I think the marches and protests have to evolve. Here in Minnesota, they've started disrupting major economic targets and I think that's the way to go. [...] Hit the elites in their pocket book and they can't ignore you.Maybe...but its also just as likely to annoy people who won't be pissed off at the elites, but rather shift that irritation towards BLM or whatever movement is responsible for the protest.
Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?
"Mere" marches and protests are demonstrably ineffective; they can't even get charges filed against the police responsible in many cases. Violent rioting is obviously not a good solution. Targeted protests against specific economic targets risks shifting the irritation as you suggest. Voting is at best a long-term solution, and voting for protest candidates merely makes it more likely that the movement will make negative progress.
I could make a number of arch and darkly sarcastic suggestions (make prank phone calls to local politicians?), but instead I'll admit that I don't have a good answer. What's yours?
Form a lobbying group with a PAC to back it up.
MY life matters.
And if i don't get the new disney snowglobe for mom, I'm a dead man.
That's some clear and present danger right there. Don't mess with the moms!
So, no chance he can Take 10 on his Perception check to find one, eh?
Form a lobbying group with a PAC to back it up.
I'm glad to know you can make arch and darkly sarcastic suggestions, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BNW has to take 20 on a Wallet check, then make opposed checks for Stealth, Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy and Perform (begging and pleading) to get one of those snowglobes.
Disney Snowglobes are serious business. ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hit the money by making it free for the customers while being respectful to the employees
In other words, hit the wealthy where it smarts and spare or even benefit the average joe
Surest way to garner support from the masses whose influence is multiplied in an elections' year
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hit the money by making it free for the customers while being respectful to the employees
I'm not even sure what this means.
I think requiring every uniformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feels like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think requiring every unformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feel like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.
I had a similar thought that might be more plausible; oral testimony by law enforcement is not admissible in court unless supported by physical evidence. I'm not sure if this qualifies as darkly sarcastic. So we've got the same situation as we have now -- police don't have to wear body cameras if they don't want to, they can turn them off any time they want, and the department doesn't need to release them if it doesn't feel like it.
But when the officer is sued for wrongful death, he has literally no way to make a defense if any of those happen.
Defense Attorney: I call Officer O'Malley to the stand in his own defense.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Objection! No foundation laid! There is no video supporting his testimony!
Judge: Sustained. Move on to your next witness, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: I object! His camera was turned off at the time!
Judge: Overruled. Move on, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: But how can I defend him in this case?
Judge: If I have to tell you to move on one more time, you'll be in contempt.
Defense Attorney: (Sigh). The defense rests.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Your honor, we move for ...
Judge (interrupting): Yes, I know. Motion for a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff is hereby granted on all counts.
ETA: by the way, this isn't as unreasonable as it may seem at first blush. A number of jurisdictions have such a rule generally with regard to eyewitness evidence. In English/Welsh law, for example, "whenever the case against an accused depends wholly or substantially on the correctness of one or more identifications of the accused which the defence alleges to be mistaken," the case needs to be handled very carefully. And "[w]hen, [...] the quality of the identifying evidence is poor, [...] The judge should then withdraw the case from the jury and direct an acquittal unless there is other evidence."
In other words, unsupported eyewitness evidence is useless as a matter of law (although supported eyewitness evidence is still useful) when the viewing conditions are bad. I'd similarly argue, based on the historical record, that unsupported testimony by law enforcement is equally useless. Or more tersely, cops lie. ("He was resisting arrest; he ducked when I tried to hit him with my nightstick.")
I think requiring every unformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feel like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.I had a similar thought that might be more plausible; oral testimony by law enforcement is not admissible in court unless supported by physical evidence. I'm not sure if this qualifies as darkly sarcastic. So we've got the same situation as we have now -- police don't have to wear body cameras if they don't want to, they can turn them off any time they want, and the department doesn't need to release them if it doesn't feel like it.
But when the officer is sued for wrongful death, he has literally no way to make a defense if any of those happen.
Defense Attorney: I call Officer O'Malley to the stand in his own defense.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Objection! No foundation laid! There is no video supporting his testimony!
