OT: Bodycam Videos

[Forkcock]

I've been watching a lot of Sheriff Lamb videos on YouTube.

Our country is in total disarray due to prosecutors and judges that don't hold violent criminals accountable.

Time after time after time, in these videos, repeat offenders are not prosecuted or sentenced.

You can basically get away with anything these days. Criminals can beat the hell out of cops (on camera) and walk away scot-free.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I remember when all we heard about from the radical lefties was "we need bodycam on all police so we can catch all the police brutality!!!"

So they put bodycam on police officers, only to find that nearly every single time the police were in the right.

Now the lefties decided they didn't like bodycam so much.

 

[rockingamecock]

So many of today's so-called judges are incompetent and have no clue what in the hell they're doing. They were nothing but crooked lawyers to begin with. It makes you wonder how they were appointed judges in the first place.

 

[JohnnySolo]

Literally can’t lock everyone up. However I’m sure if I step out of line they’ll throw the book at me.

 

[DannyTree1]

I remember when all we heard about from the radical lefties was "we need bodycam on all police so we can catch all the police brutality!!!"

So they put bodycam on police officers, only to find that nearly every single time the police were in the right.

Now the lefties decided they didn't like bodycam so much.

I haven't encountered the "we hate bodycams now." I think they are great- when they are used. I am not a fan of police turning them off during certain parts of an encounter or not activating them on crucial calls though.

I watch too many videos on social media where police abuse their authority. There are numerous channels dedicated to exposing dirty cops and they have a lot of material.

The most interesting thing to me is how many police officers are not trained on probable cause and have cases thrown out because they violated the law themselves.

The other thing that is disturbing is the lack of training police get on recognizing the signs of dementia and also the signs of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia.

Two cases come to mind: the 2020 case of officers slamming a 73 year old elderly woman to the ground breaking her arm and dislocating her shoulder who was clearly and obviously suffering from dementia. Then being caught on video laughing about it back at the police station while the woman was forced to sit in a jail cell, alone, with a badly broken arm with no medical treatment. (She died from dementia complications in 2023).

and the case of an elderly man at a store who was clearly suffering from dementia and hypoglycemia when he was arrested and roughed up while being taken out of the store- with police ignoring the store manager repeatedly warning them that he thought the man was suffering from a medical event and was not under the influence of drugs. The store manager noticed the obvious signs and told police this was probably a medical issue but multiple police officers (including a police supervisor) ignored the signs and escalated the situation far beyond what was reasonable.

I think just in the last 2 weeks, over a dozen police officers have been fired or discovered to be abusing FLOCK cams to track or stalk ex-girlfriends, including a few right here in central South Carolina.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

It's tough, and for good reason, to get intelligent and competent people to sign up for a job when many in the public have an anti-law enforcement attitude along with an unbalanced judicial system who think this stance will not impact them personally, until it does! Laws were written to be enforced and if you don't like them, work to have them changed, but don't just ignore them.

 

[Piscis]

Literally can’t lock everyone up. However I’m sure if I step out of line they’ll throw the book at me.

Actually, if we lock up criminals when they commit their first crime, the message is sent to society that if you break the law you will be punished. The general public will be much more reluctant to commit a crime when they know there is a certainty of punishment. When criminals are released and get away with their crime, the message sent to society is, "there is no punishment to fear" and this creates more criminals.

I am an advocate of more draconian laws and punishments. First offenses should be punished pretty severely, especially crimes against a person. If the initial punishment is not enough to stop a criminal from committing more crimes, that criminal should be executed. It is obvious they cannot be rehabilitated and they will be a burden on society for their entire life.

Overhauling the laws to determine what crimes should result in prison time is another discussion.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Actually, if we lock up criminals when they commit their first crime, the message is sent to society that if you break the law you will be punished. The general public will be much more reluctant to commit a crime when they know there is a certainty of punishment. When criminals are released and get away with their crime, the message sent to society is, "there is no punishment to fear" and this creates more criminals.

