zlacker

>>dtagam+(OP)
If there ever was a case of "don't comment unless you've RTFA" this it: people extrapolating their viewpoint on a list of 700 things from watching 1, 2, 3 ...

At a minimum, watch 100 videos. I did last night, only took about an hour, it's easy to find some to nitpick, some which are ambiguous ... and plenty that are totally horrifying.

If you can watch 100 videos in a row from Greg Doucette's list and say, "the militarization and use of force tactics of US law enforcement are not a problem" then I'd like to hear why you think so given this evidence.

Otherwise you're not speaking from an honest grappling with what these videos contain.

>>kthejo+YV
I pseudo-randomly sampled 30 videos...

Almost all of them had outright wrong, or heavily misleading titles and/or descriptions with contradictory claims in the comments - and almost none of them provided context to the police actions.

This list is really more about stoking emotions than providing evidence of anything.

I mean look at this one...

https://twitter.com/jayjanner/status/1267111893753307137

A large volume of misleading hyperbolic claims by a biased collector/poster don't get more meaningful through volume of posts.

>>koheri+dZ
This is why any footage of an incident used in court must include the entire interaction. Police body cam footage can be rejected as evidence if it does not start with the officer stepping out of his vehicle. This is why so many iPhone recordings from bystanders gets thrown out in trial.

Are there instances where police abuse their power? Yes. Absolutely. But it doesn't help anyone when people are cherry picking instances where escalation of force was warranted, but they do not show the full context leading up to that escalation.

I would like to see meaningful police reform as much as anyone else. But we need to be pragmatic about any examples we cite as "abuse of force". Let's create a list of absolutely cut-and-dry instances of police brutality, then move from there.

>>Samuel+141
Handcuffing a lifeless freshly shot body is more than enough. I’ve seen it over and over. Why is that a policy?

Second, why shoot to kill and not to incapacitate? Shoot to kill is a policy. Why is that a policy?

The police rule by fear. I’ve never broken the law and yet Im really affraid of cops in the US. I know I should not have a reason to but can’t help but be intimidated by their tactics, their orders, their demeanour. And I act like a scared ghost anytime I get stopped by them: I am afraid that if any answer I’d give them might make them punish me with one more more tickets.

>>tartor+qb1
1. Simple. People go into shock look incapacitated, then come out of it. People get pumped with a dozen rounds and keep fighting.

2. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you ever shot a pistol? Now to simulate the Andrenaline dump run few sprints then try again. You CAN NOT shoot to disable this is not a Hollywood movie, it does not work. Most people can’t hit anything past few meters away with a pistol.

Gun is not a taser or a nightstick. It is a lethal weapon and should only be employed when you have a reason to kill.