Judge: Sustained. Move on to your next witness, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: I object! His camera was turned off at the time!
Judge: Overruled. Move on, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: But how can I defend him in this case?
Judge: If I have to tell you to move on one more time, you'll be in contempt.
Defense Attorney: (Sigh). The defense rests.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Your honor, we move for ...
Judge (interrupting): Yes, I know. Motion for a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff is hereby granted on all counts.Better: treat turning off your camera as destroyed evidence. The court should assume that if you turned it off, it was for a reason. If you destroy evidence the court should assume that the destroyed evidence was strongly against you.
However, that's all magic wand solution. And probably, if there was the will to do it, it wouldn't be necessary.
It's the political will that's the problem. We know how to clean...
What happens then when the camera malfunctions and the recording gets corrupted, or it loses power for whatever reason outside of the officer's control? I'm all for instituting solutions that might not be completely effective, but not at the cost of a potentially innocent person being wrongly convicted on bad evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happens then when the camera malfunctions and the recording gets corrupted, or it loses power for whatever reason outside of the officer's control? I'm all for instituting solutions that might not be completely effective, but not at the cost of a potentially innocent person being wrongly convicted on bad evidence.
Wear two cameras, then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not sink too far into hypotheticals. I just found myself about post a rant about how a potentially innocent person being convicted on bad evidence is much, much better than a demonstrably innocent person being shot in the back by a police officer, and that would have been a dick move on my part that didn't benefit the conversation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What happens then when the camera malfunctions and the recording gets corrupted, or it loses power for whatever reason outside of the officer's control? I'm all for instituting solutions that might not be completely effective, but not at the cost of a potentially innocent person being wrongly convicted on bad evidence.The officer/department can obviously present evidence that shows he wasn't responsible for the camera not being on.
... although that evidence itself should be treated with appropriate suspicion. When all three officers at the scene have been charged with manslaughter, and they've all been able to produce department affidavits that their individual bodycams "just happened" to malfunction on that day....
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I think requiring every unformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feel like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.I had a similar thought that might be more plausible; oral testimony by law enforcement is not admissible in court unless supported by physical evidence. I'm not sure if this qualifies as darkly sarcastic. So we've got the same situation as we have now -- police don't have to wear body cameras if they don't want to, they can turn them off any time they want, and the department doesn't need to release them if it doesn't feel like it.
But when the officer is sued for wrongful death, he has literally no way to make a defense if any of those happen.
Defense Attorney: I call Officer O'Malley to the stand in his own defense.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Objection! No foundation laid! There is no video supporting his testimony!
Judge: Sustained. Move on to your next witness, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: I object! His camera was turned off at the time!
Judge: Overruled. Move on, counsellor.
Defense Attorney: But how can I defend him in this case?
Judge: If I have to tell you to move on one more time, you'll be in contempt.
Defense Attorney: (Sigh). The defense rests.
Plaintiff's Attorney: Your honor, we move for ...
Judge (interrupting): Yes, I know. Motion for a judgment as a matter of law in favor of the plaintiff is hereby granted on all counts.Better: treat turning off your camera as destroyed evidence. The court should assume that if you turned it off, it was for a reason. If you destroy evidence the court should assume that the destroyed evidence was strongly against you.
However, that's all magic wand solution. And probably, if there was the will to do it, it wouldn't be necessary.
It's the political will that's the
If the camera turns off just as he's beating the s@$# out of/shooting a suspect, well, that would be mighty convenient, wouldn't it? If it goes off when there's nothing going on (most likely option) the cop can get it sorted and there's no problem. But a 'camera malfunction' at just the time it's needed to f#** up the evidence? I'd assume ill intent for that one.
Maybe...but its also just as likely to annoy people who won't be pissed off at the elites, but rather shift that irritation towards BLM or whatever movement is responsible for the protest.
I think the marches and protests have to evolve. Here in Minnesota, they've started disrupting major economic targets and I think that's the way to go. Disrupt the airport, freeways, anything that represents millions of dollars a day. Shut it down, or even just slow it, and you force people to listen.