I am an advocate of more draconian laws and punishments. First offenses should be punished pretty severely, especially crimes against a person. If the initial punishment is not enough to stop a criminal from committing more crimes, that criminal should be executed. It is obvious they cannot be rehabilitated and they will be a burden on society for their entire life.

Overhauling the laws to determine what crimes should result in prison time is another discussion.

There's no shortage of data to prove that rapid prosecution and punishment of crimes is a major deterrent. Everyone knows it. It turns out, when you actually do send all the criminals to jail, the crime rate drops. It's basic.

But we can never go back to that.

 

[Lurker123]

I remember when all we heard about from the radical lefties was "we need bodycam on all police so we can catch all the police brutality!!!"

So they put bodycam on police officers, only to find that nearly every single time the police were in the right.

Now the lefties decided they didn't like bodycam so much.

I find great humor in the flop on body cams. It seems video evidence didn't show what some people were hoping.

I think Marge Simpson said it best:

The courts might not work anymore, but as long as everybody is video taping everyone else, justice will be done.

 

[Piscis]

There's no shortage of data to prove that rapid prosecution and punishment of crimes is a major deterrent. Everyone knows it. It turns out, when you actually do send all the criminals to jail, the crime rate drops. It's basic.

But we can never go back to that.

I remember a report years ago that said the best tool to reduce crime was the building of more jails. A sheriff told me one time "criminals don't retire, they keep committing crimes until they are locked up or die".

 

[Lurker123]

I haven't encountered the "we hate bodycams now." I think they are great- when they are used. I am not a fan of police turning them off during certain parts of an encounter or not activating them on crucial calls though.

I watch too many videos on social media where police abuse their authority. There are numerous channels dedicated to exposing dirty cops and they have a lot of material.

The most interesting thing to me is how many police officers are not trained on probable cause and have cases thrown out because they violated the law themselves.

The other thing that is disturbing is the lack of training police get on recognizing the signs of dementia and also the signs of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia.

Two cases come to mind: the 2020 case of officers slamming a 73 year old elderly woman to the ground breaking her arm and dislocating her shoulder who was clearly and obviously suffering from dementia. Then being caught on video laughing about it back at the police station while the woman was forced to sit in a jail cell, alone, with a badly broken arm with no medical treatment. (She died from dementia complications in 2023).

and the case of an elderly man at a store who was clearly suffering from dementia and hypoglycemia when he was arrested and roughed up while being taken out of the store- with police ignoring the store manager repeatedly warning them that he thought the man was suffering from a medical event and was not under the influence of drugs. The store manager noticed the obvious signs and told police this was probably a medical issue but multiple police officers (including a police supervisor) ignored the signs and escalated the situation far beyond what was reasonable.

I think just in the last 2 weeks, over a dozen police officers have been fired or discovered to be abusing FLOCK cams to track or stalk ex-girlfriends, including a few right here in central South Carolina.

Hard to encounter things when your preferred propoganda doesnt like the story.

But thanks for another long winded, useless post. Did you get your minimal word count in?

 

[DannyTree1]

Actually, if we lock up criminals when they commit their first crime, the message is sent to society that if you break the law you will be punished. The general public will be much more reluctant to commit a crime when they know there is a certainty of punishment. When criminals are released and get away with their crime, the message sent to society is, "there is no punishment to fear" and this creates more criminals.

I am an advocate of more draconian laws and punishments. First offenses should be punished pretty severely, especially crimes against a person. If the initial punishment is not enough to stop a criminal from committing more crimes, that criminal should be executed. It is obvious they cannot be rehabilitated and they will be a burden on society for their entire life.

Overhauling the laws to determine what crimes should result in prison time is another discussion.

What type of crimes do you lock someone up for their first crime? Are you talking about violence?

We are 40 trillion in debt. I don't think there is an appetite in the country to build a bunch more prisons. 1 in every 3 adults has a criminal record (approx. 77 million people).

I think if what you proposed was reality, you'd have much more crime because people with criminal records, even people whose crime was decades ago, have more trouble getting decent jobs, building wealth which often can lead to additional crime.

