of your written assertions is that you both place a higher value on police oversight (body cams) than police safety (body armor). I find that open admission from both of you staggering and very telling of the value you place on your socio-political ideals and voyeristic "gotcha" wants

You mean like the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment under the Constitution? Like the right to not be killed and then have the police make a story up, complete with other police covering for him? Thats scary, just scary in the USA.

A-R wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

I agree. While I think departments should issue body armor, it isn't so expensive that an officer couldn't purchase his own.

CedarParkDad, I rest my case on your posts revealing an anti-cop tendency.

Your posts reveal quite a bit as well.

Slager even dropped his taser near Walter Scott's body to substantiate his would-be testimony.

Note there was another officer there who gave a false report, including that the two of them had immediately called, and given the guy CPR. Instead they stood around chatting.

A-R wrote:
As for CedarParkDad, you've made your opinion clear. I don't care to continue discussing it with someone as narrow minded and obviously anti-cop as you.

You're on a board where people are pushing for their rights under the Bill of Rights, pushing that bad police officers be held responsible, and think I'm anticop?

You do know that charges by BGs against cops fall dramatically with cameras right?

Please explain to me why you think your employers should not support a simple monitoring system. You're losing the public's trust and bad things are going to happen if you lose it completely. If you think cameras are bad, how about federal monitoring? Cameras are a simple way to help regain that trust, and protect YOU from false charges of abuse. Frankly this is a no brainer.

EDIT: You think I'm anticop, but I've seen what happens when the police lose their trust. Its extremely difficult, if even possible to regain it, and frankly I'd rather not have the police or my kids live in an extended USA wide model I experienced in LA.

I know full well these concerns will fall on deaf ears. I fully expect mandatory body cams in the next year. Hopefully this wont be the straw they breaks the camel's back. But an exodus of good, experienced cops out of the profession is already being documented nationwide.

If body cams make cops leave they shouldn't be wearing a badge in the first place.

Wow, you pull out the universal conversation ender rather quickly. Then what? What's next? What do you propose after a large percentage of the good cops say "heck with this" and quit?

Pay them more. Police deserve to contract for the pay they can best negotiate. If there's a shortage they should be able to negotiate higher pay.

My comparison was a moral barometer about what you place the most import: officer safety (body armor) or officer oversight (body camera). Obviously, what you deem most important for your "employees" is clear. Just don't be surprised when your choices start sending the good employees looking for greener pastures.

I'll state frankly I agree with you completely. Officer oversight is far more important to me. I'm seeing the occupier mentality I had the joy of living under in LA spreading outside of California. it needs to stop. This is one step in that. Safety as a complete priority leads to battle armor, armored vehicles, and an occupier mentality, which also does police no good.

A-R wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

A-R wrote:THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.

That's because you're not the person who has to wear either.

You're right. And? Like everything else, if you don't like the terms of employment, do something else.

A-R wrote:THIS

There are still officers in small departments who are not issued BODY ARMOR! Let's fix that problem before we start throwing money at body cameras.

I'd rather spend the money on body cameras.
I'd be ok with making that a state expenditure though.