Last year BLM did a head fake towards the airport, then hit the Mall of America (it's a big deal here, during the Christmas lead up we get a LOT of out of towners shopping here, as far away as Iceland when times are good). They've shut down the biggest freeway once as well. Hit the elites in their pocket book and they can't ignore you.
Use some examples from Fox News and tell me that's not already happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the camera turns off just as he's beating the s*!% out of/shooting a suspect, well, that would be mighty convenient, wouldn't it? If it goes off when there's nothing going on (most likely option) the cop can get it sorted and there's no problem.
Realistically, the cop won't know the camera isn't working unless there's a problem. For example, I don't know if the "engine overheating" light in my car doesn't work. I know that the engine isn't overheating, so the light is supposed to be off. But I won't know if the light goes on when it does overheat (for example, the thermistor might be broken and not reading correctly; that's a relatively common problem with some models) until and unless it actually overheats.
So the thermistor may have failed 10,000 miles ago....
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the marches and protests have to evolve. Here in Minnesota, they've started disrupting major economic targets and I think that's the way to go. [...] Hit the elites in their pocket book and they can't ignore you.Maybe...but its also just as likely to annoy people who won't be pissed off at the elites, but rather shift that irritation towards BLM or whatever movement is responsible for the protest.Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?
"Mere" marches and protests are demonstrably ineffective; they can't even get charges filed against the police responsible in many cases. Violent rioting is obviously not a good solution. Targeted protests against specific economic targets risks shifting the irritation as you suggest. Voting is at best a long-term solution, and voting for protest candidates merely makes it more likely that the movement will make negative progress.
I could make a number of arch and darkly sarcastic suggestions (make prank phone calls to local politicians?), but instead I'll admit that I don't have a good answer. What's yours?
I think folks should look to social media. You can organize boycotts and make videos to go viral. The entire medium has a lot of potential.
I hate to appeal to celebs, but its one of the most effective ways in my experience to get points across. You cant turn on a sports channel or read a sports story without hearing about Kapernick and his protest. I know it makes a lot of folks angry, but they have now been inadvertently made aware of the point. Reminds me of Kanye calling out Bush during Katrina. "An awards show aint no place for a protest!!" well i'd argue its the best place. If Kapernick decided to instead hold a town hall about racism, nobody but the folks who care to attend would talk about it.
Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?I think folks should look to social media. You can organize boycotts and make videos to go viral. The entire medium has a lot of potential.
Er, no, it doesn't. We've tried that experiment and it doesn't work.
I hate to appeal to celebs, but its one of the most effective ways in my experience to get points across. You cant turn on a sports channel or read a sports story without hearing about Kapernick and his protest.
That's right. You can't avoid hearing about the protest, but it's demonstrably very easy to avoid doing anything about it.
Look at how many police brutality videos have already gone viral, and the local DA doesn't even bother to file charges against the officers responsible. When charges are filed (Freddie Gray), the officers are almost always acquitted.
I would be hard pressed to come up with anything less effective than social media activism.
I think the marches and protests have to evolve. Here in Minnesota, they've started disrupting major economic targets and I think that's the way to go. [...] Hit the elites in their pocket book and they can't ignore you.Maybe...but its also just as likely to annoy people who won't be pissed off at the elites, but rather shift that irritation towards BLM or whatever movement is responsible for the protest.Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?
"Mere" marches and protests are demonstrably ineffective; they can't even get charges filed against the police responsible in many cases. Violent rioting is obviously not a good solution. Targeted protests against specific economic targets risks shifting the irritation as you suggest. Voting is at best a long-term solution, and voting for protest candidates merely makes it more likely that the movement will make negative progress.
I could make a number of arch and darkly sarcastic suggestions (make prank phone calls to local politicians?), but instead I'll admit that I don't have a good answer. What's yours?
I think folks should look to social media. You can organize boycotts and make videos to go viral. The entire medium has a lot of potential.
I hate to appeal to celebs, but its one of the most effective ways in my experience to get points across. You cant turn on a sports channel or read a sports story without hearing about Kapernick and his protest. I know it makes a lot of folks angry, but they have now been inadvertently made aware of the point. Reminds me of Kanye calling out Bush during Katrina. "An awards show aint no place for a protest!!" well i'd argue its the best place. If Kapernick decided to instead hold a town hall about racism, nobody but the folks who care to attend would talk about it.