As crappy as our current system is at times, I think it's better when there is a balance, and alternatives to incarceration except in more severe cases.

 

[DannyTree1]

I remember a report years ago that said the best tool to reduce crime was the building of more jails. A sheriff told me one time "criminals don't retire, they keep committing crimes until they are locked up or die".

Well, that's clearly not true.

Some do not retire. Some clearly do. Too many examples to list.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I remember a report years ago that said the best tool to reduce crime was the building of more jails. A sheriff told me one time "criminals don't retire, they keep committing crimes until they are locked up or die".

There is certainly ample evidence to back up that statement.

I like the people who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent. lol, of course it is.

 

[Lurker123]

What type of crimes do you lock someone up for their first crime? Are you talking about violence?

We are 40 trillion in debt. I don't think there is an appetite in the country to build a bunch more prisons. 1 in every 3 adults has a criminal record (approx. 77 million people).

I think if what you proposed was reality, you'd have much more crime because people with criminal records, even people whose crime was decades ago, have more trouble getting decent jobs, building wealth which often can lead to additional crime.

As crappy as our current system is at times, I think it's better when there is a balance, and alternatives to incarceration except in more severe cases.

Yet another post written like it came from a highschool intern at their local DNC chapter.

Punishing crime makes people go commit more crime! I am embarrassed for whoever had the misfortune to raise you.

 

[DannyTree1]

There is certainly ample evidence to back up that statement.

I like the people who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent. lol, of course it is.

For the person who faces it. I don't think it's a deterrent for anyone else and that's often what politicians claim.

 

[Lurker123]

There is certainly ample evidence to back up that statement.

I like the people who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent. lol, of course it is.

It is amazing, isn't it, how criminals tend to have lengthy entries in the record? And how most people dont have that continual law enforcement aspect in their life?

 

[Piscis]

What type of crimes do you lock someone up for their first crime? Are you talking about violence?

We are 40 trillion in debt. I don't think there is an appetite in the country to build a bunch more prisons. 1 in every 3 adults has a criminal record (approx. 77 million people).

I think if what you proposed was reality, you'd have much more crime because people with criminal records, even people whose crime was decades ago, have more trouble getting decent jobs, building wealth which often can lead to additional crime.

As crappy as our current system is at times, I think it's better when there is a balance, and alternatives to incarceration except in more severe cases.

First, a criminal record includes people who were arrested and charged but not convicted and people convicted of misdemeanors. Someone convicted of illegal dumping or simple assault. The number of convicted felons is around 19 million or 1 in 19. The FBI says 2-3% of people are arrested each year.

Second, the national debt has nothing to do with the cost of building prisons. The vast majority of prisons are funded by states.

I am talking about pretty much all felonies. Again, the conversation about overhauling the laws regarding what is and isn't a felony is another matter entirely. I also think the death penalty should be expanded to cover rape, attempted murder, child molestation and especially violent physical assaults. The fact a victim survives when a criminal shoots, stabs, beats, stomps their head or otherwise physically injures them seriously should not let the criminal off the hook as far as the death penalty.

Why would what I propose make getting a job harder for a former inmate than the system we have now? The person has the criminal record today, they just haven't been punished properly for their crime. If a potential employer knew someone had been in prison for a long sentence and that person knew that another felony conviction could result in their being executed, the employer might think that person less likely to commit another crime as opposed to a criminal with a long list of crimes over many years with no jail time.

The current system is a disaster. By the time most criminals end up in prison, they have a trail of victims behind them.

 

[Piscis]

There is certainly ample evidence to back up that statement.

I like the people who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent. lol, of course it is.

The death penalty certainly insures that that particular criminal will not commit any more crimes.

 

[DannyTree1]

First, a criminal record includes people who were arrested and charged but not convicted and people convicted of misdemeanors. Someone convicted of illegal dumping or simple assault. The number of convicted felons is around 19 million or 1 in 19. The FBI says 2-3% of people are arrested each year.

