Town Square

Post a New Topic

Editorial: Fatal shooting calls for camera policy refinement

Original post made on Dec 4, 2014

Body-worn cameras for police work has escaped much of the criticism directed toward other technological surveillance tools. But the policy for using the cameras must be carefully crafted and followed, as the recent fatal shooting in Menlo Park has demonstrated.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, December 4, 2014, 9:56 AM

Comments (15)

Posted by Beth
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Dec 4, 2014 at 4:56 pm

Read where this happened in Arizona & policeman was let go, at least from being out in the public. Gee, didn't know police could ever be wrong when it comes to using their big ol guns. These days, I'd rather run into a burglar than a policeman on a chase.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 4, 2014 at 5:08 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

" These days, I'd rather run into a burglar than a policeman on a chase."

You need to appreciate that comments like this actually reduce the ability of your police department's ability to protect you and other citizens because these comments do nothing except to lessen the trust which others have in the police.

Without public trust the police simply cannot do their job.


Posted by NOLA Barnes
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Dec 4, 2014 at 5:41 pm

"because these comments do nothing except to lessen the trust which others have in the police"

Really? It's those comments, and not the reality of actions such as using banned choke holds to kill unarmed men in NY, that cause distrust?

Got it. It's those baaaad comments that lead to distrust.

[part removed.]


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 4, 2014 at 6:07 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Please listen carefully - in order for our police to do their job of protecting us they must have the public's trust. Without that trust they have zero ability to exercise their authority. We weaken that trust by irresponsibly labeling all officers based on the actions of the very few.

If you object to the actions of a specific officer then file a complaint but don't blindly destroy the reputation of all the officers who bravely and professionally serve our communities.


Posted by Menlo Voter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Dec 4, 2014 at 6:38 pm

Menlo Voter is a registered user.

"If you object to the actions of a specific officer then file a complaint but don't blindly destroy the reputation of all the officers who bravely and professionally serve our communities."

Thank you Peter. Well stated. People need to stop tarring good, hard working police officers with the same brush. The vast majority of our officers are just doing their job. We should support that. When ONE screws up he should be disciplined. We should not assume because of the bad act s of one officers that all officers are "bad."

Again, those of you who wish to trash officers for doing their job, go on a ride along. See what these officers face day in and day out. Or participate in the citizens police academy where you can get some of the same training and experience that officers do. You will have a better, less ignorant position from which to pontificate on what our police should or shouldn't do.


Posted by Memories
a resident of another community
on Dec 4, 2014 at 6:50 pm

I don't get it. Romero didn't kill Mr. Nice Guy, or even Mr. Not Very Nice But Unarmed Suspicious Guy. He killed Mr. Bad Guy With A Gun Who Shot The Gun And Who Had Warrants. Was the burglar a three striker, does anyone know?


Posted by t3
a resident of another community
on Dec 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm

t3 is a registered user.

@ Menlo Voter: "The vast majority of our officers are just doing their job. We should support that. When ONE screws up he should be disciplined. We should not assume because of the bad acts of one officers that all officers are "bad.""

Menlo Voter: are you willing to go on record agreeing that if any police officer deliberately falsify's evidence in order to incriminate any citizen of crime that officer should be held accountable by our justice system? This act is known as a violation of California Penal Codes 134, 135 and potentially 141b.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 6, 2014 at 6:29 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

t3 - YOU want someone else to "go on record" when you yourself are an anonymous poster?

What irony.


Posted by t3
a resident of another community
on Dec 6, 2014 at 6:55 pm

t3 is a registered user.

@ Pete Carpenter, how come you are not criticizing "Menlo Voter" for being anonymous and who has declared that he was a former police officer for 10 years or so?

Peter you're a hypocrite for not criticizing "Menlo Voter" they same way you have criticized me.


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 6, 2014 at 7:03 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

t3 - I know Menlo Voter personally; you are simply a faceless, nameless poster.

So again, YOU want someone else to "go on record" when you yourself are an anonymous poster?

[part removed.]


Posted by t3
a resident of another community
on Dec 6, 2014 at 7:31 pm

t3 is a registered user.

[post removed.]


Posted by t3
a resident of another community
on Dec 6, 2014 at 7:42 pm

t3 is a registered user.

I also put my challenge to you Peter Carpenter. If a police officer violates California Penal Codes 134, 135 and 141b should that officer be held accountable?

Should a police officer who violates the United States Constitution regarding evidence, "Brady vs. Maryland" be held accountable for violating the United States Constitution?

If not why not?


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

t3 - When you come out of the shadows THEN you can challenge me. [part removed.]

PS. Menlo Poster and I are the only posters on this topic who has sworn to uphold the law.


Posted by t3
a resident of another community
on Dec 6, 2014 at 9:10 pm

t3 is a registered user.

There you have it folks, Peter Carpenter and Menlo Voter resorting to Ad Hominem attacks rather than addressing a straight forward question as to whether police officers should be charged with deliberately violating the law.

[part removed.]


Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Dec 6, 2014 at 9:31 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

t3 - You have NO idea what you are talking about.

I have taken an oath to uphold the law and I always have. [part removed.]
.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

E-Bikes on Open Space Trails: Yes or No?
By Sherry Listgarten | 18 comments | 5,360 views

Mountain View's Castro Street opens up for an eat-and-greet to rally support for businesses
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,211 views

The questionable morality of abortion
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 1,991 views

Idaho Hot Springs and Yellowstone – Travelin’ Solo
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,166 views

Fidelity, Infidelity, Loyalty, Luck
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 839 views