I whole-heartedly agree that controversy is the greatest enemy of apathy and that it is an effective way to keep an issue in the public spotlight (I personally don't much care about the Kapernick situation, as the anthem is just a song, and not a particularly well written one). The problem is that too often, the controversy is the end of action on the part of those trying to bring about change. The protesters too often get all of this attention and then do nothing with it. In my opinion, the most effective way to bring about change as a result of the added attention would be to use that to support changes in policy makers by organizing their supporters at local levels when local elections occur.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?I think folks should look to social media. You can organize boycotts and make videos to go viral. The entire medium has a lot of potential.Er, no, it doesn't. We've tried that experiment and it doesn't work.
I hate to appeal to celebs, but its one of the most effective ways in my experience to get points across. You cant turn on a sports channel or read a sports story without hearing about Kapernick and his protest.That's right. You can't avoid hearing about the protest, but it's demonstrably very easy to avoid doing anything about it.
Look at how many police brutality videos have already gone viral, and the local DA doesn't even bother to file charges against the officers responsible. When charges are filed (Freddie Gray), the officers are almost always acquitted.
I would be hard pressed to come up with anything less effective than social media activism.
It is, however, cheaper than leaflets.
Speakout: Justice 4 Terence, Tyre, & Keith - Jail Killer Cops!
BLM Vigil for Terence Crutcher, Tyre King and Keith Lamont Scott
Targeted lawsuits? Worked for Scientology.I think the marches and protests have to evolve. Here in Minnesota, they've started disrupting major economic targets and I think that's the way to go. [...] Hit the elites in their pocket book and they can't ignore you.Maybe...but its also just as likely to annoy people who won't be pissed off at the elites, but rather shift that irritation towards BLM or whatever movement is responsible for the protest.Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?
"Mere" marches and protests are demonstrably ineffective; they can't even get charges filed against the police responsible in many cases. Violent rioting is obviously not a good solution. Targeted protests against specific economic targets risks shifting the irritation as you suggest. Voting is at best a long-term solution, and voting for protest candidates merely makes it more likely that the movement will make negative progress.
I could make a number of arch and darkly sarcastic suggestions (make prank phone calls to local politicians?), but instead I'll admit that I don't have a good answer. What's yours?
That may not be as far off as you think, at least for small/medium size police departments. Article about police department insurance. Who would have thought the insurance companies wouldn't like paying out multi-million dollar awards.
It is, however, cheaper than leaflets.
I would be hard pressed to come up with anything less effective than social media activism.
So is growing vegetables in a container garden. If you want cheap instead of effective, I question your priorities. At least the container garden gives you fresh salad ingredients. Facebook slacktivism gives you.... what, exactly?
(Sorry, I guess that qualified as "arch" and "darkly sarcastic.")
It is, however, cheaper than leaflets.
I would be hard pressed to come up with anything less effective than social media activism.
So is growing vegetables in a container garden. If you want cheap instead of effective, I question your priorities. At least the container garden gives you fresh salad ingredients. Facebook slacktivism gives you.... what, exactly?
(Sorry, I guess that qualified as "arch" and "darkly sarcastic.")
Hopefully, access to 200 or so people in Boston and a dozen or so in New Hampshire.
I mean, I spent $43 bucks on leaflets for our lecture tomorrow in Lowell and we'll be lucky if we get ten. (Although, tbh, I guess I shouldn't have had them made in color.)
I think requiring every uniformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feels like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.
This would be my solution as well. If it became mandatory for police officers to carry and have on cameras, and they couldn't turn them off, quite a few of these incidents would be eliminated.
I think requiring every uniformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feels like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.This would be my solution as well. If it became mandatory for police officers to carry and have on cameras, and they couldn't turn them off, quite a few of these incidents would be eliminated.