Second, the national debt has nothing to do with the cost of building prisons. The vast majority of prisons are funded by states.

I am talking about pretty much all felonies. Again, the conversation about overhauling the laws regarding what is and isn't a felony is another matter entirely. I also think the death penalty should be expanded to cover rape, attempted murder, child molestation and especially violent physical assaults. The fact a victim survives when a criminal shoots, stabs, beats, stomps their head or otherwise physically injures them seriously should not let the criminal off the hook as far as the death penalty.

Why would what I propose make getting a job harder for a former inmate than the system we have now? The person has the criminal record today, they just haven't been punished properly for their crime. If a potential employer knew someone had been in prison for a long sentence and that person knew that another felony conviction could result in their being executed, the employer might think that person less likely to commit another crime as opposed to a criminal with a long list of crimes over many years with no jail time.

The current system is a disaster. By the time most criminals end up in prison, they have a trail of victims behind them.

a criminal record includes misdemeanors. Someone with a record of criminal assault will most likely lose job opportunities, even if it occurred 20 years ago. About 1 in 3 adults has a criminal record.

Federal dollars of course build federal prisons. But federal grants and federal money clearly pay somefor state prisons and most states have most of their budget made up of federal dollars. (About 26% of the SC budget is federal money) Every crime bill passed by the feds includes mone for state prisons.

Clearly there are many problems with the current system, but I see no evidence that the proposed solution you mentioned would make things better.

The current system is the way it is for many reasons. One of those is money. Taxpayers have proven they are only going to pay so much into the judicial system.

 

[JohnnySolo]

40 trillion in debt isn't the same as your wife running up the credit card. They are interest payments on money received. Secondly if you don't commit a crime you won't have as hard a time getting a job or building wealth. I second the comment on the stupidity of stating that punishment for committing crimes makes people commit more crime. If true, those should be removed from society. Didn't Russia used to send criminals to Siberia. I remember that as a kid. I say we buy a remote and inhabited area of Canada and send them there.

 

[DannyTree1]

Secondly if you don't commit a crime you won't have as hard a time getting a job or building wealth.

Human beings often make terrible decisions, especiallly when they are 18-19-20 years old.

I am not sure most of us want to live in a society where someone that breaks into a car at 19 years old and steals a backpack is punished for that for the rest of their lives. I know I don't.

my sense is if this happened to a loved one of yours and they were still being prevented from a decent job 25 years later, you'd have a different view of it.

Didn't Russia used to send criminals to Siberia. I remember that as a kid. I say we buy a remote and inhabited area of Canada and send them there.

Ahh, the "let's copy Russia and treat the constitution like garbage approach." LOL

 

[Lurker123]

I am not sure most of us want to live in a society where someone that breaks into a car at 19 years old and steals a backpack is punished for that for the rest of their lives. I know I don't.

Can you point to a post where someone said we should do that?

Because once AGAIN, it looks like you've got a rant in mind, and post it regardless of what was actually said.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Can you point to a post where someone said we should do that?

Because once AGAIN, it looks like you've got a rant in mind, and post it regardless of what was actually said.

Yeah, I think I'm most worried about criminals like the guy who killed the girl on the train in Charlotte. He'd been arrested at least 14 times prior.

That's the problem. You could look at each individual, previous crime and brush it off as a bad decision for which he should not be punished the rest of his life. But you let him off the hook 14 times and now an innocent young girl is dead b/c of it.

Something like three quarters of violent crimes are committed by people with a prior arrest record. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Lurker123]

Yeah, I think I'm most worried about criminals like the guy who killed the girl on the train in Charlotte. He'd been arrested at least 14 times prior.

That's the problem. You could look at each individual, previous crime and brush it off as a bad decision for which he should not be punished the rest of his life. But you let him off the hook 14 times and now an innocent young girl is dead b/c of it.

Something like three quarters of violent crimes are committed by people with a prior arrest record. This isn't rocket science.

Its not. But if you're invested in letting as many criminals go free as possible, its imperative that you compare examples of people being murdered with examples of someone "stealing a backpack".

