Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v52ok6$2vac8$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California Bans Non-White Paper Shooting Targets
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 02:30:30 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <v52ok6$2vac8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <Ua6cnWPzMZYw8-n7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v52f3h$2q3gj$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-D763CA.18212120062024@news.giganews.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 04:30:30 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6319927542c2db0495365ee5de6f13b2";
	logging-data="3123592"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+JuiDJWmjdlquh4lvXk6Z3NSrAkKsiqTw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:b96Jd8mbsz87a7BIVW93jKqKwmQ=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 2551

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>Ah, California... the stupidity never stops. <sigh>

>>>This is the target we used for requals. We always questioned why it is that
>>>we were only shooting white guys.

>>>--------------------
>>>https://americancop.com/banning-targets/

>>>Since at least 2013, a tremendous number of agencies have suffered from
>>>"Good Idea Fairy" visits. I'm specifically addressing those "good ideas"
>>>that will reportedly fix society's ills but have little to no factual
>>>foundation. Generally, these stem from politicians "doing something" to fix
>>>a problem.

>>>Some of these include-- claiming there is no national standard for using
>>>force while trying to throw out Graham v Connor, ignoring SCOTUS rulings
>>>like United States v Whren to attack pro-active policing, or protesting the
>>>release of positive body-worn camera footage.

>>Wait. What? I thought the whole point of footage from body-worn cameras
>>was to produce needed evidence and to make it publicly available.

>No, it was to jam up cops and put them in jail. When the body cam 
>footage started exonerating cops and exposing the lies, false complaints 
>and general assholery of the criminals far more often than it ever shows 
>police misbehavior, the grievance groups did a complete 180 and now 
>routinely oppose the release of body cam footage.

Speaking as a taxpayer, I'd prefer that cops have evidence that they
didn't commit an $18 million tort, and that the bad guys were lying.