While it would definitely do a lot of good in terms of clearing up any "he-said she-said" accounts of the story, another big problem that would need to be addressed is the disagreement over what constitutes justifiable levels of force used. There is a large amount of contention over what level of force should have been used in such cases even when it is known whether or not the person who was shot was resisting or was armed.
Another problem would be the sheer amount of data that would produce. Having all that video recorded and stored indefinitely..? 100% body cams sounds like a great idea but a logistics nightmare.While it would definitely do a lot of good in terms of clearing up any "he-said she-said" accounts of the story, another big problem that would need to be addressed is the disagreement over what constitutes justifiable levels of force used. There is a large amount of contention over what level of force should have been used in such cases even when it is known whether or not the person who was shot was resisting or was armed.I think requiring every uniformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feels like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.This would be my solution as well. If it became mandatory for police officers to carry and have on cameras, and they couldn't turn them off, quite a few of these incidents would be eliminated.
That wouldn't be so bad, as it's not too difficult to set an automatic timer after X amount of days to purge files that are no longer needed. The only logistics issue would be determining how best to save the recordings. Should the cameras have 4g capability and automatically dump their recordings to whatever storage location the force wants every so often (this would probably be expensive)? Should the officers just transfer the internal storage of the cameras over to some centralized storage hub after every shift?
How many days, though? Two weeks? A month? A year? How much of a window do you give a citizen to file a grievance? What happens when footage for a trial gets accidentally deleted? What happens when it gets "accidentally deleted?" I'm...That wouldn't be so bad, as it's not too difficult to set an automatic timer after X amount of days to purge files that are no longer needed. The only logistics issue would be determining how best to save the recordings. Should the cameras have 4g capability and automatically dump their recordings to whatever storage location the force wants every so often (this would probably be expensive)? Should the officers just transfer the internal storage of the cameras over to some centralized storage hub after every shift?Another problem would be the sheer amount of data that would produce. Having all that video recorded and stored indefinitely..? 100% body cams sounds like a great idea but a logistics nightmare.While it would definitely do a lot of good in terms of clearing up any "he-said she-said" accounts of the story, another big problem that would need to be addressed is the disagreement over what constitutes justifiable levels of force used. There is a large amount of contention over what level of force should have been used in such cases even when it is known whether or not the person who was shot was resisting or was armed.I think requiring every uniformed police officer in the US to wear a body camera and 100% records transparency of the footage would do a lot to solve the situation, but given that the FoP endorsed Trump, that feels like a magic wand solution if not full-on arch and darkly sarcastic.This would be my solution as well. If it became mandatory for police officers to carry and have on cameras, and they couldn't turn them off, quite a few of these incidents would be eliminated.
Once a grievance has been filed, the footage could be removed from the auto-delete queue. As for how much time you allow for the grievance to be filed, it would be arbitrary and would have to be determined most likely at the state or local levels. As for what happens if the the footage gets accidentally deleted, I would imagine the same thing that happens when a company under litigation accidentally deletes pertinent data.
Amazon's Glacier storage system would be the way to store 100% of the video data. 1 cent/gB/month isn't too bad, right?
Let's call it 15 exabytes/year for 500k camera-wearing officers, that's $150M/year ($300/officer/year). The Law could retrieve as much as 1/240th of that/month at no additional charge.
'course, it has to be processed first... and the retrieval time from Glacier is several hours, leaving it in the realm of useful.
However, all of that footage is accumulative/year if they don't delete it. Given the need to accommodate statutes of limitations, I'd wildly estimate that the peak amount being paid for would weigh in somewhere around the costs for 300 exabytes/year ($6,000/officer/year - total of $3 billion/year) hitting a 20-year-moratorium or so for most evidence.
Amazon's Glacier storage system would be the way to store 100% of the video data. 1 cent/gB/month isn't too bad, right?
Let's call it 15 exabytes/year for 500k camera-wearing officers, that's $150M/year ($300/officer/year). The Law could retrieve as much as 1/240th of that/month at no additional charge.
'course, it has to be processed first... and the retrieval time from Glacier is several hours, leaving it in the realm of useful.