I always assume people like this are characters, fake internet personas made just to mess with people. But there are apparently really people like that in the wild.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

You can look at the breakdown of the family unit as the precursor to where we are now with crime and those who are anti-law enforcement are also responsible for promoting the family breakdown. Children raised properly rarely have criminality as part of their mindset for their life as future adults.

 

[18IsTheMan]

You can look at the breakdown of the family unit as the precursor to where we are now with crime and those who are anti-law enforcement are also responsible for promoting the family breakdown. Children raised properly rarely have criminality as part of their mindset for their life as future adults.

Yep. Nearly 70% or something of juveniles who commit violent crime come from single parent homes.

 

[Lurker123]

You can look at the breakdown of the family unit as the precursor to where we are now with crime and those who are anti-law enforcement are also responsible for promoting the family breakdown. Children raised properly rarely have criminality as part of their mindset for their life as future adults.

It is astonishing the stats that back up the family breakdown and its relation to crime, drug use, etc.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It is astonishing the stats that back up the family breakdown and its relation to crime, drug use, etc.

I know not all here believe the Bible, but when you look at the stats, it's almost like God had a reason for designing the family to have a father and a mother.

Actually, the stats provide incredibly strong evidence for the truth of scripture. From an evolutionary perspective, there's no reason why it should matter if a kid is from a 2 parent, 1 parent or 12 parent home. All that matters for evolution is the survival and propagation of the species' genetic material. It only matters if Someone designed society with the nuclear family as its foundation.

 

[Anon1742573506]

I know not all here believe the Bible, but when you look at the stats, it's almost like God had a reason for designing the family to have a father and a mother.

Actually, the stats provide incredibly strong evidence for the truth of scripture. From an evolutionary perspective, there's no reason why it should matter if a kid is from a 2 parent, 1 parent or 12 parent home. All that matters for evolution is the survival and propagation of the spe7cies' genetic material. It only matters if Someone designed society with the nuclear family as its foundation.

How dare you bring religion into a political discussion on sports forum!

 

[18IsTheMan]

How dare you bring religion into a political discussion on sports forum!

This forum is the great melting pot of ideas!

 

[Piscis]

Human beings often make terrible decisions, especiallly when they are 18-19-20 years old.

I am not sure most of us want to live in a society where someone that breaks into a car at 19 years old and steals a backpack is punished for that for the rest of their lives. I know I don't.

my sense is if this happened to a loved one of yours and they were still being prevented from a decent job 25 years later, you'd have a different view of it.


Ahh, the "let's copy Russia and treat the constitution like garbage approach." LOL

The 19 year old who breaks into a car and steals a backpack and gets away with it is given the message that crime pays and there are no consequences. He then goes on to break into homes to steal more valuable items, followed by armed robbery and then murder during the commission of an armed robbery. He develops the general attitude that the rules and laws of society do not apply to him and whatever he wants, he can get by whatever means necessary.

If that 19 year old spent a year or two in jail for stealing a backpack and knew that another felony conviction would result in draconian punishment, he might not get a great job, but I can almost guarantee he wouldn't commit any more crimes. It wouldn't take very long before enough 18-20 year olds were seen being sent to prison for "terrible decisions" that the younger people around them would make sure they did not make those same "terrible decisions".

Attitudes like yours, excusing crime because young people "make a bad decision" is the reason we have the crime problems we have today. Everything one does in life is a decision. Everyone doesn't decided to commit crimes, only those who are antisocial and/or predators on society. Those people need to be punished quickly and severely in order to change their behavior in the future.

Having a decent job is not some sort of right. One has to earn the ability to have a decent job and not committing crimes and having a criminal record is part of earning that ability. Being young does not mean someone is not aware of the challenges having a felony conviction places upon them. Criminals make a conscious decision to commit their crimes. They need to know the consequences of that decision will be extremely unpleasant or they will continue to commit crimes.

 

[Piscis]

Yeah, I think I'm most worried about criminals like the guy who killed the girl on the train in Charlotte. He'd been arrested at least 14 times prior.

That's the problem. You could look at each individual, previous crime and brush it off as a bad decision for which he should not be punished the rest of his life. But you let him off the hook 14 times and now an innocent young girl is dead b/c of it.

Something like three quarters of violent crimes are committed by people with a prior arrest record. This isn't rocket science.

Rudy Giuliani converted NYC into a pretty safe city from a near dystopian hellhole through the "broken window theory". Until he became mayor, minor crimes like vandalism, graffiti, petty theft, etc. were pretty well ignored. By ignoring the small crimes, the criminals received the message that laws really don't mean anything so they would step up to strong arm robbery, burglary, battery, etc.. When these crimes were not vigorously prosecuted and punished, armed robbery, rape, murder, etc. followed and the city became generally unsafe everywhere.

Giuliani started prosecuting the minor crimes, actually putting young people in jail for vandalism, graffiti, petty theft, etc.. That stopped the snowball effect.

 

[will110]

There's no shortage of data to prove that rapid prosecution and punishment of crimes is a major deterrent. Everyone knows it. It turns out, when you actually do send all the criminals to jail, the crime rate drops. It's basic.

But we can never go back to that.

It's also a constitutional right (6th Amendment).

 

[DannyTree1]

The 19 year old who breaks into a car and steals a backpack and gets away with it is given the message that crime pays and there are no consequences.

I didn't propose he got away with it or that he get away with it.
read what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.

 

[Lurker123]

I didn't propose he got away with it or that he get away with it.
read what I wrote, not what you wish I wrote.

The irony of this post just shattered every "irony-meter" ever in existence.

 

[Psycock]

If crime concerns you, as it should, then vote Republican in the fall. Funny how they never talk about the victims of illegal alien crime, like the mother murdered in Fairfax, Va., earlier this week(the 4rh such victim there this year), only the alleged people who were "victims" of ICE. Fox News, of course, has had the story on several times this week. Don`t know if the mainstream media covered it or not. Also, the mother and child that were drowned in N.Y. City harbor earlier this week when an overcapacity boat capsized, which was operated by an illegal with no license to operate it. So many more similar stories, such as the big rig truck accidents that have killed people. Fox News, yes they are so wrong to do so, right libs, carries these stories and sympathizes with the victims, not the people let in our country illegally that the Dems want to protect. I have no problem with people who go through the legal process, are vetted, etc. We will look like some of these disastrous places in Europe if the Democrats regain power. Abolish prisons, abolish ICE - yes those things will make us safer per some twisted minds - let the criminals have as many chances as they need until they kill somebody. Maybe the judges will lock them up then, maybe not. I would love to see laws that would hold judges accountable and open to lawsuits - bet they would think twice about putting them back on the streets then.

 

[DannyTree1]

If crime concerns you, as it should, then vote Republican in the fall.

never voted straight ticket and never would.

I am for a strong immigration system and policing the border, but it's not an issue that motivates me to vote compared to other issues.

I don't watch Fox News. CNN, MS whatever it is, or any "cable" entertainment news - or anything remotely like it.

 

[Psycock]

and I don`t agree with Fox News or Republicans on everything but the vast majority of things I do. The Democrats - many of them - have truly gone off the deep end.

 

[DannyTree1]

and I don`t agree with Fox News or Republicans on everything but the vast majority of things I do. The Democrats - many of them - have truly gone off the deep end.

I think many Republicans and Democrats have gone off the deep end. I very much would prefer divided government and the House and Senate flipping to Democrat control with Trump in the white house.

Trump's move today to inject the government into the private beef market has only made Democrat socialists happy. A move right out of socialism 101. I'm finally seeing some midwestern Republicans pushing back this evening- albeit very gingerly because they are scared absolutely to death Donald Trump will say something negative about them- cowards all.

Hegeth is trying to force the army secretary out because of paranoia over Hegseth's own job security. (The army secretary is very tight with JD Vance).

Lots of nuts all around.