However, all of that footage is accumulative/year if they don't delete it. Given the need to accommodate statutes of limitations, I'd wildly estimate that the peak amount being paid for would weigh in somewhere around the costs for 300 exabytes/year ($6,000/officer/year - total of $3 billion/year) hitting a 20-year-moratorium or so for most evidence.
I'd also like to point out that 500k camera-wearing officers is basically the entire law enforcement community of the United States. New York City, the biggest police force in the country, has 34,000 uniformed officers and 51,000 personnel overall, not all of which would need cameras. So while $150M per year sounds huge, it would actually be less than the amount spent on gasoline by any individual department.
Similarly, 20 years of evidence retention is remarkably long. DC, for example, requires only that evidence be retained for "5 years or as long as any person incarcerated in connection with that case or investigation remains in custody, whichever is longer." Iowa specifies "3 years beyond the limitations for the commencement of criminal actions." Since the vast majority of police records are not even evidence (they don't become evidence until someone alludes to police misconduct), it would be very easy to set "reasonable" policies of a year or even less for destroying camera evidence unless someone files a grievance of some sort. Most complaints of police brutality are filed within days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main problem with police misconduct is one of perception. (Warning: My white privilege may be showing during this opinion.)
That does sound rather white privilege-ish. I'd say the main problem with police misconduct is ... police misconduct. It's not a question of changing perception, since the fact is that it happens. Perceptions are changing, and not in a good way, precisely because people are able to perceive the police misconduct that, as you point out, is traditionally swept under the rug.
Similarly, the idea that bad things happening is inevitable sounds rather white privilege-ish, and smacks of complacency. Deaths in hospital are also inevitable, but doctors and hospitals pay unbelievable amounts for malpractice insurance because they're swimming in a tank full of sharks-with-briefcases ready to pounce on any individual death. They are aware of the issue and spend lots of resources to reduce their exposure to it.
The problem is lack of accountability.
Yes. This is much better stated.
The PERCEPTION among many civilians, especially minority civilians, is that police will not be held responsible for their misconduct. The PERCEPTION among many cops is similar; all they need to do is say "he resisted arrest" or "I thought he had a gun" and they won't even be disciplined. (The PERCEPTION is also that their fellow cops will back them up.)
Unfortunately, these perceptions are too often correct. What is needed is not changing the perceptions, but changing reality itself so that those perceptions are no longer true.
Individuals behaving in accordance with consent decrees between the police department and The Justice Department even though they far preferred the wall of blue silence can help to change it, though, and that's a case of the individual being forced to comply with the choices other people have made.
Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?I think folks should look to social media. You can organize boycotts and make videos to go viral. The entire medium has a lot of potential.Er, no, it doesn't. We've tried that experiment and it doesn't work.
I hate to appeal to celebs, but its one of the most effective ways in my experience to get points across. You cant turn on a sports channel or read a sports story without hearing about Kapernick and his protest.That's right. You can't avoid hearing about the protest, but it's demonstrably very easy to avoid doing anything about it.
Look at how many police brutality videos have already gone viral, and the local DA doesn't even bother to file charges against the officers responsible. When charges are filed (Freddie Gray), the officers are almost always acquitted.
I would be hard pressed to come up with anything less effective than social media activism.
In the short term? Sure. Social media activism isn't going to get cops convicted.
Neither is anything else we can do.
Real protests, violent or disruptive, won't do it. Organizing politically & locally won't do it.There are two separate questions: What changes do you want to make? and How do you apply pressure to make them?
Your camera suggestions are an answer to question 1. Social media, disruptive protests, celebrity support, electoral politics are all answers to the second.
Chest cameras seem to have a high failure rate at stressful moments.
|
|
Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?I think folks should look to social media. You can organize boycotts and make videos to go viral. The entire medium has a lot of potential.Er, no, it doesn't. We've tried that experiment and it doesn't work.
Hmm I understand that social change is quite difficult and slow to bring about. Though, I have seen just recently social media make difference with a Target test. Target decided to drop their new "kid carts" because social media campaign vented customer frustration. In the past, Target would have relied solely on input from their store teams. There have been many other examples as well when it comes to getting people to use toilets or mosquito nets. I hope folks dont give up on this tool like you think they should.